Are Balls Real? A Quandary

Skyler Knapp, Guest Editorialist

October 24, 2017

Volume I, Issue IV

Descartes once famously proclaimed “I think therefore I am.” But does this logic apply to human gonads, colloquially known as balls? The jury still seems to be out. For the ball-bearers of the world, this may seem like drivel at first. What else could be inside the fleshy membrane that sits elegantly between one’s thighs? This question is commonly explored in two camps; one scientific, one philosophical.

Scientists have deduced that it could just be poop! According to famed physicist Stephen Hawking “There is nothing preventing me from believing that man’s testicles are composed of feces. I mean, come on! It makes a lot of fucking sense. Porn Rocks, I think!?” Although the final exclamation may be a bit misleading, the Cambridge Professor and Nobel Prize winner seems fairly confident in his skepticism of the accepted medical definition. Philosophers also struggle with the question of balls. If one applies Schrodinger’s cat parable to the scrotum, a sticky metaphysical discussion arises. According to the German philosopher’s line of reasoning, balls neither exist nor un-exist until one nuts. As the physical manifestation of balls is nut, balls only become defined once they are in use. Skyler Knapp, NYU Philosophy freshman believes that “balls are powdery sacks of unbridled rock star pleas (pleasure)”, so take that as you will.

While the scrotum skeptics hotly debate the subject, ’02 residents should rest assured that research is being placed into the subject.