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

  • dmention7@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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”.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is no joke bud. It’s just someone being dumb, and your defensive attitude suggests you didn’t understand that when you posted.

    • z00s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      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.