Why did the chicken cross the road?
Let us ponder this question for a moment. Many argue the question is too careless and gives too large a room for responses inherently indubitable, but I believe I can find a solution by further developing the question then circumstancing my personal reflections. Despite the satirical nature of the question, I'll derive a conclusion, however exclusively subjective. I'll attempt to push the question as far as possible. With each iterative addition of condition argued in regard to the initial question, I'll provide an answer to its current state and another scenario purported by following additional conditions. And when all possible variables have been annotated, I'll inductively reason to uphold an answer and conclude with a final remark. Then, I'll add a personal insight to my conclusion.
So, why did the chicken cross the road? Let's, for the rest of this exercise, disregard all existential doubts. The chicken indeed crossed the road. This remains a fact and for those inclined to doubt any evidence at this point let's note that at point-x and time-y the chicken began to cross the road. Hence, any responses that deter from this observation will be treated as false. Similarly, the essence of the chicken is subdued by the exact cursor. The essence of the chicken is defined as the common domesticated bird which lays eggs and its meat processed as poultry. Responses which counters denouncing its existence, such as 'What chicken?' or 'It was really a rabbit', will be dubbed inadequate and premature. Same logic applies to the definition of road and its validity as a road.
Another pretense the question holds ambiguous is whether the chicken was genuinely the victim of its intentions. To phrase otherwise, was the chicken passive or active in its decision to cross the road? The question is elusive in this regard. However, the question hints clues. Considering its semantics and grammar, the chicken is the subject and the road is the object. It does not refer to the road being crossed by the chicken. Additionally, I argue that it's more probable that the chicken actively crossed the road and it was not unaware of its actions. Therefore, the chicken was intentional and its actions were ascertained deliberately. In the likelihood it was not intentional, I logically assume that the chicken was not cognizant. Given this condition, 'The chicken was sleep-walking' or 'The chicken was blind and deaf' will suffice as a response. However, this argument is defeasible. It introduces a new variable in the question that defers the subject of the question away from the chicken itself by displacing its authority in intention elsewhere. And along with it comes a twist but only posterior to the prior information. Thereby, it artifices a conclusion. I comment it as an ill-witted response to an impostor of a question that'd derail both the trickster and its audience altogether.
This leaves a final pretense which must be addressed. That is, what were its environmental conditions? And the most concise response is that there was nothing else present besides the chicken and the road, the question's initial givens. In the same manner as the chicken's internal state has been clarified, its external states can be clarified also. In the likelihood the chicken was not alone or there were other environmental variables present, the argument is defeasible due to an unlikely, convenient prior information only unveiled posteriorly. Though not perfectly certain, these are the logical presumptions I make when I attempt to answer the question: why did the chicken cross the road? And only when the conclusion derived from the alternative, or the question's givens, proves fallible will I revisit the assumptions made thus far.
So then, what are the givens? The givens are two things. The chicken and the road. From here on, we can deduce several other facts. First and the most obvious, a road is divisive by definition. While it functions to form a path which traveling can be accompanied through, it also entails separation of two sides. The chicken is on one side and there is the other side. Second, the question is not interested in whether the chicken successfully crossed the road or not. As mentioned previously, the question is primarily concerned with the intention of the chicken. Hence, the proper response to a question of 'why' would gender a statement starting with 'because' or 'to' followed by a verb.
I've hinted the answer. From here on, you can begin to formulate the possible answers. But a response which begins with 'because' does not work. 'The chicken crossed the road because' instigates the internal intentions which still remains unforeseen by the readers. Hence, this deduces the choice of answer down to one. 'The chicken crossed the road to' - to do what? And here we find the answer in plain sight. It's inherent in the word 'cross'. Cross is defined as to move, pass, or extend from one side to the other side. Hence, the chicken crossed the road to get to the other side.
So, yet again I ask. Why did the chicken cross the road?
The answer is this: to get to the other side.
This answer may seem anti-climatic to most. It may be less of an answer expected, but less is more. There's a twist. And this is the cunning, dual nature of the question and the answer together. While answering in the most obvious means possible, the other side is a reference. We assume, because the chicken and the road are physical manifestations, the question relies on answers that are both material and existential in nature. However, we bypass the notion that it need not necessarily be true. And that the response may as well be metaphysical and metaphorical. In here, 'the other side' is an allegory. The other side of life. Death. Beyond life. The chicken did not merely cross the road to set its feet on the other side but to experience death.
We find multiplicative answers in a single line of response. The chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. Inclusively defined as to die.
Rest in peace, dear chicken.
0 comments:
Post a Comment