|
|
Welcome to another episode of Mystery Review, a monthly series in which our panel of experts attempts to identify a mystery tobacco or cigar. For February's edition, our guest inquisitor is Austin Quinlan, artisan pipe maker and Senior Craftsman at Peterson. Will his mysterious submission leave us bewildered, or will we correctly guess what he's presented to us? Join us as we discuss what we think this mystery smoke is and make our best guesses. Discover whether we succeed in the identification or crumble under the pressure by watching to the video's end.
What is The Mystery Review?
For those unfamiliar with our little game, each month, one member of our team — or sometimes an honored guest inquisitor — selects a tobacco or cigar for us to review in a blind taste test. Then we gather around the camera, scratch our heads, and smoke, all while attempting to guess the mysterious submission, its manufacturer, and, if we're lucky, its name.
You may also enjoy:
Comments
Mystery Review February 2025. Please explain the wall plaque behind Truett that says “Caldwell Get Laid”?! 😆
PS Funny session: like a Mystery Review skit on SNL!
Well done, guys!
Kudos for being able to smoke Triple Play without food or coffee in this morning!
If only shane were there
A bit like SNL, yes. But a group of friends enjoying good company, good tobacco. That simple. And nice to hear some of personal stories from You hosts.
Regarding the continental philosophy...well, besides the nonsense of the polarity between analytic/continental Philosophy , some important philosophers from Europe (continent) are subject to a lot of attention and analysis. Like Kant, Mill, Hume et al when discussing Epistemology, metaphysics, ethics or political philosophy. In major US universities.
Nice motor sound in the end.
Cheers to SPipes team and the pipe community,
LV
The “continent” in continental philosophy refers to continental Europe, as opposed to the island(s) that make up what is now the UK. This would exclude Mill and Hume from the tradition since they are from the islands. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was Austrian, is considered one of the most important analytic philosophers; so the geographical distinction doesn’t hold. On the other hand, the distinction is taken to describe a methodological difference among philosophers beginning in the twentieth century. This would mean that chronologically, we would also exclude Hume, Mill (and Kant) from the labels.
Some philosophers see the distinction as the result of two main, competing readings of Kant (this would also mean he is not part of one tradition or the other but the source of the distinction). Some see in Kant a project to turn philosophy into a science, and they identify that as key to the analytic method; others see in Kant a critique of the sciences, and they identify a critical attitude as key to what it means to do philosophy. At some point, some philosophers decided we needed to lump together many, disparate philosophical movements under a label with a geographical reference because they appeared to shared a critical outlook (and an alleged lack of scientific rigor), but the development of critical views among these different philosophical movements is so thoroughly different that it is laughable to claim that they belong together, while the claim that there is a lack of rigor speaks more to the cataloguing philosophers’ anxieties over their inability to easily understand their peers’ work. Good philosophers work on issues, not within traditions.
I did not take two semesters of symbolic logic, but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, so I confidently can say that Genghis Kahn and Immanuel Kant.
A thoroughly enjoyable episode, even though Shane was not present to keep the discussion on the rails. Keep up the great work, and remember: Euripides Pants, Eumenides Pants.