Shady Dealer Banner

Grounds of Being Proved Logically Inconsistent

By Thomas Noriega
April 21, 2017

Grounds of Being Proved Logically InconsistentBy Thomas Noriega Earlier today, students were shocked and saddened to learn thatTragic news today as Grounds of Being, the popular cash-only coffee shop in the basement of the Divinity School, was proven contradictory. The revelation caomes from 4th-year Philosophy major Neil Friedrichs, whose undergraduate BA thesis, “On the Ontological Inconsistency of Grounds of Being” devoteds 100 pages to the fundamental flaws of the coffee shop’s existence.

The problems, Friedrichs says, begin almost immediately upon walking into the café. “’In God we Trust, all others pay cash,’” Friedrich began, “this implicitly denotes that God could be limited in space and time in the moment he would purchase coffee, purchasing coffee being a human act performed with currency, a human creation. I believe this is a weak basis for a universal creative force, but this statement further weakens man itself.”

“Man has created a series of systems for the exchange of goods, and by merit of limiting these methods of exchange in the Grounds of Being is to deny the manifold of possible methods of buying overpriced food.” Friedrichs then ranted about the lack of efficiency inherent in long lines, the inability to maintain structural virtue across all the chairs, and the aesthetic, which Friedrichs just didn’t like. “This is an untenable system to base a reality or a coffee shop upon, and I hope my thesis helps deter people from giving it the substantial credence it currently enjoys.”

We spoke with Friedrichs’ thesis advisor, Dr. Martin F. Martens, about the paper. “Honestly, fuck Grounds of Being,” said Dr. Martens, “it’s, like, the best coffee shop on campus and they don’t take card? Seriously? Who the fuck carries cash, this is 20-god-damn-17. Bullshit.”

As soon as Friedrichs’ thesis was submitted, Grounds of Being conceded his point and immediately ceased to exist. UChicago Dining is experimenting with a new café called “The Ontological Argument,” which should prove much more resistant to serious inquiry.