I don't really think that's what he's saying.

What he's haphazardly trying to state is, well, what seems to me at least, is a mixture of continental and analytical philosophies...

"The meaning of life can be argued as only being appropriate, or true, if one always obeys the rules of logic...or in this case, the guidlines set forth by logic. Emotional attachments and personalities often conflict with logical awareness. In the following case: I'm a writer, I was offered a job as a surpervisor for a trucking company making $15 an hour; I was also offered a job at a book store making $7 an hour. Which job did I take?

A strategist, or if I were to even follow a more logical outcome, would have picked the higher paying job as its outcome better suits that ultimate outcome...life."



This has been said and done before, but in this case, it's a very 'Philosophy 210' type of paper. He got an A because he presented an argument and reasoned through it, but his professor most likely laughed hystrerically. But, it does show one thing...this individual at least has some philosophical-imagination.