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
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?
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. 🤔
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.
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.
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).