Y u even gotta ask, look at usef walkin round like some billboard avertisin. guys be lienen up puttin there thing on, gettin ready to go up inya. Dat wha u wan?

When Andy was popular, he often got invited to colleges to speak, not his cup of tea. He devised to send a double, which he did. When the story got out and schools demanded their money back, Andy said that the double knew more about what they wanted to hear than he did (The customer is always right). When he did get back and they asked him if he was Andy Warhol, he said, "No."

No way, dudes. Andy Warhol was an artist! Dude, he was so cool. I can promise you, he was like a god.

My vote is with the parallel government.

I rather like this first answer and so won't quibble with it.

The image is strongest when you try to be open with laughter and at the same time put your tongue in your cheek. Thus, it is an attempt not to be open and openly laugh at the expense of another. It's an attempt to suppress that naturalalistic "Oh! Helen has such a challenge with speech sometimes." And so one says the opposite; while not laughing.

Usually not.

However, this brings up an appropriate and parallel question. They say, within the world of trial lawyers, never to ask a question you don't already know the answer to! The courtroom, as we all know from watching courtroom dramas on TV, is an adversarial contest and a grand bit of theatre, with strict rules to play by.

So, my dear counselor, I ask what is the context of your question? If it is try to put yourself in the shoes of "Another", to have empathy, then I say fine. No further cross examination. But if it is to subtly assume the coat of the philosopher, nay the prophet, I say excellent. Not just good advice in the form of a question, a humbling. Who has not failed, and often, to think of the other before blurting?

Heluva question! The old-timey (think of the Greeks; the word comes from them) notion is that of discovering the laws of physics. those formulas and such involving mass and velocity and acceleration and time. Part of the difficulty here is that it is the beginning of science, this particular way of acquiring knowledge. Perhaps you remember a bit of it from school. First a hypothesis, then testing, then evidence, then verification.

Anyway, getting back to physics. It's the physical world. I know that's not terribly helpful, but hold on. Metaphysics is about the physical world. It's not very verifiable, and so it's part of philosophy. When the Greeks, and others, told a story about the causes and effects in this world and posited why this was, they told a myth. In our present understanding, myth means "not true." Whenever you try to answer the questions: where did I come from?; who am I?; where am I going?; you are at the limits of science and thus speaking mythically.

Within physics are theoretical and applied physicists. As example, Einstein discovered Relativity, but it took years for other physicists to test and eventually accept it as fact. Soon thereafter, applied physicists built the bombs we dropped on Japan. I use that example to emphasize the truth with a small "t" of physics and science. Their facts are not to be challenged, until they are! And then they say, "Well, yes, it seems we had that bit wrong." And so it goes.

Is "what you see is what you get"? With Warhol, all was surface. Marilyn Monroe is beautiful. That's all you need to know. This font is NY Times, or whatever. Think of make-up, cosmetics, as the cosmos; it's everything you see. People complain about speech or writing being flowery, as if not pertaining to some essence. Warhol was not an intellectual. He simply saw the attraction of the superficial: hair, sunglasses, tatoos, Campbell soup cans, Marilyn Monroe.