The Thingness Of A Thing

A hamburger -- the object of our scrutiny

In the vein of Martin Heidegger, it is my purpose today to discuss the thingness of a thing. In particular, I wish to examine hamburgerness and hamburgers. In this post I will attempt to enumerate the qualities and characterstics related to hamburgerness, and I will use these components to strictly define a “complete hamburger.”

To begin, let us consider first the properties an object must possess in order to be considered a hamburger at all. There are some obvious ones: extension in at least three physical dimensions (I say at least because there may exist 4-dimensional “hyperburgers” and so forth), it must have mass, and it must be made of meat. We can generalize these ideas by saying a hamburger is a patty of some meat.

This defintion includes the properties of extension and mass because we assume them inherent to the idea of meat. Indeed, this is quite a useful definition for a hamburger: we have not specified the degree to which a hamburger must be cooked, nor have we specified what sort of things ought to be eaten with a hamburger. Therefore, a hamburger is an independant entity that can come in many forms.

The Hamburgerness of a Hamburger

With our definition in hand. let us consider the properties that in some way modify or affect the hamburgerness of a hamburger. For example, if a hamburger is placed between two slices of bread or between two buns, we consider this to be more hamburgerly than a burger lacking these qualities.

Therefore we can declare that the presence of certain things improves the hamburgerness of a hamburger. Similarly, we can conclude that the absence of these things impairs the hamburgerness. I have come up with what I consider to be the complete set of properties which, when absent, impair the hamburgerness of a hamburger:

• Buns
• Lettuce
• Ketchup
• Pickles

Note that the meat patty itself is excluded from this list. It is excluded because if a hamburger is lacking a patty then it is simply not a hamburger. Also note that we now have a full, rigorous definition of a “complete hamburger.” That is, a complete hamburger is a hamburger that possesses each of the elements of the above list.

If a hamburger is lacking, say, pickles, then I assert that it is less of a hamburger, or less complete than a hamburger which possesses pickles.

Superburgers

Imagine, if you will, a hamburger that possesses the additional property of having cheese on it. Such a hamburger (referred to colloquially as a “cheeseburger”) is something that I call a “superburger.” A superburger I define as follows:

A superburger is a hamburger that is complete and posseses an additional property that also lends to its hamburgerness.

A complete superburger

Clearly a cheeseburger is a superburger because a cheeseburger is just like a hamburger but better. However, a complete hamburger smothered with fish oil is not a superburger because the presence of the fish oil does not increase the hamburgerness—it impedes it.

Also worthy of mention is the incomplete-superburger hybrid. Such a hamburger is one that lacks an essential characteristic such as ketchup, but possesses a super characteristic like barbecue sauce.

Additional Considerations

So far we have considered only properties of hamburgers that are inherent to the hamburger itself: composition, mass, extension, &c. Let us now consider properties that may have their impetus in some source external to the hamburger. For example, let us consider the relative velocity of a hamburger.

Is a hamburger that is falling with respect to its observer any more or less of a burger than one that is stationary with respect to its observer? The obvious answer is no, but let’s not jump to conclusions. Certainly a moving hamburger still looks like a hamburger. Indeed, its inherent characteristics (mass, etc.) are in no way changed. But something else is changed: the edibility of the hamburger.

A bad, incomplete hamburger

But edibility is not on the list of inherent hamburger attributes! And it’s not that I have made an egregious omission. Rather, we have identified a new sort of characteristic. That is, there are some characteristics that are not inherent to a hamburger, and therefore not essential to its hamburgerness nor its completeness. These attributes which rely on the relationship and interaction the hamburger has with its observer, like relative velocity, we can call characteristics that are essential to the goodness of a hamburger.

For example, a well-cooked, complete hamburger that is stationary with respect to its observer is a good hamburger. One that is raw, smelly, and moving rapidly towards its observer is a bad hamburger.

A Final Question

What is the relationship, if any, between the completeness of a hamburger and the goodness of a hamburger? I will discuss this more fully in a later work, but my conclusion is as follows:

A hamburger must be complete to be good, but it mustn’t necessarily be good to be complete. That is, there exist bad hamburgers that are nevertheless complete.

Karate And Friendship Day

The most important day of the year is rapidly approaching. That’s right; this Friday is National Karate and Friendship Day. Be sure to challenge as many opponents as possible to one-on-one karate clinic contests. Dayman style.

Oh and friendship. Don’t forget the friendship.

Who Has It Better?

We were shown the below picture in one day in physics. It’s a 3D-rendering of the magnetic field due to a solenoid. It was heroically calculated by a computer using the Biot-Savart law. I think it’s fantastic.

But I started thinking about all the cool pictures that mathematicians make. There are some obvious ones, like Budhhabrot and other colored fractals. And there are even simpler ones, like domain-colored graphs of functions

Papermate Visibility

As an amateur pen-spinner I often spend inordinate amounts of time in the pen aisle in Staples. Today a particular pack caught my eye: Papermate Visibility. This particular pack, unlike the one to the left, had colored pens in it.

Being stupid, I automatically assumed that the pens had black ink. The colored casing must be for funsies. No.

I now have five (5) Visibility pens: green, blue, red, pink, purple. What the fuck am I going to do with a pink pen? The only one of those colors that’s even remotely practical is blue.

Not that the blue pen is useful. The ball point is so miserably bad for writing that it’s almost easier to just scratch your words into the page.

On the bright side, the Visibility is incredible for spinning. It’s light, well-balanced, and reasonably long. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only pen better than the Visibility for spinning is the Bic Soft Feel Clic Stic. Maybe the Pentel RSVP is better. I’m still on the fence on that one.

I think I just came in my pants

The Height Of Materialism

Materialism, thy name is SKINNY LONG LENGTH SCARF. For only £90 ($130 USD) you can be the proud new owner of the same scarf everyone in the entire city of Chicago owns.

I don’t actually mind people all owning the same thing. In fact, it’s a pretty nice scarf. It’s cashmere, it’s good-looking, and it’s Burberry. My problem with it is that it’s one hundred and thirty dollars.

Sure, cashmere’s a nice, expensive fabric, but there’s so little cloth in a scarf that you’re basically paying $50 just to have it made by Burberry. And actually, I don’t even have a problem with that. Everyone, including me, spends a little extra money for brand name recognition.

The reason I’m angry is that people will by the $130 scarf, and that’s all. If you’re fantastically wealthy, you don’t mind dropping $130 for a scarf and another $400 for a sweatshirt. But most people simply can’t afford to do that. So what do common folk do? They buy the $130 scarf, then walk around wearing $30 jeans from American Eagle and a $25 polo shirt from Gap.

The message you send when you look like this is not “I have a nice scarf.” There is absolutely no reason to wear that scarf except for the brand, so the message you send instead is “I am shallow and materialistic.”  Rich people are excluded here because it is cashmere, so if you can afford such things, then whatever.

Basically, if you can’t afford to buy Burberry clothing, then don’t. If all you can afford at Burberry is a $130 scarf, then go somewhere else and buy a similar one for $10.

Scratch That

I do have something to say. Did you watch the Superbowl? Did you hear that public service announcement? The one that went like this:

One in three kids are obese

Are you kidding me? How the fuck do you get an advertisement during the Superbowl without being able to pay for someone to check your grammar? One in three kids is obese. Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, save us now.

I Don’t Have Anything To Say

…But I’ve noticed that frequently updating my site yields more page views, and I’m a sucker for statistics.