Skip to main content.
March 10th, 2004

Philosophy in Questionable Taste

Cornell students obviously have too much time on their hands. (And very soon I’ll be able to do something about that…)

Back when I was a wee grad student, one of the jokes circulating the internet, and eventually stuck to the wall of the grad ‘office’ concerned the putative causes of death of various philosophers. (My favourite was Thales: Drowned.) The list seems to have grown under Hugh Mellor’s supervision, and the current version is here.

In a similar spirit, Cornell students have started work on break-up lines of the philosophers. They’ve mostly associated lines with schools at this stage, but I think expanding to individual philosophers would be a splendid idea.

Here’s the list (mostly below the fold) Paul Kelleher sent me, along with attributions. (My favourite, by the way, is the quasi-realist. I might yet use that one day.) Feel free to stick the list to the wall of your office, or to add more in comments. Unlike earlier threads, self-attributions are more than encouraged!

The Teleologist: We aren’t meant for each other. (P.K.)
The Deontologist: We aren’t right for each other. (P.K.)
The Consequentialist: We aren’t optimal for each other. (P.K.)
The Solipsist: It’s not you, it’s me. (P.K.)
The Empiricist: I think we should see other people. (P.K.)
The Rationalist: I’m not a priority to you any more. (P.K.)

The Rationalist, v 2.0: I’ve been doing some thinking… (Paul Audi)
The Rationalist, v. 3.0: If you can’t see your faults, there’s nothing more I can say. (P.K.)
The Content Externalist: Ever since we moved, you’ve changed. (Paul Audi)
The Continentalist: You’ve lost that love and feeling. (P.K.)
The Egalitarian: This is the best thing for both of us. (Paul Audi)
The Paternalist: In time you’ll come to see that this is the best thing. (Paul Audi)
The Humean: Just because we’re always together doesn’t mean we BELONG together. (Paul Audi)
The Humean, v. 2.0: Relationships need to be about more than just constant conjoining. (P.K.)
The Reliabilist: This just isn’t working anymore. (Paul Audi)
The Nagelian: You just don’t know what it’s like to be me. (P.K.)
The Functionalist: I don’t care about accommodating your feelings. (P.K.)
The Quinean: I’m sorry, but you don’t mean anything to me anymore. (Jacob Miller)
The Foundationalist: We have nothing left to build upon. (P.K.)
The Foundationalist, v2.0: I need to be able to branch out more. (P.K.)
The Relativist: It’s no one’s fault. (P.K.)
The Atheist: These things just happen. (P.K.)
The Kantian: You lied to me! (P.K.)
The Consequentialist, v 2.0: You should have lied to my mother about her pot roast! (P.K.)
The anti-Fictionalist: I’m sick of faking it. (P.K.)
The Cartesian: I don’t clearly and distinctly perceive a future together. (Kathryn Schubert)
The Hegelian: Do we have to go through this again? (Kathryn Schubert)
The Lockean: Our primary qualities simply aren’t compatible. (Kathryn Schubert)
The Lockean, v. 2.0: Compared to my last partner, I’m not getting nearly enough, nor as good. (P.K.)
The Cornell Realist: You no longer move me. (P.K.)
The Quasi-Realist: Of course we’re going to be together forever… (P.K.)
The Motivational Externalist: Even though I believed it at the time, I know now that I never really loved you. (P.K.)
The Behaviorist: I just can’t keep going through the motions anymore. (Brendan Jackson)
The Presentist: There just isn’t any future for us. (Brendan Jackson)
The Eternalist: At least we’ll always have that weekend in Paris. (Brendan Jackson)
The Modal Realist: This will never work—we’re from different worlds. (Brendan Jackson)

Posted by Brian Weatherson in Favourite

186 Comments »

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 10th, 2004 at 1:29 am and is filed under Favourite. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

186 Responses to “Philosophy in Questionable Taste”

  1. pekka says:

    This really is philosophy-geeky. Proud to be one ;o)

    The Coherentist: This just isn’t hanging together anymore.

    The anti-Infinitist: You always go on and on and on …

    The Satisficer: You just ain’t good enough.

    The anti-Epistemicist: I know you crossed the line!

    The Behaviorist, v. 2.0: This just isn’t working for you anymore, is it for me?

    The Moorean: The value of our relationship is less than the sum of its parts.

    The Humean, v. 3.0: I no longer have reason to be the slave of your passions.

    The Particularist: You’re still adorable, but somehow that makes it all wrong now.

    The (Lewisian) Contextualist: You should never have asked “But do you REALLY love me?”

  2. Wass says:

    Perdurantist: I don’t think we should take this relationship to the next stage.

  3. Matt Weiner says:

    The Wittgensteinian: I’m just not happy with this form of life…
    The Leibnizian: This is all for the best.

    (So is the Thales joke about everything being made of water, or about falling down the well? I always thought those went together….)

  4. Simon Keller says:

    Perdurantist v. 2.0: There’s a part of me that isn’t comfortable with this relationship.

    McTaggartian: No, nothing’s changed.

    Quietist: I don’t need a reason.

    Liberal: I’ve become neutral on the question of your good life.

    Libertarian: Piss off.

  5. Stephan Blatti says:

    The Projectivist: It’s all in your head!

  6. Steve says:

    The Heideggerian: I’m just not comfortable with being-in-this-relationship.

    The Meinongian: I think we should break up, but we can still be together.

  7. Kent Bach says:

    The Nihilist: I told you all along that nothing would come between us.

  8. djc says:

    Epiphenomenalist: I still love you, but it doesn’t make any difference.

    Fregean: I love you under an old mode of presentation.

    Projectivist: You’re not lovable anymore.

    Adverbialist: I feel terrible-about-this-ly, but…

  9. Stephan Blatti says:

    The Direct Referentialist: Dthat’s it!

  10. dsosa says:

    The Emotivist: boo-hoo, boo-hoo

  11. Simon Keller says:

    Virtue theorist: I’m being cruel, but only to be kind.
    Positivist: I can’t be wrong about this.
    Wittgensteinian: Don’t expect an answer.
    Heraclitian: I’ve had a change of heart.
    Communitarian: You’re not my type.
    Hard determinist: Let’s not play the blame game.
    Pacifist: Why don’t we just be friends?
    Substantivalist: Something’s come between us.
    Frankfurtian: Yes, I still love you, but I don’t think that I want to.
    Iris-Murdoch-ist: I think we should really see other people.

  12. Jonathan Ichikawa says:

    Cartesian v.2: I’m having doubts about us.

    Kantian v.2: I just don’t think you’re universalizable.

    Logical Positivist: Any goodness of our relationship is unverifiable. It’s meaningless.

    Aristotelian: You make me less perfect.

    Korsgaardian: I’m looking for a new practical identity.

  13. Jonathan Ichikawa says:

    Kantian 2.1 (slightly better-worded version of same joke: I like you, but I just can’t see universalizing you.

  14. Sparky says:

    The Eliminativist-You might have thought there was something between us and you might think there still is, but some day you will realize there was never anything there.

    The Eliminativist v.2- You will thank me later.

  15. NW says:

    The Speech-Act Theorist: I’m telling you it’s not working.

    The Gricean: There’s something I’ve been meaning to tell you.

  16. djc says:

    The Anti-Russellian: I love you, but I’m not in love with you.

    The Anti-Solipsist: There’s someone else.

  17. Steve says:

    The Speech-Act Theorist v. 2.0: I hereby break up with you.

    The Error-Theorist: Even though we’re through, it may be useful to retain the illusion that we’re still together.

  18. JW says:

    McGinn-ian: I’m cognitively closed to your affections.
    (Or maybe it’s just “You’re not smart enough for me”?) ;-)

    Kuhnian: We used to work well together, when everything was normal, but now we’re just incommensurable.

    Paraconsistent logician: I love you, but then again I don’t love you. Is that so wrong?

    Intuitionist: Well, it’s not that I don’t love you….

    Russellian: This just doesn’t make sense.

    Concept atomist: We don’t compose well.

    Prototype theorist: You don’t have the qualities I’m looking for.

    Sellarsian: Everything looks ok when we’re inside together, but when we go out, I feel blue & you look green.

    Goodmanian: You don’t bring me emeroses, you don’t sing me love prongs….

  19. djc says:

    Zeno: I can’t get across to you.

    Hume: I need to find myself.

    Parfit: You’re not the same person that you were.

    Brandom: I can’t make a commitment.

    Block: My feelings for you have changed.

  20. Shieva says:

    Chisholm: You just make me feel so small.
    Nihilist: Why? Well, there’s no one thing, really …
    Co-location Theorist: We’re just in different places, you and I.
    Russellian: ‘The relationship’ is meaningless.

  21. Shieva says:

    Here are some from the WWU Philosophy Club:
    Hobbesian: Go away, you’re nasty, brutish, and short.
    Trope Theorist: The love we feel for each other just isn’t the same.
    Anaximander: The fire is gone from this relationship.
    Parmenedian: Sorry, it’s the beans.
    Heracleitus: Flux you! Or: Things change.
    Kant: Our love is too synthetic.
    Pragmatist: This just isn’t working anymore.
    Aristotle: You’ve never asked “What’s the matter?”
    Neitzche: Sorry, it’s all uber.

  22. Angel says:

    ok, its late at night.

    Contextualist: You are wrong. I never said I knew you were the one.

    Epistemicist: At some point I stopped loving you but believe me, there is absolutely no use in trying to figure out when that was.

    Churchland: Neuronal synapse 36789 with excessive activation of Potassium channels. Action potential delayed. Or was it the other way around? Damn it!! Im sorry, I am really confused right now.

    Tarskian (v1): You can’t satisfy what “I need __”.

    Tarskian (v2): Since we stopped being intimate, I have been trying to satisfy my own needs. But you know, this is absurd.

    Fregean: I can’t grasp your idea of happy relationship.

    Millian: Look, I have to tell you that you are too demanding, I am no Clark Kent.

    Russellian: I know that you have been seeing an arbitrary man.

    anti-supervaluationist: I can’t be more clear: I don’t love you and I never did.

    supervaluationist: I’ve had it with you! This is where I draw the line. But with you, I know it won’t matter.

  23. Angel says:

    (Bad Russell scholarship—now its really late). The Russellian should say: I know that you have been seeing an ambiguous man.

  24. Simon Keller says:

    Functionalist: You’re trying hard not to show it…

  25. Jeff Medina says:

    Chinese room: I know I’ve been acting like I loved you all this time, but, to be honest, I don’t even know what love is.

    Twin earth: It seemed like love, but it never really was. Let’s call it what it really is and move on.

    Dennett: I don’t have enough elbow room in this relationship.

    Dennett v. 2.0: All you ever wanted from me was physical, and I don’t intend to stand for it anymore.

    Fatalist: It was destined to end this way.

    Fatalist v. 2.0: There was nothing either of us could have done about it.

    Indeterminist: I just don’t love you anymore – there’s no good reason for it.

    Actualist: If only things could have gone differently…

    Many-worlds quantum theorist: You’ll still be with me in so many ways.

    Chalmers: It’s conceivable that we might get back together someday, so it might be possible. It all depends on if you’re positive or negative about it.

    Hofstadter: Go t’Hell, an’sure don’t come bach! (oooo, the pain of the corn ;)

    Goedel: Try as you might, you just don’t complete me, and you never will.

    Cantorian Shakespeare: How do I love thee? Let me count the ways… Cardinality 0.

    Strong-AI-ist: I’m just not ready yet. But call me later this century sometime.

  26. Jeff Medina says:

    Weatherson(!): My love for you is true, but not as true as it used to be…

    Weatherson v. 2.0: I’m sick of your games, so I’m making a decision to get rid of them completely.

    Weatherson v. 3.0: See, there’s this envelope with a regular probability distribution over the levels of love from 0 (none) to 1 (perfect) that I might have with someone else, and then there’s us… it just wouldn’t be rational for me to stay with you.

    Leiter: You just don’t rank very highly with me anymore. (I need a top-tier kind of love.)

  27. paul says:

    Sartre: Hell is other people—you, for instance.

    Bradley: I feel disconnected from this relationship, because whatever relation between me and it would itself have to be related to me, and….

  28. nk says:

    chalmers v2: you’re like a zombie on the inside

  29. paul says:

    Oops, Bradley was garbled. Should be:
    Bradley: I feel disconnected from this relationship, because whatever relation there might be between me and it would itself have to be related to me, and….

  30. Irem says:

    Stage View Perdurantist: At this stage, I don’t love you.

    Russell: You gotta understand; things look different from where I am.

  31. Steve says:

    Materialist: The only part of me you stimulate any more is my C-fibers.

  32. rac says:

    The Heideggerian (v.2): Let’s face it: Daseins are on the wall.

    The Eliminativist (v.3): There never was a You-and-Me, only particles arranged You-and-Me-wise.

    The Anti-Emergentist: Our parts are greater than their sum.

    The Animal Rights-ist: Let’s stop eating each other.

  33. David says:

    Plantingian: A possible world with you and I together for the forseeable future hasn’t been actualized.

    Chisholmian: The ideal definition, which I’ve taken seventy-five little steps toward, doesn’t contain your name. So hit the trail.

  34. karl says:

    Quinian – To you it might have appeared that we were really together, but our relationship was just a bunch of undetached dating parts.

    Paraconsistent logician v.2 – We can break up, but we’ll still be together… and that does not imply anything (everything).

    Polish Logician – BreakupYouMe

    Structuralist Logician – You and I do not satisfy what it is to be in a “going out” relationship.

    Hempel –
    Explanans:
    People are only together when both parties want to be seeing each other. (General Law)
    I no longer want to see you (particular fact)
    Explanandum:
    Therefore we are no longer together. (explanation of why we are not dating)

    Plato – We no longer participate in the Form of dating.

    Leibniz (v2) Our relationship clearly did not make for the best of all possible worlds, and that is why we are no longer in it.

    Kripke – Our relationship does not exist in the actual world, but perhaps in some other possible world.

    Kripke 2 – I thougt I was going out with someone named “Schmidt”.

    Indeterminacy theorist – I was never able to quite pinpoint our relationship anyway.

    William James – Our breaking up is live, forced, and momentous. So take it on faith that we are no longer together.

    Anslem – p1 We can conceive of a most perfect breakup.
    p2 Whatever is conceived exists in the mind of the conceivers.
    p3 Whatever exists in the mind of the conceiver and also in reality is better than the same thing that exists only in the mind of the conceiver.
    C1 Therefore, a breakup conceived, than which no greater breakup can be conceived, exists in reality as well as in the understanding.
    p4 Ours is a breakup greater than which none greater can be conceived.
    c2 Our breakup exists in reality.

  35. Will Davies says:

    Epistemicist: There was a line and you crossed it.

    Content Externalist: You’re not in my thoughts any more.

    Frege: If only I’d known who you really were, Jocasta…..

    Fodor: Aunty says you’re not my type.

    Lewis: Focus too hard on it and it’s gone… Love sure is elusive.

    Jackson: My intuition is that we are not good together and I think that this intuition is shared by the folk.

    Dretske: I hadn’t accounted for the possibility that you were mutton disguised as lamb.

    Wittgenstein: I think you need therapy.

    Kripke: You and I are essentially different.

  36. Simon Keller says:

    Straussian: I’m not breaking up with you. Gentleman 29 bandicoot.

  37. David says:

    R. Cartwrightian: Face it, babe. We’re scattered objects.

  38. uk says:

    The disjunctivist: we’ve grown apart
    The functionalist: this isn’t working for me
    The modal realist: it doesn’t mean we can’t be friends
    The A-theorist: this isn’t going anywhere
    The expressivist: we need to talk

  39. uk says:

    the nominalist: I have a fear of commitment
    the perdurantist: Things are not what they used to be
    the contextualist: My feelings haven’t changed, but everything else has
    the non-cognitivist: You can’t rationalize these things
    the anti-hedonist: I’m getting to a point in my life where I’m looking for more than just good time

  40. ac says:

    Zeno (v.2): This isn’t going anywhere

  41. Jeff Medina says:

    Zeno v. 3: No matter how close I try to get to you, you always seem so distant.

  42. matt strohl says:

    Epicurean: This relationship is really great right now, but I anticipate many troubles in its wake.

    Platonist: I’m just getting sick of trading gold for bronze.

    Socratic: What do you mean by “I”? What do you mean by “Love”? What do you mean by “You”?

    Stoic: If you can’t get used to your status as a preferred indifferent, we’re going to have to call the whole thing off.

    Skeptic: I’m just not sure this is working for me.

  43. William says:

    Relationalist: When we really get down to it, our relationship lacks substance.

  44. Kris McDaniel says:

    Berkelyian: Our relationship existed only in your mind.

    Leibnizian (2): Our relationship was not well-founded.

    Kantian: I thought I needed your love to make sense of anything. Now I realize it was just physiology.

    Anti-Universalist (in the theological sense): Our relationship can’t be saved.

  45. Kris McDaniel says:

    Constitution Theorist: I never loved you. I just loved your body.

  46. Kris McDaniel says:

    Parfit (v2): We need to split up.

  47. Kris McDaniel says:

    Parfit (v2): We need to split up.

  48. Caro says:

    Nietzsche: Sorry, I’m over you.

  49. Caro says:

    Nietzsche (v2): Sorry, I’m over you.

  50. Caro says:

    Nietzsche (v2): Sorry, I’m over you.
    Nietzsche (v3): You’re too good for me.

  51. Brian says:

    Van Cleve: I left because you aren’t right for me.

    Eric T. Olson: I’m leaving because you are an animal!

    Minkowski: We need some spacetime between us.

    Chalmers: Why am I leaving you? Thats a hard question.

  52. Kris McDaniel says:

    Wittengensteinian(?): The door is open, baby. Hit the road.

  53. Kris McDaniel says:

    Peter Unger (1): I don’t know what we can do to save this relationship.

    Peter Unger (2): You make me feel like I don’t exist.

    Peter Unger (3): Our relationship has many problems.

    Peter Unger (4): Of course it is over! You sold everything I own and then gave all of the money away!

    Chisholm (v2?): You make me feel very tiny.

  54. Steve says:

    Gricean (v2): You’re just not the cream in my coffee anymore.

  55. Jay Martin says:

    Peter Unger: It’s not you, but it’s not me either.

  56. Jay Martin says:

    Peter Unger: It’s not you, but it’s not me either.

  57. Jay Martin says:

    Peter Unger: It’s not you, but it’s not me either.

  58. Paul Audi says:

    Necessitarian: I’m sorry, but this is how it has to be.

    Dualist: You’re too cerebral!

    Nominalist: There’s you and there’s me. There is no us.

    Anti-Utilitarian: I’m sick of trying to make other people happy!

    Indirect Realist: I have to think of myself first.

    Reductionist: We lost the chemistry.

    Hobbes: How can se start over when the fighting never ends?

    Socialist: I just can’t give you what you need.

    Gilligan: Of course I still care!

    anti-Commnitarian: I’ve forgotten what it’s like to be myself.

    Retributivist: This is what you get for being rude to my friends.

    Nietzsche: You’re just too GOOD for me!

  59. Kris McDaniel says:

    Armstrong: I want to freely recombine with others now.

  60. Sparky says:

    McDaniel: its just a brute fact; things aren’t simple anymore.

  61. Jay Martin says:

    R. Rorty: I could’ve only loved you as much as my colleagues would let me get away with…

    K. Yandell: Well, I do love you in W* but W* is far removed from the actual world.

    J. L. Mackie: Let’s talk about “queerness”…

    Searle: If you think that I love you, you don’t need an argument you need help.

  62. Sparky says:

    The Hard Determinist: It’s not my fault.

  63. UL says:

    The Utilitarian: This will make us both happier in the end.

    The Fodorian: I’m afraid we’re asymmetrically dependent.

  64. Allan says:

    Brian Leiter: This breakup is going to be a major loss for Texas-Austin, which may push it above Rutgers next year.

  65. Wolf says:

    The really sad thing is that I found this while doing a Google for “questionable taste”… This came up second…

  66. Wolf says:

    The really sad thing is that I found this while doing a Google for “questionable taste”… This came up second…

  67. Gustavo Llarull says:

    The Compatibilist I (Frankfurt-type version): Honey, you have to understand: I freely decided to break up with you, but I couldn’t have done otherwise.

    The Compatibilist II (Fischer version): I am moderately receptive but weakly reactive to your love

  68. AW says:

    Libertarian: I need my freedom.

    Dretske: There are other, more relevant, alternatives.

    Putnam: It’s over…. I want you back…. Its over.

    Gettier: I knew I loved somebody in the office, and I am as surprised as you are that it isn’t you.

    Nozick: You’re too insensitive.

    Lehrer: I don’t know why you didn’t see this coming, Miss Dumpedalot.

    Stich: The survey results are in, what we had wasn’t love afterall.

    Internalist: Why? I have my reasons.

    Moore: There, there… this doesn’t mean that you are not desirable.

    Lewis: Our being together always seemed somewhat absurd, and now I’m not sure it has the theoretical advantages I thought it did. Stop staring at me.

    Skeptic: I just don’t know you anymore.

  69. John Fischer says:

    The Semicompatibilist: We weren’t completely compatible, and I only sort-of loved you anyway. But don’t worry: nothing we really care about will be lost…

  70. AW says:

    Moore: Here’s one hand. Here’s another. What do I need you for?

    Plato: Not enough dialogue.

  71. David says:

    Plotinus: I’m sorry, you’re just not the one

  72. rachel says:

    the procrasonater: i’ve been meaning to get around to breaking up with you for a long while now much longer than before the “L” word showed up

  73. rachel says:

    the procrasonater: i’ve been meaning to get around to breaking up with you for a long while now much longer than before the “L” word showed up

  74. BM. says:

    Fodor – Aunty says that I owe you an explanation, and I suppose she is right. For what it’s worth, here it is; I believe that I’ve been seeing someone else (in fact I know it, but no matter) and I believe that if you believed that I had been seeing someone else, you would not want to date me any longer. Further, my telling you that I believe that I have been seeing someone else will lead, ceterus paribus, to your coming to believe the same fact (if your hearing is reliable, and you’re paying attention). Which means that right about now you will believe that I am seeing someone else, and you will want to ditch me. But I don’t want to be ditched, and I believe the only way not to be ditched is to ditch you first. Hence you are ditched. (It’s an explanation, though perhaps not the one that Aunty had in mind. Then again explanations were all deductive nomological in Aunty’s day. If you were that traditional, I doubt we’d have dated in the first place.)

  75. cp says:

    Wittgensteinian: ‘There’s really nothing more I can say…’

  76. F. says:

    Wittgensteinian: Baby, don’t ask why- whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent

  77. cp says:

    Ryle (when ditched): ‘You’re making a big mistake…’

  78. John Lee says:

    Plato – Well, now that I’ve seen you in the sun …

    Grice – You have to try and understand what I’m about to tell you …

    Lao Tzu – It’s just not the way …

    Hsun Tzu – I just dont like your evil side.

    Wang Yang Ming – You keep saying that but I need to see some action.

    Nieztche – Thus Spoke Zarathrusta

  79. Moises says:

    Russell: It is always true that it is false that there is an x such that x is our Relationship.

    Russell v2: The love you think exists between us is a part of your brain.

    Russell v3: The atomic fact is that I don’t love you.

    Russell v.4: I judge that “r-Lx” … Russell does not love x, where x is you.

    Russell v.5: You kill every creative impulse in me, with you I only have possesive impulses.

    Russell v.6: Our relationship was a logical fiction, I will therefore substitute the inferred entity for a logical construction, meaning we should see other people.

    Russell v.7: So you support the bolsheviks eh!!

    Russell v.8: Our feelings for each other are of different types, our being together is most certainly bad syntax.

    Russell v.9: You don’t even have a tiny bundle of good qualities.

    Russell v.10: I only know that you have terrible dispositions but I always have to infer what is your intrinsic nature, I’m done with that!!

    Russell v.11: The class of all those people who do not belong with themselves, belongs to itself ? Bah !! You and I are such a paradox.

    Wittgenstein: I can’t find any use for our relationship, it has become meaningless to me.

    Wittgenstein v.2: Shhh!!!!

  80. Brad Weslake says:

    New Riddle of Inductionist: When I said I loved you…

    Wittgenstein: I cannot see how to go on.

    Derrida (breaking up with Saussure): The signs were all there.

  81. Mellow says:

    Cybertarian: BRB (wink)

    Simpleton: Bye

    Yahooer: I will be removing you from my friends list

    Channelier: Says Nothing

  82. Mellow says:

    The BS’er: Sorry but my dog ate my commitment to you.

    The ESP’er: Read my Mind

    The PMS’er: You just don’t ‘Get Me’

    The ASL’er: Why don’t you talk to me

  83. Istvan Aranyosi says:

    Colin McGinn: You lack that mysterious flame.

    Plato: I’m afraid last night we went un-Platonic.

    Frank Jackson: I have a liaison with Mary.

    Ruth Millikan: You’re not sufficiently fit.

    Bas Van Fraassen (a bit thrilling): I think I’ll build a tower tall enough for its shadow to cover at 5 o’ clock the place on the terrace where I first declared love to you.

    Thomas Nagel: Your’re sexually perverse.

    Arnold Zuboff: There is only one of us.

  84. Istvan Aranyosi says:

    Tamar Gendler: To stay with you – a scenario that faces a strong imaginative resistance from my part.

  85. t0x says:

    Leibniz: I no longer desire any mo nads of yours.

    Determinist: I’d stay with you, but it’s not up to me.

    Mystic: Lets continue our relationship exclusively in a non spacio-temporal realm.

    Locke: You’re ugly.

  86. Steven Shapiro says:

    Maimonades- It’s not literally your body that I think is ugly.

    Nietzche- This relationship is dead.

    Existentialist- I just feel so alone.

    Ayn Randians- I just want to be alone.

    Nihilist- This relationship doesn’t mean anything

    Wittgensteinian- My goal is to be let out of this constricting relationship.

    Adam Smithian- I’d rather use my “invisible hand” than sleep with you.

  87. Eitan Kozak says:

    The Epicurean: You’re a lousy fuck
    the post-modernist: I don’t even know who you really are
    the hegelian: You go back and forth impulsively like the dialectical bitch
    the marxist: You preach to me to distract me from the fact that you’re stealing from me
    the camusan: Your demands in this relationship are absurd.
    the De Beauviorian: It’s as if I’m not good enough in bed. You always insist on having second sex.
    The Ayn randian: I’m a lesbian douchebag.
    The Neitzchean: Your sex drive is abnormally low. Maybe you’re an ecce homo and operate in a gay science.

  88. V. Alan White says:

    C. L. Stevenson (singing):

    Let’s leave it alone,
    cause we can’t see eye to eye—
    there ain’t no good guys,
    there ain’t no bad guys,
    there’s only you and me
    and we just disagree…

  89. Steven Shapiro says:

    Freudian: Mom, I think this relationship has gone a bit too far.

  90. V. Alan White says:

    Whitehead:

    The history of our relationship has consisted of nothing but a series of lovenotes from Plato.

  91. Rachael says:

    Hilbert: Even if my heart had another chamber, there still wouldn’t be room in it for you.

    Anti-Bayesian: But I want unconditional love!

    Dutch bookable agent: It seems like no matter what happens, I just can’t win.

    Counter-inductionist: You’ve been wonderful to me, and the sex has been great…

  92. Alejandro says:

    Wittgenstein: Our relationship must be throwed away after living through it.

  93. Alejandro says:

    Sorry… it should have been:
    Wittgenstein: Our relationship must be thrown away after living through it.

    A few more:

    Heisenberg : Our relationship is moving so fast, I don’t know at what point it is any more.

    Schrodinger: When I realized what were exactly my feelings for you, they collapsed.

    Einstein: From your point of view everything may seem to be OK between us, but from mine…

  94. Alejandro says:

    Carnap: The claim that we would break has been confirmed.

    Popper: The claim that we would stay together has been falsified.

  95. tb says:

    Straussians: I know you’ve said a million times that you love me, but I can just tell you don’t mean it.

    John Campbell: Your face is what causes and justifies my leaving.

  96. Rob Annable says:

    Deconstructivist: ‘I don’t even know if it’s about me or about you, I can’t tell what’s right or wrong. All I know is that something has come between us and from where I’m standing it looks like we’re in the middle of breaking up.’

    (and for extra pathos)

    Deconstructivist: ‘Ohh, I don’t know whether I want to live or die!’

  97. naz says:

    Hindu: Even though we can not be together, when you are in that place within you where the universe resides, and I am in that place within me, I will always be with you.

  98. Mariana says:

    Heidegger: What do you mean ‘this doesn’t make any sense’?

    Heidegger v2: I know it’s really hard, but you have to at least make an effort to understand me.

  99. Lucy says:

    Feminist: You need to gain more respect for women. Lets begin by shoving that thing down your throat!

  100. Sunil says:

    Utilitarian: This’ll be the best for everybody.

  101. calmone says:

    Plato: Can’t we just be platonic?

    Einstein: I think we are too closely related.

    Foucault: I think I’m gay.

    Ockham: You don’t shave.

  102. Schrodingers gerbil says:

    Dualist: You love my body not my mind

  103. Paul Audi says:

    Rae Langton: Did you even notice when I stopped loving you?

  104. Daniel says:

    Freudian: Sometimes sex is just sex…

  105. Daniel says:

    Minimalist: Bye.

  106. EthDem says:

    Objectivist: I need some “me” time.

  107. myles byrne says:

    Bohmian: You make me feel holo inside.

    Sheldrake: You never think of anyone but meme

    Korzybskian: Your crap is not my territory.

    Jungian: I dreamt that I was looking for a frog…

    Hopkinian: You not my frog.

  108. Melissa Haferkamp says:

    Heidegger, v. 3: I’ve always felt thrown into this relationship.

    Sartre, v. 2: Pierre, it’s as if you’re just not here.

  109. Jason Mansfield says:

    Bose-Einsteinian: The way things have been lately, I just can’t tell where you end and I start.

    Indirect Recursionist: To explain why we’re breaking up, I must first discuss problems in our relationship. Before I do that, I need to explain why we’re breaking up.

    Zen Koanist: Tell me where the darkness goes at daybreak. That’s where this relationship is going.

    Moore’s-Law Superficialist: Your waistline has doubled every 18 months

    Mr. T-ist: Ah pittay tha fool who date you!

    Eulerian: Our relationship has been constant, but irrational

    Surrealist: How many fish does it take to change a lightbulb?

  110. Jason Mansfield says:

    Sierpinski: There are infinitely many holes in our relationship

  111. Josh Berkstresser says:

    St Augustine: Sorry you will has to many . deficiencies.

    Cartaisan: Sorry you are not real enough.

  112. Cerulean says:

    Socratic (2): You already know what’s wrong; I shouldn’t have to tell you.

  113. sturgeonslawyer says:

    Kierkegaardian: This relationship is absurd.

    Thomist:

    It would seem that our relationship will continue eternally.

    1. Our relationship has continued unchanging up to this point; and what continues unchanging is eternal. Thus, our relationship is eternal.

    2. Our relationship hsa been one of love, and as the Evangelist saith, “God is Love.” Because relationships of equality are transitive, Love is God, and Love is therefore eternal.

    3. Our relationship is good, and the good abides.

    On the contrary, I say that nothing but God is eternal. Scripture saith that Man is the creature of but a day, doomed to die, and when you or I die, the relationship will clearly end. Therefore our relationship is not eternal.

    1. Our relationship had a beginning; therefore it is not eternal and will have an end.

    2. To say “God is love” is not an expression of equality but an attribution of a property to a subject. Thus, as to say “the dog is white” does not mean that all white things are dogs, so too love is not necessarily God, and need not be eternal.

    3. Our relationship has been good, but now it stinks. Gettoutahere.

  114. M. Turyn says:

    Objectivist: I want to check these premises and find you gone.
    Kellian: I don’t feel benevolent toward you any more.
    Nietzschean: We, as all in our circumstances, now have nothing; if there were some distance between us, at least we’d have its Pathos.
    Zen Master Rama: You haven’t kept up the payments, go into outer darkness.
    Joseph Smith: Wasn’t that you I told to leave?
    The Lubovitcher Rebbe: I love Tanya more than you.
    Isaiah Berlin: It’s just not working.
    Karl Popper: This can only work if you can prove that it might not.
    Dodgson: Aren’t you a little old for this?

  115. Neil K says:

    Wittgensteinian v2: Let’s stop playing these games. Don’t say anything, it just makes things worse.

  116. Ralph Finley says:

    pragmatist: you’re ugly

  117. Cynthia Nowicki says:

    The Feminist – I don’t need you.

  118. Don Brady says:

    Christian: I’ve run out of cheeks for you.

  119. Don Brady says:

    Hegelian: It is! It is not! It is! It is not! IT IS! IT IS NOT! YES, IT IS! NO, IT IS NOT! Look, being this way is just becoming synthetic.

  120. Don Brady says:

    Many selves quantum theorist: A part of me will always be with you.

  121. Chasmo says:

    Chaos-theorist: I’ve seen this same pattern in you before.

  122. Chasmo says:

    Hmmm…or should that have been Fractalian?

  123. Amy says:

    Rawlsian: I can’t give any more of myself to you until I’ve given some to all of the others who need me more than you do.

    Rawlsian (2): I’d like to go back to my original position: single.

  124. Seth Schoen says:

    Pythagorean: I am a lover of wisdom, but not of you.

  125. Marco Grubert says:

    Nietzsche: Even though we part I will return eternally.

  126. preacher says:

    theres still sunshine when your gone

  127. preacher says:

    i like tomatoes you like tamatoes

  128. Rich Doan says:

    Heraclitus: We’ve been down this road before.
    Thales: We’re just treading water.
    Parmenades: You’re not the One for me.
    Democritus: I bumped into Adam at the Void…
    Russell: I met a man. We got acquainted.
    Kaplan: She and I… this and that… now and then…
    (Russell: I’m acquainted with this and that.)
    materialist: Our relationship is not ideal.
    idealist: Our love is immaterial.
    Quine: I’ve got a guy. But hurting you was never my intension.
    Kant: I gotta have my space. It’s a necessity.
    H. A. Prichard: Our relationship rested on a mistake.
    Kaplan: You’ve really been out of character.
    Kant: You’re too critical.
    Quine: You’re too dogmatic.
    Wittgenstein: You play games. And you’re early work stinks.
    Hegel: You just don’t understand me.
    Kierkegaard: You’re too gullible.
    Carnap: You’re too negative.
    Nietzsche: You’re too positive.
    Socrates: You’re too old.

  129. V. Alan White says:

    Weatherson: Look at this photo—you cheated on me without my knowledge! (Except that it is actually a pix of BW and his object of direct address in, shall we say, corpus seducto that he does not recognize because his head is buried in his hands (ala his home page) and he was drunk at the time and does not recall the incident at all.)

  130. Cara says:

    Sartre: Let’s be honest. From day one our relationship has been based entirely on objectifying one another.

  131. Patrick O'Neill says:

    Moore: Our relationship is through, but I don’t believe it.

  132. raul arturo mendoza rodriguez de santiago says:

    Buddha: You just don’t understand how much my desire for you is making me suffer.

    Confucius: You just don’t understand your place in our relationship.

    Sufist: I just need something more real.

    Michael Jackson: You’re too old for me.

  133. eric wiland says:

    Leiter: It’s not that I don’t love you. It’s that my 60 closest friends don’t love you.

  134. andy says:

    Richard Rorty: Our personalities are incorrigible.

  135. Kenny Rudinger says:

    Luther: This relationship has been too indulgent.

    Rousseau: I was born free and now am in chains.

  136. Dabido says:

    Russell – You are now in the set of people who do not belong to any set.

    Seneca – You’re breaking up with ME? Where is the LOGIC?

    Chaos Theorist – There are too many variables for me to accurately predict if this relationship will work.

    Christian – We need to make a New Covenant for this relationship to work.

    De Bono – My perception of you has changed.
    (I include a quote to this in case it’s too obscure, “Logic does not change emotions, but if perceptions changes then emotions change.”)

  137. A.B. says:

    Chalmers: You lack dimension.

  138. Aidan McGlynn says:

    Strict Finitist – It couldn’t go on forever.

  139. Marcus Perman says:

    Buddhist philosopher’s on breaking up:

    The Madhyamikan: This relationship is empty, much like you.

    The Yogacharan(Mind-Only School): Don’t worry, you’ll still be in my mind.

    The Dogenist Zen-Buddhist: This relationship is impermanent. And enlightenment IS realizing impermanence, don’t worry, just sit there.

    The American Shambhala-Buddhist: The Lineage told me to break up with you.

    The American Tibetan-Buddhist: The Dakinis came to me during meditation and I fell in love with one of them. Don’t feel so bad you’ll find someone else to kill your ego, some day.

  140. Greg says:

    Thales: This relationship is too fluid.
    Anaximander: There’s no way to change.
    Anaximenes: You’ve condensed.
    Plato: You’re just an incomplete form of ‘girlfriend’.
    Aristotle: This relationship is not on the path toward eudaimonia.
    Descartes: I think I have been decieved all this time by you.
    Zeno of Alea: I’m never fully reaching you.

  141. Matthew says:

    This has probably been said.
    Rejectivist: Its just all too much.

  142. Sean says:

    DeRose: We’ve grown so far apart that you’ve become insensitive

  143. Paul Audi says:

    van Inwagen: We have such different lives.

    Mereological Nihilist: We are not a couple.

    Mereological Universalist: My true nature is to be with you, and with every other woman as well…in twos, threes,…

    Anti-Quidditist: I’ll be nothing without this relationship!

  144. pekka says:

    Harsher Hare: I would prescribe anyone in the same circumstances to break up with you. (Nothing personal, you see, dear.)

  145. Josef Simpson says:

    I was surprised to not find something of the following:

    Liebnizian: we are just two people living parallel lives, never interacting.

  146. Aaron Wendland says:

    Foucault: It’s about bodies and pleasures; and your body no longer brings me pleasure!

  147. bRIAN says:

    lets be like bananas and split

  148. s in g says:

    Fregean – Our relationship is a good relationship iff our common interests can be put in one to one correspondence. Sadly, I’m not sure in general if Julius Caesar is the same as good relationship. Since I have no criterion by which to tell if we have a good relationship, I shouldn’t go on with it.

  149. apeirohedron says:

    Platonist: Yours is not the ideal form.

    Kantian: I’m thinking about what would happen if everyone in the world did you…

    Schopenhauerian: Since you haven’t read Kant you can’t even begin to understand me.

    Derrida: I take no responsiblity for your mother’s interpretation of what I said when I told her she was a little on the large side.

    Camus: I’m experiencing a brief moment of clarity!

  150. Chris says:

    Gibsonian: I can’t afford you.

  151. Frank says:

    Lao-Tze: It’s just the Way things are.

    Zhaung-Tze: Why don’t you just chill out…

    Confucious: Confucious say, “Bye”!!

    Jesus: Dad told me I can’t see you anymore. Take it up with him.

    Plato: You’re sufficating me. I feel like I’m trapped in a cave!

    Plato: Well I’m not losing the beard, so…

    Aquinas: It’s God’s will, baby, not mine…

    Max Black: How was I supposed to know the difference between you and your twin sister?

    John Rawls: Me and some very smart friends of mine have decided that it’s best that we part.

    David Gauthier: It’s all in the interest of fairness… Fairness for the both of us…

  152. GA says:

    Egoist: It’s not me, it’s you.

    Ayn Randist: I know I said I loved you, but I was only looking out for myself.

    Nietzschean: Don’t worry, we’ll date again, and again, and again….

    Dewey: I just don’t see any potential for further growth.

    Sartre: Be free!

    Hume: I prefer chocolate.

  153. Connie says:

    Taoist: I couldn’t say.

    Nussbaumian: We’re just not flourishing together.

    Panglossian: It’s for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

    Kantian: I’m sorry — not everyone can be with me.

    Kantian v.2 — I realized that I’ve been treating you as an end only.

  154. Dan says:

    Philosophical Break-up Lines

    James – The consequences of our relationship have no ‘cash value’.

    The Existentialist – In this harsh and godless world, it is my responsibility to break-up with you.

    Sarte v1.0 – I’m a coward.

    Sarte v2.1 – I’m trapped.

    The Functionalist – Our input into this relationship has somehow caused another state of breaking up.

    Strindberg – I am dirty. You are dirty. This relationship is dirty.

    The Epiphenominalist – The relationship that emerged from us having been together was only an illusion. It was never really there.

    Dennett v1.0 – I believe that you believe that I am breaking up with you.

    Dennett v2.1 – I have other brainchildren and I intend to keep my mind’s ‘I’ on them.

    Quine – I’m set on my theory. There is nothing metaphysical between us. However, I still need the concept of ‘relationship’ in order to break-up with you.

    Kant – The concept of our relationship was only in our minds. We could never directly experience it.

    The Consequentialist – Really, what were the odds that we would have stayed together anyway?

    The Christian – Though there is really no way to prove that our relationship exists, I have faith that it is the right thing to do.

    G.E. Moore – It only makes sense. To do otherwise would be absurd.

    Descartes – I can’t think about being in a relationship with you.

    Frege – There is no reference to our relationship. It just doesn’t make any sense.

    Merleau-Ponty and Determinism – It appears to me that I don’t have a choice.

  155. Coty says:

    Voltaire – It all for the best, now I must go work in the garden.

  156. Sheldon Hanlon says:

    The Phenomenologist: I have other intentions
    The Phenomenologist V.2: I’m exploring other horizons
    The Phenomenologist V.3: I need to bracket you in order to find my true Self

    Levinas: I’m responsible for an Other.
    Heidegger: It’s about time that someone asked about the question of the meaning of this relationship.
    Buber: You treat me as an It.

  157. Sheldon Hanlon says:

    Socrates: Can we talk?
    Socrates v.2: I love your body, but not your soul.
    Stoics: It’s just not natural for us to be together.
    Nietzsche: If this doesn’t kill you, at least it’ll make you stronger.
    Narrative identity theory: I don’t envision you fitting into the story of my life.
    Disgruntled Utilitarian: The pleasure principle just isn’t doing it for me anymore.
    Habermas: I hate to be the one to decide this, but…
    Malebranche (occasionalism): Who’s pulling the strings in this relationship?
    Derrida: This relationship is going under erasure.
    Derrida V.2: We’re just too “differant”.

  158. Rachael says:

    Thomson: Yes, I realize you’re attached to me, and that you can’t live without me. But I’m under no obligation to share my heart with you.

    Stalnaker: I just need some (logical) space.

    McTaggart: I just need some time.

    Eubulides: Does one second of dating make us a couple? Do two seconds of dating make us a couple? Do three seconds of dating…

  159. Becky N says:

    Malebranche: It would take an act of God for us to be compatible…

  160. Briee Hoffman says:

    The God Believer: I know you crossed the line, not that I can point out where the line is, or what a line is, but I still believe the line exists. The line loves me, but it doesn’t love you, for you crossed it, whatever it is.

  161. Saint Gasoline says:

    Hegel: The thesis is we’re breaking down. The antithesis is to fix it up. The synthesis is…we’re breaking up.

    Dualist: My body says yes, but my heart says no!

    Plato: I don’t want a love relationship with you. I’d rather have a platonic friendship.

    Agnostic: I don’t know if we should be together anymore…

    Freud: You’re a motherfucker.

    Kuhn: I’m ready for a paradigm shift.

    Taoist: In order to love you, I must also hate you.

    Utilitarian: It’d be better for both of us if I just left.

    Popper: Inductively, I thought I loved you and only you. Deductively, screwing your sister proved that false.

    Descartes: I need to find myself.

    Descartes (part 2): A relationship does not think, therefore our relationship is not. We’re over bitch!

    Theist: I can’t explain why I want to break up with you. Therefore, God did it.

    Medieval Scholastic:
    1. Our love is defined as that which nothing greater can be thought.
    2. It is greater to love than to be in love, because feeling love is better than being bound to love by a mere preposition.
    3. Therefore, I love you, but I am not IN love with you.

    Aquinas:
    1. I am in love with you.
    2. God is love.
    3. Therefore, I am in God with you.
    4. Other people are also in God.
    5. Therefore, I am in love with other people. I’M BREAKING UP WITH YOU, WHORE.

    Sartre: I am sick of you.

    Occam: I wasn’t enough for you, huh? You needed BIC, too! You had no need of that hypothesis! We’re over! I won’t be multiplying entities with YOU anytime soon!

    Many-Worlds-Theorist: It is possible that you are cheating on me. In one of many alternate universes, you are most assuredly cheating on me. Therefore, I’m leaving you. But don’t worry. In one of those other universes I’m probably not breaking up with you.

    Deconstruction: I’m brooking up with you. “Breaking up” is only another form of “hooking up” after the oppositions have been deconstructed. As soon as we hooked up, we broke up, and as soon as we broke up, we hooked up. So now I’m “brooking up” with you.

    Intelligent Design Theorist: Some things about evolution confuse me. Therefore we’re breaking up.

    Materialist: Love doesn’t “matter” to you.

    Determinist: It just wasn’t meant to be!

    Marxist: You don’t “own” me!

    Nietzsche: We are “over, man”.

  162. James L. says:

    Buddist: Everything is impermament, including love. Bye.

    Cultural materialist: After some meticulous observation and calculation, I’ve come to the conclusion that we can not sustain our current level of pair bonding.

    Dawkonian: I didn’t really ‘love you’; the phrase just came into my head one day then jumped to yours.

    James D. Watsonian: We both have the recessive X76B base pair.

    Dubuyu-ian: I am liberating you.

    Pinkerian: You just can’t give me the type of offspring that I really want.

    Tibetan Buddist: I know this is hard for you, but you must contemplate the essential wisdom; all mental afflictions arise from the un arisen ignorant view. Thus the dharmadatu is pure and unfettered.

    Zen Buddhist: Mu.

  163. Daniel says:

    Nietzsche: “You’re dead. I have killed you. I don’t have a will to power to continue the relationship with the dead person.”

  164. Anonymous Coward says:

    Reverse Polish Notation: You, Me, Breakup

    Utilitarian: This isn’t good for either one of us, so it’s not optimal.

    Loftus: I remember loving you, but that is easily falsified.

    Buberian: I-You is not I-Thou.

    Set Theorist: I, which is in the universal set and You which is in the universal set, are not simultaneously in the set of in love. There is no union or even intersection.

    Dennettian: I am now married so i don’t need my heart anymore, so i ate it.

  165. annsoforth says:

    Pascal: My heart doesn’t belong to you anymore, but darned if I can figure out why!

  166. Sabrina J. says:

    MELE: You’re deceiving yourself if you think this can go on.

  167. ali says:

    (late) Heideggerian- We can’t dwell together anymore, so get out of my fourfold!

    Nietzsche- Love is dead. And you killed it.

    MacKinnon- Only words? I saw it all on tape, and the content was pornographic. While viewing it, I experienced an intense desire to bring violence upon you. Start running.

    Kierkegaard- God has asserted his power to teleologically suspend this relationship.

  168. Dominic Sirianni says:

    Benacerraf – I don’t know what love is, but I know what it can’t be and this is one of those things.

    Brouwer – You aren’t consistent; my love is incomplete.

    this blog is very funny.

  169. Randomgirlname says:

    Persuadist: You don’t WANT me…

  170. wqergveqarvg says:

    Heideger: you have falen into the they.
    Heideger: this relationship has lost it’s authenticity.
    Sartre: you exsist but you are not.
    Sartre: you chose to be angry at me.
    Wittgenstein: 2.001. this world is made up of facts.2.34. our relationship is not a fact.
    Camus: stop denying the absurd and start denying our relationship.
    Kant: we have ben using each other as means and not ends.
    String theorist: you just aren’t 11 dimentional

  171. Patrick Ranaudo says:

    The Fermatian: I know why we’re breaking up, I just don’t have the space to write down the answer.

  172. Paul Audi says:

    Thomson (on abortion): Get out of my bed or I’ll kill you.

  173. Paul Kelleher says:

    Thomson v. 2.0: When I suggested hooking-up, this isn’t what I had in mind.

  174. Robert Scott says:

    Anselm: I´m certain that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is out there for both of us.

    Sartre: You´re condemned to be free, but there´s a sunny side to that!

    Descartes: My will to be with you extends beyond my understanding of our relationship, and I just can´t let myself make that mistake.

    Descartes: I don´t know if that´s you anymore or if your head is made of earthenware and you are a pumpkin or you are made of glass.

  175. Robert Scott says:

    Anselm: I´m certain that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is out there for both of us.

    Sartre: You´re condemned to be free, but there´s a sunny side to that!

    Descartes: My will to be with you extends beyond my understanding of our relationship, and I just can´t let myself make that mistake.

    Descartes: I don´t know if that´s you anymore or if your head is made of earthenware and you are a pumpkine or you are made of glass.

  176. Daniel says:

    Rorty: We just don’t have any solidarity left. Isn’t that ironic?

  177. Paul Audi says:

    Nominalist: We have nothing in common!

  178. saket says:

    cartesian:u r just not thinking nymore

  179. James says:

    Spinozist: There’s no substance to you anymore.

  180. Paul Gowder says:

    Arendt: I’m sorry, but I have to take action here.

  181. Paul Gowder says:

    Oooh. Oooh.
    Dworkin: There’s never a right answer with you!

  182. Paul Gowder says:

    OOooh, oooh, oooh…

    Marx: We’re history.

    Beauvoir: I’m sick of being the other woman!

    Hobbes: I need someone to take charge here. I just don’t feel safe with you.

    Machiavelli: Would the Romans have put up with this? No! [[stabs]]

    Althusser: [[insert extremely tasteless strangulation joke here]]

    Adorno: All you do is shop, shop, shop.

    Marcuse: I want an open relationship.

    Putnam: There’s another. Just like you… but… different. Better!

    Eccles: I’m not sure why I don’t like you any more, but I think a quantum state in my neurons might have something to do with it.

  183. mudpie says:

    hedonist: I don’t ‘feel’ you anymore..

  184. Mike says:

    Madhyamaka Buddhist: You just make me want to empty myself

  185. Mike says:

    Advaita Vedantist: It shall be not so, on account of the rope and snake

  186. Mike says:

    Nishidian: I just feel you’re bottomless