Plato: For the greater good.
Aristotle: To fulfill its nature on the other side.
Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.
Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a
chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road,
but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend
with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely
chicken’s dominion maintained.Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its
pancreas.Jacques Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered
within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each
interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be
discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!
More here.
Larval Subjects . 
October 28, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Gilles Deleuze: To provide a line of flight that deterritorializes the whole concept of “roads.”
October 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm
What’s the OOO answer?
I remember you had a decent one to how many OOOs it takes to change a lightbulb.
October 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm
The CAS answer: To flee the murderous system of oppression and exploitation. If she wasn’t a chicken, we would call her a hero.
October 28, 2010 at 3:59 pm
OOO: The chicken couldn’t cross the road because it was constitutively withdrawn from all relations.
That would be the snarky characterization, anyway.
October 28, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Another OOO answer: because the other side of the road was alluring…
October 28, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Ha. I remember reading that in the early 90s, when the Saddam Hussein and John Sununu references were relatively timely.
October 29, 2010 at 2:59 am
Sartre:
Because he was grounded in facticity, escaping his transcendence he choose to cross the road in Bad Faith.
Yes?
October 29, 2010 at 3:56 am
http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2010/10/deleuze-sale-at-target-is-now-on.html
The Deleuze Sale at Target is now on! Bring the kids!
October 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Hemingway is missing a word. It was always “To die. In the rain. Alone.” Actually one of the better ones.
OOO: “The chicken and the road are withdrawn from all mutual contact, and can only make contact through some third term. Or rather, the real chicken merely encounters a sensual caricature of the road in its subterranean road-being, while the real road encounters an impoverished model of the chicken– perhaps a sheer sequence of pressures and rhythms.”
(Still doesn’t answer the question of *why*, of course, but there is no developed OOO ethics yet.)
October 30, 2010 at 3:58 am
The weekend is here and we’ve got Deleuzian kids’ toys on sale!
http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2010/10/deleuzian-fun-for-ages-8.html
October 31, 2010 at 3:40 am
to apply for this job:
http://www.academia.edu/Jobs/2043/University-of-California-Berkeley/Philosophy/Assistant-Associate-or-Full-Professor-of-Philosophy
For Maturana (and Heidegger?), the chicken does not live in a world of objects and is not crossing any thing
November 1, 2010 at 5:29 am
so what’s the ‘real road’? Obviously, apart from any living being….?