thegeekgene is applying to philosophy grad programs, which means I am mean to her.

[snarp]

I assume she's going to go stand in an agora and debate all comers or something once she's got the doctorate, so I'm helping her get ready. (She's home on spring break.) This is the important philosophical question which I posed to the philosopher:

Poll #6367 What is the worst cookie in the world?

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 25

View Respondents

What is the worst cookie in the world?

View Answers

A cookie containing deadly poison.
7 (28.0%)

A cookie so unappetizing that no one would ever want to eat it.
3 (12.0%)

A cookie combining both traits.
15 (60.0%)

Some other answer.
0 (0.0%)

She says #2, because the poison cookie fulfills its essential cookie goal of making you eat it, and is therefore fully realized as a cookie. I say #3, because the Platonic ideal of the cookie is something that should be both appetizing and life-sustaining, and #3 fails at both.

She thinks the poison part's just irrelevant because it's not part of the essential cookieness of the cookie - "has poison/doesn't have poison" is not a relevant condition. Now, I think deadly poison's always pretty relevant! I mean, there aren't many situations in life where you're going to go, "deadly poison, or no deadly poison? Ehhh - doesn't really matter." When that question comes up, you generally do want a yes or no answer.

I also think she ought to write her senior thesis about the implications of the possibility of P. Diddy waking up in the morning feeling like Ke$ha. She doesn't think it's really a fruitful line of philosophical enquiry.

Comments

[cheyinka]

(found via Latest Things)
I voted the poisoned cookie, since its appetizingness is what makes it so dangerous; the unappetizing but unpoisoned cookie fails at being satisfying, but could succeed at being a thoughtful gift, so it's better than the simply poisoned cookie, and the cookie that's both is less likely to be eaten, thus less likely to kill anyone, and so less terrible. :D

[estara]

I guess I'm not philosophical enough so I went for the to-me-obvious answer of both.

[onyxlynx]

Cake or death?

(I know. Not relevant. I fell into the 'unappetizing to whom?' bog, and now I need some of those maple cream cookies [oh, trust me, esthetes eschew maple cream cookies] I gave up for Lent.)

[mikkeneko]

I say #1 because with 6 billion people in the world, there would have to be someone who would like that cookie no matter how unappatizing you made it.

[chomiji]

I believe that a cookie that is so unappetizing fails in its cookie-ness, but at least it's harmless. So I pretty much agree with cheyinka - the poisoned cookie is the worst, because it's a betrayal and dangerous.

[esther_asphodel]

A cookie that is both unappetizing and poisoned is worse because it's a failure as a cookie and as a murder weapon.

[lacrimawanders.livejournal.com]

A cookie that is both unappetizing /and/ poisoned has an agenda of its own -- that it is (likely) unsuccessful is its own problem. The cookie that is just unappetizing has the default cookie goal and is a failure. And that's sad.

Why are there no cookies in this house? T_T