One of the big philsophical questions

[Eugene V. Debs]

If you're in the Philadelphia region and you order a hoagie WITHOUT tomatoes and lettuce, is it still a hoagie? If it's not a hoagie, what is it? I suppose it could be a zep, but what if it doesn't have salami or onions either?

Immanuel Kant argued in the Critique of Pure Reasonthat a priori it can be deduced that it is not a hoagie since the concept of a hoagie necessarily includes tomatoes and lettuce, however he did not offer an explanation for what it then is, other than to say "ist ein sandwich" (it's a sandwich). A philosophical cop-out if ever I heard one, and essentially just a different spin on Plato's "ideal hoagie".

This was in contrast to David Hume, who, using a strictly emipirical approach contended that it remains a hoagie even without tomatoes and lettuce, as inductively, the evidence shows that someone can order an "Italian hoagie without lettuce and tomatoes". However, I also find this subjective reasoning intellectually unsatisfying.

Karl Popper's epistimelogical study of the question did not yield results any different than Hume.

So, PAFOA has some smart fellers, what is the answer?

And if you can answer this question, perhaps you can tackle the biggest philosophical question-- "Does the pope shit in the woods?"

[adymond]

With or without tomatoes and lettuce it is still a sub.

[str8shooter]

It's a grinder, sub, hero, bomber, poor boy, italian, dagwood or something else, but it's definitely no longer a hoagie.

[Eugene V. Debs]

With or without tomatoes and lettuce it is still a sub.

But is it a HOAGIE? Or are you saying there are no hoagies, only subs?

[27hand]

This can no longer be a hoagie as the best hoagies have lettuce ,tomato,pepperchinos(sp), and Italian dressing.

That's the shit

Mouthwatering now. Thanks a bunch.

27alsolikespiehand

[LittleRedToyota]

the concept of a hoagie necessarily includes tomatoes and lettuce

flawed premise.

the flawedness of which can be demonstrated by taking a trip to vitos' in st. marys and ordering one of their famous "vito's hoagies" which does not have any of that sissy rabbit food on it...just bread, meat, cheese, and hot sauce.

now *that* is a hoagie (by the law of identity) and it has no lettuce or tomato on it.

so, the correct answer is, yes...a hoagie without lettuce and tomato is still a hoagie.

[LittleRedToyota]

as for the pope shitting in the woods...

well, it could be argued that, since there are trees to the pope's north, south, east, and west at all times (just a question of how far away they are)he (like the rest of us) is in the woods at all times...so, yes, he (like the rest of us) does shit in the woods.

[jsb889]

as for the pope shitting in the woods...

well, it could be argued that, since there are trees to the pope's north, south, east, and west at all times (just a question of how far away they are)he (like the rest of us) is in the woods at all times...so, yes, he (like the rest of us) does shit in the woods.

But, this all depends on specifics. For most people, if you're in the woods you can see the trees.

Even besides that, the pope (like MOST people) is an an enclosed room. He has walls all around him, because he shits in the bathroom (N, S, E, W). Though, that bathroom may be in the woods. But he does shit only in the bathroom.

[dc dalton]

Hoagie Smoagie ... its a freaking sangwich ;-)

[LittleRedToyota]

But, this all depends on specifics. For most people, if you're in the woods you can see the trees.

Even besides that, the pope (like MOST people) is an an enclosed room. He has walls all around him, because he shits in the bathroom (N, S, E, W). Though, that bathroom may be in the woods. But he does shit only in the bathroom.

ahhh...but if you apply the principles of transcendental existentialism, you find that:

1. the pope exists...and the trees exist
2. the existence of both the pope and the trees transcends the walls of the bathroom.

thus, the pope is actually in the woods even while he is in the bathroom.