Talk:Bruces' Philosophers Song

message: I thought is was: 'drink you under the table'
It is a drinking song, after all. Bruce would agree with me.
– Webhat
: In The Fairly Incomplete and Rather Badly Illustrated Monty Python Song Book the lines are "think you under the table" and "Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel". Dunno if that helps. Acanon 01:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended lyrics.  I'm almost certain it's "think you under the table".  Which makes sense as it's mixing thinking into a drinking expression in much the same way as "drink therefore I am" mixes drinking into a thinking expression.  --Plumbago 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it wouldn't be nearly as funny if it didn't say "think" where you'd expect "drink" and vice versa, now would it? JIP | Talk 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No of course not. Justinc 12:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Because they are a copyright violation. Justinc 12:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: The article states that
However, the publication of the lyrics with the release of Monty Python Sings suggests that the Hegel version is the official one.
while both versions mention Hegel. Which one is believed to be the official one, Schopenhauer and Hegel or just Hegel? Kotiwalo (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the topic, it might've been a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So which version is believed to be official? 

message: "Ironically, Nietzsche abstained from alcohol. The double negative 'nothing' and 'couldn't' is a play on this." How is this a play on Nietzsche's abstinence? Assuming you can teach anything you know, the line implies that Nietzsche knew everything about drinking. Calling it a "double negative" makes it seem that the words are canceling each other (like "I don't want nothing" = "I want something"). This is not a double negative in that sense. Now if it was written "There wasn't nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach you..." instead, then I might see the play, but I'm just missing it here. Is there a source for this? 201.82.172.36 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone misinterpreting. "There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist..." means he knew everything about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so that means there is no point in Nietzsche even being in that list. Because the section's intro says "Some of the philosophers are portrayed according to their works.". And last I checked trivia sections were frowned upon, so this theme should be upheld or else it just becomes a trivia section. 201.82.172.36 (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever posted that misinterpreted, and taking that part away, we're just left with the ironies, which may or may not be "trivial", but they don't really have anything to do with this philosophy (unless "not drinking" was discussed in his philosophy). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist... might implied on Nietzsche's compulsive masturbation ("raising of the wrist").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.229.245.41 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Play on Nietzsche 

message: There's an "Astronomers' Drinking Song" written ca. 1800 included in Augustus De Morgan's "Budget of Paradoxes", also included in "The World of Mathematics" by James Newman, vol 4 .  It also mentions Descartes, but insultingly (due to controversies over whether Newton or Descartes invented calculus)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, that does sound quite similar. And it was even before BBC Two started! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible precursor

message: I love this song and whoever put this article together, but I'm afraid that the parenthetical descriptions that follow the names in the list of philosophers aren't very encyclopedic.PurpleChez (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  not encyclopedic?