The Dialogues of Huevo

By Allen Coyle

____________________

INTRODUCTION

As any learned scholar will assert, no extensive study of philosophy is complete without considering the works of Huevo. His immense contributions to the field in the form of his dialogues provide a window into the foundations of modern, rational thought. It is of great fortune that his numerous works have been preserved through time, one of which is offered here, dissected and translated by renowned American author Allen Coyle.

Huevo was an informal student to Cocrates, whose philosophic teachings arguably introduced rational thought and similar concepts into mainstream intellectual discourse. Indeed, we can witness firsthand the obvious reverence Huevo held for his teacher, as it is him he establishes as the primary character in his dialogues.

We have no written, concrete documentation of Cocrates’ philosophy, for Cocrates himself did not believe in writing, in fact calling it “the rancid turd of speech.” Huevo, on the other hand, was a fluent and prolific writer. He preserved multitudes of philosophic notions in his dialogues, most of which contained Cocrates as the representation of rational inquiry and an inferior character depicting the preliterate mindset. Indeed, these ancient texts lay out for students the development and application of the so-called
“Cocratic Method.”

One problem the student of Huevo faces is just whose philosophy is being put forth in the dialogues. Are the pieces meant to be an accurate depiction of Cocrates’ line of thought, or is Huevo merely using his teacher as the lead character in his written works to spout his own philosophic convictions? The debate has ensued for many centuries, perhaps never to be resolved, and this author thinks it unessential to support or argue against any side here. Rather, the dialogues should be interpreted for the ideas they offer --
never minding if they are Huevo’s or Cocrates’ -- and for the revolutionary change they made on civilization at the time, not to mention the foundations they laid for western culture. Huevo in a sense provides a means for us to view the birth of ourselves as a modern culture and the fundamental notions that compose us collectively as people.

FOREMAN

In this particular dialogue presented here, FOREMAN, Huevo introduces Cocrates as a young man working a summer job as a landscaper in order to earn sufficient monetary funds to later attend university. Cocrates is inquisitive and alert, eager to engage in intellectual pursuits, and often pulls aside fellow laborers to delve into complex philosophic discussions. Foreman, the preliterate character in the dialogue, has witnessed Cocrates leaning on a shovel and questioning a teenager, Philo, on the obscure aspects comprising reason. Infuriated, Foreman pulls Cocrates aside from his discussion and asks him why he remains to be idle when there is work to be done. Cocrates seizes this opportunity to engage Foreman in a conversation of work, asking him to define this concept and if it is authorized by nature:

FOREMAN: Listen here, you little son of a bitch. Every time I turn to look over at you, you’re sitting on your dead ass yakking to the other employees. We’ve got to get this project done sometime in this century. If you want to keep your job, I suggest you pick up that God damn shovel and get your ass to work helping these guys digging tree holes.

COCRATES: Ah, but Foreman, you have pulled me aside from a conversation I was having with Philo pertaining to the elements that comprise the abstract notion of reason. These discussions offer wisdom to a curious mind, of which I am certainly in possession, and also perhaps answer important questions about ourselves and our culture. One cannot define reason in a mere sentence, dear Foreman. However, Philo attempted to do this by offering me a sincere but very incomplete definition of the concept. I prodded him to educate me further on this nearly indiscernible idea so that I could fill my empty head with wisdom, for what am I but a void to be filled with knowledge? Picture me as a glass, Foreman, and my fellow citizens the pitchers containing knowledge. In order for me, a glass, to obtain knowledge, I must implore for my fellow citizens to pour wisdom into me. How then do you wish me to fully ascertain the notion of reason, a quite complex and abstract idea if I must say, if you squeeze the neck of the pitcher and prevent the tasteful liquid of knowledge from pouring into my inquiring mind, the glass?

FOREMAN: What the hell are you talking about? Pick up that God damn shovel and get your stupid ass to work!

COCRATES: By implication, you are denying me the privilege to inquire on reason. Very well. Dear Foreman, there is more than one pitcher from which to take drink and quench thirst, and more than one well from which to draw water. Educate me, then. Fill my questioning mind with wisdom. You speak of work, but what exactly is this amorphous concept? The term can suggest a plethora of meanings, ranging from the notion itself to all the tasks it encompasses. Moreover, how do we orient ourselves between work and slavery? Is a man who receives compensation for his labors not a slave? Is a slave who receives a beating from his master not a worker? Are the terms mutually exclusive, or rather are they combined in the grappling vines of intellectual infrastructure? Does hard work always yield a reward? Is work a product of an economic system, or can we find it in the state of nature? Does not a savage work when he collects food for survival? Does not a savage work when he seeks shelter from the weather? If work can be found in the natural state, then how can we account for its presence? Are we all slaves to work, or are we workers for slavery?

FOREMAN: I’m about to kick your ass off this God damn job. These other guys are busting their butts and you’re standing here with your thumb up your ass and your head in the same place.

COCRATES: Indulge me, good sir. Let us consider our investigation at hand, or rather, allow us to answer this crucial question: What is work? Now, you tell me that I must get back to work, but what tasks does this term encapsulate, if we assume the term is not the definition itself? For if I abided by your command and gathered food for myself to eat, would I not be working? For indeed, it seems we can easily agree that collecting food is work for the savage. Or what if I ripped out all of these plants, dug up the irrigation pipes, broke them, disassembled the valves, and uprooted all the trees? Would I not also be working? Is destruction not as valid as construction in terms of physical effort put forth? Moreover, is work defined as a creative force or a destructive one? If I create, am I no more working than if I destroy? Dear Foreman, it would seem by your logic that the term of work in essence is defined by the course of action you desire me to take as your employee. But can such a narrow definition prevail through time? Under these conditions, you subsist as my master and I as your slave. Is this a proper characterization of our relationship?

FOREMAN: You’re an insolent piece of shit. You’re lazy and a no good son of a bitch. You’re also off the job. Pack up your shit and get the hell out of my sight.

COCRATES: Before you recede to the primordial instinct of your Neanderthal mental capacity, allow us to further delve into this discussion of work. Now, Foreman, I have thus far been probing you with the hope of extracting a clear and concrete definition of work. Remember, my mind is an empty vessel which must be filled with knowledge, and it is my fellow citizens upon whom I call to serve as dispensing pitchers. However, you have failed to provide me with the solid definition which I seek. How then, Foreman, can we properly conduct this rational investigation if I am hindered by your unwillingness to cooperate?

FOREMAN: You--

COCRATES: Allow us to pursue the matter further. We must ask ourselves this question: What is the concrete definition of work, and is this concept authorized by nature? For if we can agree on exactly what is meant to be defined by the term, we must then proceed to investigate if it is natural or unnatural. For if we find work to be natural, then does that imply a natural hierarchy in the state of nature? Or, is work unnatural, which would imply that the savage who subsists in a natural environment is privy to a more enjoyable existence than civilized man, for I’m sure we can agree that work, whatever it implies, is certainly not pleasant.

FOREMAN: Now see here--

COCRATES: Let us now reach an appropriate conclusion dictated by logic. Discarding all other principles, philosophies, theories, and religious doctrine, we will find ourselves in the natural state, naked among savage men. Once we have arrived in this setting, we must observe the environment with zealous vigor. Does the concept of work exist in the state of nature? Ah, but first we must ask ourselves just what constitutes the elements of work--

FOREMAN: All right, that’s it. C’mon guys, let’s kick his ass!

COCRATES: And this broad definition must be further narrowed for the sake of rational inquiry ... hey, what are you guys doing? Hey, wait, no, no! Ow! Shit! Help, somebody!

____________________

Allen Coyle is a bona fide dog lover. He can’t help it; those are just the kind of girls he attracts. When he’s not the center of the dating scene, he spends time with his wife and three kids. Any hot chicks desperately wanting a picture of this hunk can consult the wall of their nearest post office.