On Snarks and Boojums: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » On Snarks and Boojums » On Snarks and Boojums

On Snarks and Boojums

On Snarks and Boojums

hds
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/07/08 - 12:52 PM: Subject: On Snarks and Boojums	#1
http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/carrol03.html I am having some difficulty in understanding the conclusion of the Hunting of the Snark: Is the author implying that it was not a Snark that the Baker had found, but rather a different species i.e a Boojum, or is the author stating that it was in fact a Snark, but instead of being a common Snark it was that subtype of Snark known as a Boojum? First, The Bellman said: ``For, although common Snarks do no manner of harm...Some are Boojums---'' And later, the Baker seems to present a dichotomy: On the one hand: 'If your Snark be a Snark, that is right: Fetch it home by all means--you may serve it with greens, And it's handy for striking a light." While on the other hand: " 'But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your Snark be a Boojum! For then You will softly and suddenly vanish away, And never be met with again!'" That is to say that if the Snark is NOT a Snark, only then is it a Boojum, thus clearly implying that Boojums are NOT Snarks at all. Can someone help me out on the allegedly logical contradicion? Thanks.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1315

Posted 05/07/08 - 11:57 PM:	#2
I believe the answer, if there were one, would lie in the difference between: "If your Snark be a Boojum..." and "If your 'Snark' be a Boojum..." That is to say, "If your presumed 'Snark' (which is not really a Snark) be a Boojum...." Now it's possible that Carroll wrote "Snark", when the Baker actually said "'Snark'". There is no evidence that the Baker wrote his assertion down. It's plausible that the Baker's enunciation was poor on account of his nose being blocked with flour. So the evidence from this fragment points to no particular conclusion. Although the Baker says "Some are Boojums..." he notably does not say "Some Snarks are Boojums..." This perhaps suggests that he was being deliberately evasive or ambiguous. It's possible that the Baker had no opinion on the question whether any Snarks are Boojums or not, although he knew enough to steer clear of Boojums. The Baker's use of the phrase 'common Snarks' could be taken to suggest a contrast between the common kind of Snark and the uncommon kind, the latter kind being by implication Boojums. Personally I think this is to over-interpret the text. Bakers often talk of the 'common kind' of many and various things without implying any particular contrast. It's just a way they have of speaking. So we will probably never know whether there are any Snarks that are also Boojums. From a practical point of view it would be useful to know whether avoiding Snarks is a rational strategy for avoiding Boojums. And if no Snarks are Boojums, then it would be both just and beneficial to have their reputation for harmlessness fully restored. But even if Carroll could enlighten us on these points he does not choose to do so.

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 984

Posted 05/08/08 - 07:40 AM:	#3
This is one of those topics that it is inadvisable to enter into without consulting the literature. Martin Gardner, in The Annotated Snark, cites Larry shaw's article, The Baker Murder Case, as arguing "...that the Boots was the Snark,ad that the baker tried to reveal this fact by crying 'It's a Boots!' just before the boots killed him" (TAS. P94) If this is the case, then of course there was no Boojum at all. However, compare this with F C S Schiller, (Mind, 1901), analysing the five unmistakable marks. "The Snark's ambition is to become a Boojum, of course. It always succeeds with those who are prepared to meet it halfway." I think this makes clear the relation of Snark to Boojum, and answers the question once and for all. By a curious coincidence, this post got thoroughly snarked in the process of writing. If anyone came across the multiple partial copies that got posted, my apologies. Edited by unenlightened on 05/08/08 - 08:01 AM
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1315

Posted 05/08/08 - 08:52 AM:	#4
Thank you, unenlightened. If the Baker's final interrupted cry of 'Boo...' would have ended in '...ts' and not '...jum', then it would still be rational to be wary of Snarks. They may be harmless, but a murderous Boots disguised as a Snark is a different matter. I agree with your point about the literature. But we now have a horrifying array of possibilities. Snark-Snark, Snark-Boojum, non-Snark-Boojum, Boots-qua-Snark, Boots-qua-Boojum, Boots-qua-Snark-Boojum, etc. etc.

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 984

Posted 05/08/08 - 12:08 PM:	#5
Schiller wrote: In the briefest possible manner, then, I assert that the Snark is the Absolute, dear to philosophers, and that the hunting of the Snarkis the pursuit of the Absolute... For no one attains to the absolute but the Baker, the miserable madman who has left his intelligence behind before embarking. And when he does find the Snark, it turns out tobe a Boojum, and he 'softly and silently vanished away'. That is, the Absolute can be obtained oly by the loss of personality, which is merged in the Boojum. Gardner wrote: The Snark is a poem about being and non-being, an existential poem, a poem of existential agony. The bellman's map is the map that charts the course of humanity; blank because we posess no information about where we are or whither we drift. Both authors agree on the significance of the 'B's in the crew's names and the Boojum, but it is just as you say: Cuthbert wrote: we now have a horrifying array of possibilities. Snark-Snark, Snark-Boojum, non-Snark-Boojum, Boots-qua-Snark, Boots-qua-Boojum, Boots-qua-Snark-Boojum, etc. etc. We hunt for the Snark of meaning, or the meaning of Snark, but all the time haunted by the possibility of an unknown and unknowable Boo... Note. Gardner observes that Schiller persistently misquotes silently for suddenly. Perhaps it was his personal little Snark.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1359

Posted 05/16/08 - 01:48 AM:	#6
hds wrote: That is to say that if the Snark is NOT a Snark, only then is it a Boojum, thus clearly implying that Boojums are NOT Snarks at all. Huh? (Whatever happened to Banno's post? Was I only imagining he posted here?) I find myself agreeing with unenlightened's post "haunted by the possibility of an unknown and unknowable..." through the following statements, namely: 'If your Snark be a Snark, that is right and If your Snark be a Boojum... and putting them in these forms: 1) All snarks are snarks. 2)Some snarks are boojum. If you can prove the truth of (1), then that is good. (you can't) If you can prove the falsity of (2), then that is good because that means all snarks are snarks. (you can't) (Anyway, isn't this what Banno was trying to say?)
_____________________ I achieved nothing. -- The Optimist

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 984

Posted 05/16/08 - 11:18 AM:	#7
Caldwell wrote: Huh? (Whatever happened to Banno's post? Was I only imagining he posted here?) If Banno posted, then his post has softly and suddenly vanished away. It is fortunate indeed that our names do not begin with B. Having said that, I just realised that my first name has not one but two B's in it - indeed a majority of B's. As you will have guessed it is of course, Bo...
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 984

Posted 05/17/08 - 08:37 AM:	#8
On mature reflection, I realise that the OP's connundrum rests on a discreancy between the Bellman's account, and the hearsay evidence of the Baker's report of his uncle's words. It is quite surprising that the Barrister let this pass at the time, but given the notorious arithmetical skills of bakers in general, one might in any case have some doubt of the classificatory expertise of the Baker's uncle, even if the Baker's report of it were to be trusted. In the light of these considerations, I for one am content to trust in the Bellman's clear assertion to he effect that the Boojum is a species of Snark.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1359

Posted 05/17/08 - 01:51 PM:	#9
unenlightened wrote: If Banno posted, then his post has softly and suddenly vanished away. It is fortunate indeed that our names do not begin with B. Having said that, I just realised that my first name has not one but two B's in it - indeed a majority of B's. As you will have guessed it is of course, Bo... hahaha! Banno found Boojums, not Snarks, 'why he vanished.
_____________________ I achieved nothing. -- The Optimist

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.