karcatgirl-vantas:

the default way for things to taste is good. we know this because “tasty” means something tastes good. conversely, from the words “smelly” and “noisy” we can conclude that the default way for things to smell and sound is bad. interestingly there are no corresponding adjectives for the senses of sight and touch. the inescapable conclusion is that the most ordinary object possible is invisible and intangible, produces a hideous cacophony, smells terrible, but tastes delicious. and yet this description matches no object or phenomenon known to science or human experience. so what the fuck

skluug:

this is what ancient greek philosophy is like

  • @[email protected]English
    73•2 years ago

    This is very much “I am 14 and this is deep” territory.

    Adjectives describe. By using them, we are emphasising a quality of a given thing. That does not make it the “default state” (a problematic concept) of that object, even if it is a desirable quality.

    The “default state” of food is that it is edible, ie. that it can be eaten, as food is defined as that which is edible.

    there are no corresponding adjectives for the senses of sight and touch

    Visible. Tactile.

    Noisy

    Even by OPs logic, “noise” is not one of the senses. Audible is the correct word here.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

    • Vincent AdultmanEnglish
      5•2 years ago

      In your philosophical knowledge, is there a need for a iam14andthisisdeep community? I pretty much think that the sum of a determined number of children make up of a real adult.

    • @[email protected]English
      3•2 years ago

      Yeah I’m not sure how they concluded “there’s a word for this therefore it describes a default object”

      Man that car was speedy! Therefore the default speed is fast.

    • @[email protected]English
      27•2 years ago

      The punchline is the comment about how the OP is like Green philosophy.

      You’re picking apart the setup, not the punchline, and therefore being “that guy” who ruins the joke.

      Stop it.

      • @[email protected]English
        10•2 years ago

        … All the comments. They’re all missing the point that some Greek philosophy and classical rhetoric is indeed like this. This is where I’m pretty arm’s length with some schools of thought; it sometimes all seems constructed on some dubious first principles, or leaps of logic.

        • PiecemakersEnglish
          1•2 years ago

          It’s right there in the first sentence. Even toddlers learn pretty damn fast that the “default” of all things is the furthest thing from “tasty”.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•2 years ago

          The podcast “unexplainable” did an episode like this. It’s called, “Does Garlic Break Magnets?” It’s kinda fun, honestly.

      • @[email protected]English
        6•2 years ago

        Why can the replier in the screenshot poke fun at the nonsensical nature of the first post but not us in the comments?

        How does that ruin the joke for you?

      • @[email protected]English
        3•2 years ago

        It’s not a joke, it is indeed true that a lot of early Greek philosopy featured that style of logic, which you would know if you’d ever read a book. Eg. Diogenes

    • wiaEnglish
      5•2 years ago

      Exactly, and on top of that this only works in English and only in dialects where these words are used that way.

    • @[email protected]English
      21•2 years ago

      If you think the original poster was even remotely serious you need to take a break and expose yourself to… Idk, Conversation? More comedy? Media literacy lessons?

      If this was your attempt at comedy, drop the first sentence and be more belligerent in your indignation.