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
      201·
      11 months 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
      91·
      11 months 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·
        11 months 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
      3·
      11 months ago

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

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.mlEnglish
    33·
    11 months 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·
      11 months 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·
      11 months ago

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

    • meowMix2525@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      11 months 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
    301·
    11 months 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
    11·
    11 months 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·
      11 months ago

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

      A firework.

  • porkins@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    51·
    11 months 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.

  • blackbelt352@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    3·
    11 months ago

    It does match one phenomenon. Survival. Noise is important for listening for predators, smell let’s you know if potential food is rotted and our sense of taste helps us distinguish between calorie dense food (sweet), salts and micronutrients (salty), acidic foods (sour), poisons (bitter) and protein (umami).