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
You must log in or # to comment.
sightly is a thing… Something that looks good.
And touchy is a thing, it touches back, so it’s something that looks good, can touch you back, smells bad, is loud, but tastes yummy…
Or it gets really defensive when you ask if personal questions
Sounds just like my ex
How would you know what your ex tasted like?
To be honest, everyone knows what their ex tastes like.
We also say someone is a “looker” when they’re hot. And that things are “touchy.” though the latter is often used figuratively, it can be and definitely is used literally.
Also cows smell terrible, make a ton of awful noise, but taste delicious.
This post is just shitty, misinformed pontification. It’s definitely not anything close to philosophy.
I mean, the description of shitty misinformed pontification describes a pretty good chunk of Greek and roman philosophy. Have you read a lot of Aristotle?
the description of shitty misinformed pontification describes a pretty good chunk of
Greek and romanphilosophyFTFY
deleted by creator
But, something can look so aweful you cannot avert your eyes of it. Like a stereotypical car accident.
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.
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.
Sure bud.
#iam14anduhhiwasactuallyjoking
Lmao it is very obviously facetious
You probably shouldn’t use words that you don’t understand
But go ahead, give us a close reading and explain where the humour lies.
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.
… 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.
The podcast “unexplainable” did an episode like this. It’s called, “Does Garlic Break Magnets?” It’s kinda fun, honestly.
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”.
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?
BECAUSE THE FIRST POST IS THE SETUP AND THE SECOND POST IS THE PUNCHLINE. THEY ARE BOTH PART OF THE JOKE. WE ARE NOT.
GOSH.
What is your problem?
Today or in general?
I’m sorry things get ruined for you so easily
There is no joke bud. It’s just someone being dumb, and your defensive attitude suggests you didn’t understand that when you posted.
The Internet is serious business!
Bud!
Oh no I’m not as smart as I thought I was, quick better do some S A R C A S M !!!"l
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 paid attention in school or actually read a book.
Eg. Diogenes refuting Plato’s definition of a man.
Random internet commenter status: owned!
Wow !!!
You really suck ar covering up your pre-pubescent insecurities!
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.
Exactly, and on top of that this only works in English and only in dialects where these words are used that way.
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.
That really is more or less how Greek philosophy worked.
The joke reply is great but the initial post not so much
The initial post was also a joke. The greatness will be relative.
What’s supposed to be funny about it? Plain stupidity isn’t humour.
I think of you and immediately get bored
I don’t think about you at all.
You still obviously have no idea what this post is about.
deleted by creator
The default touch verb is bad, because nobody has ever used the word “touchy” to mean something good.
And “sightly” isn’t as common as “unsightly”, so the default sight verb is bad.
Smells bad, something you do not want to hear, do not want to touch and do not want to see. But tastes good. Don’t anyone say it’s shit or ill slap you.
Vomit?
So gross
thats referencing either the phrase “touch a nerve” or the person in question touches things/people too much, it doesn’t factor into this discussion where it’s describing properties of an object rather than personality traits
deleted by creator
When you say someone is a real looker, it means they’re attractive, so I’d say the default state for sight is appealing.
Very sightly
Good point. Also, there’s touchy feely so the most ordinary thing seems to be a loud, stinking and attractive creep with strawberry lipstick or something. 🤔
You also say they’re “hot,” which suggests that your eyes have the capability to gauge temperature.
Which they do, by the means of black body radiation.
I’d say it’s those attributes that most compel us to notice that sense than the default for that sense. If something is smelly or noisy, you are often unable to avoid or ignore it, it takes over your senses. If something is tasty you are compelled to take more of it to placate your senses. A “looker” is something you can’t take your eyes off of. Whereas “touchy” is somebody that reactive, they are forced to notice and react to you.
Therefore the most sensually compelling object is something that smells strongly, is loud, tastes good, looks good, and reacts when you touch it.
Conversely, I believe “ordinary” is something you are not compelled to notice. So it would be the exact opposite. Smells nice, is quiet, tastes bad, looks neutral, and does not react to touch.
Therefore the most sensually compelling object is something that smells strongly, is loud, tastes good, looks good, and reacts when you touch it.
So a person?
A well groomed, attractive person, with good hygiene.
My thesis brings all the boys to the forum.
And they’re like, “This makes us a quorum.”
Damn right, this makes us a quorum.
I could teach them but I might just bore 'em.
Basing life philosophy on English grammar…lol
It also works in German
But there are words for those two thing, even if they’re not used commonly.
Sightly is something that is pleasant to the eye. Sure, it’s inverse “unsightly” is more commonly used today, but it is still a word.
While not mainly used to refer to the sense anymore, Touchy can refer to a body part that is acutely sensitive or irritable.
A loud, irritable, bad-smelling thing, that is nonetheless beautiful and delicious.
A firework.
Farts must be delicious 🤤
OP out here acting like no one’s ever tongue-punched a fart-box.
You’re definitely describing a fart.
tastes delicious
Uhhhhh…
I’m no good at remembering itemized lists ^^’
In portuguese, this doesn’t apply: “smelly” (smell + y) would be “cheiroso” (cheiro + -so) which follows the same logic - except it means something that smells good.
In Finnish we have separate words for good and bad smells
Haju / haista = a (bad) smell / to smell (bad)
Tuoksu / tuoksua = a (good) smell / to smell (good)I was going to say this. It makes more sense in Portuguese because I can hardly imagine something smelly also being tasty.
Durian
I think it also tastes bad. Can’t think of having mixed some sweet fruit with pungent onions.
He’s totally describing chickens. Aside from the invisible part.
Screaming invisible cheese?
A gas being forced through a pipe that’s smelly yet sweet-tasting?
Evaporated durian juice
The person is not wrong about Greek Philosophy. Have been reading some of Plato’s works and he does have a bit of an absolutist way of presenting things that sometimes fails to address the nuance. The things that he is right about though transcend time and are eerily relevant to our current circumstances, so his thoughts on him an nature tend towards accurate. On this example, Plato would probably script Socrates explaining to Glaucon, and indeed does, that vision is tied to brightness and darkness and that somewhere in the middle is where you’d want to be because brightness is brought by the sun, which is hot, but you can be tool dark and cold in a cave. He’s then be ADHD and explain that the cave is a metaphor for our knowledge and since light lets us read, we lack much knowledge when being in the dark. Glaucon would then quip that people can still talk in a dark cave and that their voice might even be echoed and Socrates would probably say that without the warmth from light, the soul won’t listen to the loudest voice. It goes something like that.
Why do we park on a driveway and drive on parkway?!
Shipments go by land and cargo goes on ships…
Bro forgot disgusting
