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

    • schmidtster@lemmy.worldEnglish
      231·
      1 year ago

      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…

    • some_guy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AMuscelid@lemm.eeEnglish
        71·
        1 year ago

        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?

    • RBG@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      41·
      1 year ago

      But, something can look so aweful you cannot avert your eyes of it. Like a stereotypical car accident.

  • z00s@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7114·
    1 year 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

    • dmention7@lemm.eeEnglish
      2612·
      1 year 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.

      • Taniwha420@lemmy.worldEnglish
        91·
        1 year 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.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

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

        • Piecemakers@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year 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”.

      • glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        1 year 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?

        • dmention7@lemm.eeEnglish
          53·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • z00s@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        1 year 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 paid attention in school or actually read a book.

        Eg. Diogenes refuting Plato’s definition of a man.

    • Donkter@lemmy.worldEnglish
      217·
      1 year 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.

    • Vincent Adultman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year 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.

    • wia@lemmy.caEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

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

    • glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      1 year 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.

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.mlEnglish
    31·
    1 year ago

    When you say someone is a real looker, it means they’re attractive, so I’d say the default state for sight is appealing.

    • sic_1@feddit.deEnglish
      9·
      1 year ago

      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. 🤔

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      You also say they’re “hot,” which suggests that your eyes have the capability to gauge temperature.

    • meowMix2525@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • aeronmelon@lemm.eeEnglish
    291·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    18·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Nepenthe@kbin.social
      4·
      1 year ago

      A loud, irritable, bad-smelling thing, that is nonetheless beautiful and delicious.

      A firework.

    • kamiheku@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      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)

    • deus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I was going to say this. It makes more sense in Portuguese because I can hardly imagine something smelly also being tasty.

  • porkins@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    71·
    1 year ago

    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.