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.
But, something can look so aweful you cannot avert your eyes of it. Like a stereotypical car accident.
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
You also say they’re “hot,” which suggests that your eyes have the capability to gauge temperature.
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.
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.
You’re definitely describing a fart.
tastes delicious
Uhhhhh…
I’m no good at remembering itemized lists ^^’
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.
Screaming invisible cheese?
A gas being forced through a pipe that’s smelly yet sweet-tasting?
Evaporated durian juice
He’s totally describing chickens. Aside from the invisible part.
Why do we park on a driveway and drive on parkway?!
Shipments go by land and cargo goes on ships…
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.
Bro forgot disgusting
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).
Survival
Why did I read that in Agent Smith’s voice?
Ugly?
Pretty
Pretty ugly.
Unsightly, some might say
At least in British English calling someone “a looker” has positive implications. Dunno if that applies to Americans.
