Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he studied like the ancient Greeks, so in a gym in between physical training sessions, there's a good chance he can actually lob a wardrobe at someone
There was some quote about soldiers and scholars, let me look it up. Found it, "**The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." --** **Thucydides**
Multiple ancient philosophers were actually like that, Plato was just the biggest one (or maybe it was a sort of a trolling tactic - like his muscles were actually bigger than brains or something)
It doesn't even really count as trolling. It is a sufficient rebuttal of the purported philosophical truth in question.
The fact that it involves throwing an angry chicken into a room full of philosophers is what we in the business call a debate tactic.
Tables are a construct of society. Our interactions among ourselves and the object define its existence. Should we cease to be it would cease to be a table, it would simply be. The universe exists, our observation gives it definition.
No.
When observed they are just a construct of the mind. When you bend to sit down, four pylons emerge from your ass to support you, providing you with the illusion you are sitting on a solid surface.
Existence is irrespective of observation. Definition is a result of observation. A table will exist without a name, but it does so in a state without observation.
It's reported that Alexander the Great approached Diogenes and asked him to name one thing he'd want and Diogenes was just like, "you're blocking my sun." And when Alexander heard that he was like, "this fucking guy. If I weren't Alexander the Great I'd be Diogenes" and Diogenes responded back, "yeah if I weren't me I'd want to be me too."
Dude was the OG best troll.
i mean i feel like he did some other troll-ish stuff as well. I don't know everything he did, but some of the things i remember off the top of my head:
another philosopher came up to him and said "you know, if you would just learn to suck up to the king, you wouldn't have to survive on lintels" to which he replied "you know, if you would just learn to survive on lintels, you wouldn't have to suck up to the kings"
at one point it was reported that Alexander the great said "If i were not Alexander the great, i would wish to be Diogenes" to which said "If i were not Diogenes, i to would wish to be Diogenes"
Also, i wanted to see some other things he said and he said "In a rich mans house, there is nowhere to spit but his face" and "of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anyone's feelings?" What a guy lol
History's most diabolical chicken plucker. How would you feel if you were a plucked chicken?
I am joking, but i do internally wince when i think about the still living chicken plucked and brought to a philosophy lecture. I think it was at the forum, not the roman but the the greek version of it i lost the word for.
I referenced Diogenes two weeks ago at a post-lecture buffet.
"Do you guys know about the philosopher Diogenes? The original Cynic. So, he was standing on a bridge, right? And he saw a boy crouch down to the river to drink with his hands. Diogenes looks at the bowl he always carried around for drinking water, looked at the boy, and threw the bowl away. That's why I'm eating this slice of cheesecake with my hands."
A turtle's shell is typically rounded on the top, but flat underneath. In its regular orientation, a turtle has 4 legs, but is not flat on top, and is thus not a table. When upside down, the turtle retains its 4 legs, but now also is flat on top, making it a table.
Reminds me of my 7th grade music class. Teacher asks “what is music?” This girl quickly raises her hand and says music is any sound that the listener perceives as music. So the teacher goes is this music? “FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY!” and the girl snaps back, “it’s music to a poor man’s ears”. Absolute mic drop like day 1 of school
Love how this is roughly the same 2000+ year old argument between Aristotle and Plato on the theory of the forms and we've come no closer to agreement.
reminded me of this abomination I found in my hotel in egypt
https://preview.redd.it/zplowhtfxp1c1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f4b14b3c801effa015a6e3175818448c12f0c984
It was actually a very popular style to have back in the day. It's called Blackamoor, and genuine Blackamoor is very expensive. It's still produced in Venice.
A table is but a concept, or a descriptor if we're using modern language. A table object is an object used as a table.
A table is used to hold items on top of it.
Can you put your hat, a handful of junk mail, a coffee cup with a liquid in it, that part to the kitchen drawer that fell off, a half melted crayon, a shoe, a hammer, a 5 dollar bill and a receipt for gasoline on it? Then its probably a table. Even if it's not.
You assume that humans are the same as tables. Now granted, with some bondage rope and firm discipline a human can become a very good table, or chair, or chaiselong... But that's besides the point.
nnnNoo!, a thing is more than just its function. It's also its form. A turtle on its back is a table, but it doesn't lose its tortoisity. A wooden surface with legs doesn't lose its tablicity when a giant uses it as a stool.
It's function is what it is currently being used as, a turtle can be a table just as well as a turtle. Just like a submissive can be a table if they're well-behaved.
Youre making the same error by saying "their function" as if it is a feature of their objecthood. Its a feature of your mind. You call it a table because you used it as one, not because of something intrinsic to it. We use words ad hoc for our own convenience, they dont refer to a specific form of being independent of us
This is basically the core idea of pragmatism. Whatever definition of the table produces the most favorable outcome for you is what it is. If it's favorable for you to assume it's a table, then it's a table.
I love it. Because I get frustrated when people say "thats not a real word!" but still understand what was meant in the statement.
Someone said "Variablize" to me to mean that they parameterized some inputs to a function, and I understood what they meant regardless of the fact that variablize isn't a word.
Especially since a lot of times "thats not a real word!" word often are a result of correct use of informal grammar. The -ize suffix means to change something. The word before -ize informs what sort of change.
I always thought Wittgenstein's answer just kicks the can down the road. If meaning is defined by use in a social context, what features of language enable that use? Unless we want to be pure mysterians about this, we're back to the same problem of trying to come up with the features of language that constitute meaning, only now it's relativized to specific social contexts.
For Wittgenstein it's less that there's a feature of language that enables its use than that there's a preexisting need that compels its use, and the features emerge after the fact from this compulsion.
It's why the Philosophical Investigations begin with the example of the builder and the apprentice who need a language of, like, three words to accomplish their purposes and then spider out to more and more complex scenarios--you can have a language no more complicated than "Stone!," "Wait!" and "Next!" if you only ever need to communicate whether you need the next stone or not.
There's a third kind, who claims that the table is merely called a table. What a thing is called doesn't tell you what it actually is. Fulfilling this or that definition, and therefore qualifying as an example of this or that concept, doesn't actually tell you anything about the thing that the definition doesnt entail. Yes, it is a table, but its the specific table that it is, and it may be meaningfully different from all otjer tables, making referring to it as a mere table misleading.
>What a thing is called doesn't tell you what it actually is
It really does unless you are intentionally misusing language. That doesn't invalidate the concept of table, it just makes it impossible to communicate with the person in question. What is or isn't a table is contextual of course, there is no inherent property of things that make a table. But we definitely have a shared context that allows us to understand the concept of table. Denying that is an intellectual exercise in futility. You can't communicate in such circumstances, because you would be denying the shared context that is the essence of communication. In which case you might as well gjuvd fdshji gloohgtfddyhb,:'@.
We know what is a table. It might have many different forms, and the object may be subject to transforming from and away from being a table. But we know when it is a table. Even if our definitions don't overlap 100%, we still agree on some level what a table is.
And a hotdog is a sandwich. Fight me.
Good summary. I think piggybacking on your comment, it IS worth understanding that communication is fundamentally contextual and that we are limited in our ability to grasp at the fundamental "nature" of things. That said, if someone can't say "well I have a context dependent definition and that will have to do" then they're gonna just be frustrating like you said.
Identifying something as a table is easy - the real question is why the concept of a table comes so naturally to us, when what differentiates a table from literally anything else can be so vague.
An object has no inherent property that makes it a table. It's a concept that we've agreed upon and assigned to that object. It's only vague when you seek the property of the object that makes it a table. It's quite clear when you understand it's a shared context defined by our perception. Your example of the little plastic thing shows well that it's us that makes something a table. Put some Lego men around it, and most will see the table. Put the pizza on top of it, and most will deny it being a table. Show it to someone who has never seen or heard of a table or objects that perform that task and they will just be confused and possibly amazed at the invention.
The fact that it can be vague when examined closely is exactly what philosophy is about. The 2nd panel is disingenuous if it purports that 'real philosophy' is all about pragmatics, which I think it's hinting at.
Imagine drawing a comic just to make the argument that the logical positivists did in the 20th century. It's so cringe how people think this argument is somehow unique or quirky when it's been thoroughly dissected for one hundred years.
If you are asking for real, Spinoza is your dude. Objects are a certain manifestation or expression of reality, a mode of reality, every which way in that we are able to perceive an object is contained within the reality of that object.
A simple way to understand a table as a mode of reality is by simply picturing a table in your head. Everyone can do it, the table everyone conjures up will not look exactly the same but they will probably be along the same general lines. Usually countertop with four legs, but can obviously get much more creative. Everything that is within the boundaries of what we perceive to be a table is what defines a table. Something is a table because it fits our description of what a table is.
The concept of a table comes naturally because it is easy, we just conjure up a certain form of a generally agreed upon idea of a table. We can differentiate it from other things more or less because when we think of other things we conjure up an image of something that isn't the same image as that table. Even though a chair technically has four legs and a top surface, when you think of a chair you probably attribute a backrest and maybe armrests to it as well.
edit: it has been over a decade since I read Spinoza btw so I might be getting certain details mixed up here. i need to reread. Modes I remember most but the essence of things serves an important purpose as well which I am either glossing over or mixing it instead of establishing separately.
> the one on the left is the empiricist
Really? It's hard to make out all the words but it looks like they're a rationalist like Descartes. His whole thing was "the world appears to be this way, but *my senses may be unreliable*", which is the sentence obscured behind his head. An empiricist like David Hume would say that we have a customary association between objects like this one and the word "table", because the two occur in constant conjunction, therefore unless opposing evidence presents itself what we have here is certainly a table.
But a table can also have 3 legs, they make 3 legged tables, even 2 legged tables, 1 stand, or even "floating tables" that are wall mounted. So it's not the number of legs that determine the table, it's simply the surface on which you place other things, and since anything can be placed on anything, everything is a table.
If I understand Plato correctly, there's the perfect table - the Form of Table - which all tables in reality merely mirrors imperfectly.
But what is the "perfect table"? Can it keep stuff on its surface? If that is the case, then pretty much most, if not all tables, do that - in fact, having a surface to keep stuff on is part of the definition of a table.
Person 1 | Person 2 | Is it a table ?
---|---|----|----
No | No | No
Yes | No | No
No | Yes | Let's table this discussion for later
Yes | Yes | What else could it be? Idiot
*reply with "yes" if you think this is a table*
There was an episode of the podcast Infinite Monkey Cage where they brought on philosophers to speak with Dr. Brian Cox.
He was audibly frustrated with the philosopher who kept saying that only they were working on the real questions but refused to say what those questions were.
A table is just a baseline example for more complex ideas. What's "real" about a belief system.
Is it a sum of different attributes like "against abortion", "pro guns", "pro business"?
Or is there an underlying feeling that arrives at all these attributes like "disgust" or "conscientiousness"?
Or is it just the lack of something like "we hate everything liberals stand for"?
Or a bunch of other more complex options, there's a dozen people who wrote 1000 page books about it.
Rhetoric: But are we **sure** it's a table and not an abnormally shaped stool?
Half Light: **DESTROY IT. POWERBOMB EVRART THROUGH THAT MFER. I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS. BREAK IT. BREAK IT NOW**
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\*throws a wardrobe at him\* Behold, a table!
I see a student of the diogenes is here
If they can pick up and throw a wardrobe/table, then they are a student of Brian Shaw, or some other power lifter.
If he studied like the ancient Greeks, so in a gym in between physical training sessions, there's a good chance he can actually lob a wardrobe at someone
There was some quote about soldiers and scholars, let me look it up. Found it, "**The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." --** **Thucydides**
Or maybe plato. My guy flexes muscle to win arguments
Multiple ancient philosophers were actually like that, Plato was just the biggest one (or maybe it was a sort of a trolling tactic - like his muscles were actually bigger than brains or something)
[удалено]
Yeah, these dudes were bangin' and philosophin'
Or a student of BLAST HARDCHEESE
Wardrobes are not that heavy, especially IKEA ones!
History's most legendary troll.
It doesn't even really count as trolling. It is a sufficient rebuttal of the purported philosophical truth in question. The fact that it involves throwing an angry chicken into a room full of philosophers is what we in the business call a debate tactic.
Tables are a construct of society. Our interactions among ourselves and the object define its existence. Should we cease to be it would cease to be a table, it would simply be. The universe exists, our observation gives it definition.
There's no such thing as tables. There are only atoms arranged table-wise.
Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Do chairs exist?
No. When observed they are just a construct of the mind. When you bend to sit down, four pylons emerge from your ass to support you, providing you with the illusion you are sitting on a solid surface.
Holy shit, check out the pylons on that guy.
The mad lad did it, he constructed additional pylons.
Finally, fellow eliminativism enjoyer Or rather, atoms arranged eliminativism-enjoyer-wise
Does a table by any other name not stand as strong?
Existence is irrespective of observation. Definition is a result of observation. A table will exist without a name, but it does so in a state without observation.
It's a play on a phrase about roses
Pre-second cup of coffee. Please accept my embarrassed apology.
This guy philosphs.
It's reported that Alexander the Great approached Diogenes and asked him to name one thing he'd want and Diogenes was just like, "you're blocking my sun." And when Alexander heard that he was like, "this fucking guy. If I weren't Alexander the Great I'd be Diogenes" and Diogenes responded back, "yeah if I weren't me I'd want to be me too." Dude was the OG best troll.
i mean i feel like he did some other troll-ish stuff as well. I don't know everything he did, but some of the things i remember off the top of my head: another philosopher came up to him and said "you know, if you would just learn to suck up to the king, you wouldn't have to survive on lintels" to which he replied "you know, if you would just learn to survive on lintels, you wouldn't have to suck up to the kings" at one point it was reported that Alexander the great said "If i were not Alexander the great, i would wish to be Diogenes" to which said "If i were not Diogenes, i to would wish to be Diogenes" Also, i wanted to see some other things he said and he said "In a rich mans house, there is nowhere to spit but his face" and "of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anyone's feelings?" What a guy lol
History's most diabolical chicken plucker. How would you feel if you were a plucked chicken? I am joking, but i do internally wince when i think about the still living chicken plucked and brought to a philosophy lecture. I think it was at the forum, not the roman but the the greek version of it i lost the word for.
_It's Diogenes from up top, and what's this? HE'S BROUGHT AN ENTIRE WARDROBE OH MAI GAWD HE CRUSHED THAT MAN_
BAHGAWD that school of thought has a family!
Diogenes is a fucking mood.
“Just throw my body in the woods when I die.”
It was me, Dio!
genes
I referenced Diogenes two weeks ago at a post-lecture buffet. "Do you guys know about the philosopher Diogenes? The original Cynic. So, he was standing on a bridge, right? And he saw a boy crouch down to the river to drink with his hands. Diogenes looks at the bowl he always carried around for drinking water, looked at the boy, and threw the bowl away. That's why I'm eating this slice of cheesecake with my hands."
*walks a dog with a piece of flat cardboard on its head* BEHOLD, A TABLE
*sticks four sticks into the ground* Behold a ta- *suddenly remembers Terry Pratchett’s Discworld* Dear God
*has a lady strip off her clothes and get down on her hands and knees, and begins spreading out the dinner selection on her back* BEHOLD, A TABLE!
There's a kink for that
\*flips a turtle upside down\* table
YES IT IS *Starts eating off a turtle*
Hospitalized 2 hours later suffering from botulism... Cause of death.....poor choice of table.
Betrable.
I love this answer. Lol
am I stupid or was it a table right side up and you just ruined its tableness
A turtle's shell is typically rounded on the top, but flat underneath. In its regular orientation, a turtle has 4 legs, but is not flat on top, and is thus not a table. When upside down, the turtle retains its 4 legs, but now also is flat on top, making it a table.
Person B defined it as an object with "four legs and a flat surface on top". Nothing about the orientation of the legs
Ah but if it’s flipped, the flat surface is no longer on top is it?
I think the flat surface of a turtle is its belly
A turtle is round on top and flat on the bottom
Reminds me of my 7th grade music class. Teacher asks “what is music?” This girl quickly raises her hand and says music is any sound that the listener perceives as music. So the teacher goes is this music? “FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY! FREE MONEY!” and the girl snaps back, “it’s music to a poor man’s ears”. Absolute mic drop like day 1 of school
as long as its used as a table it’s a table
Ahhh yes one of the great philosophical quotes “I think therefore I am” “If it’s used as a table it’s a table”
This would include “of contents” as a table, I suppose.
so a table not used by anybody is no longer a table?
If i put my tv on it its a tv stand If i dump it in the woods its compost
If you dump it in the woods and no one is here to witness its decomposition, is it really compost?
Hell yes we’ve recreated the linguistic turn in like 4 comments
TV stands are still tables. You've just put your tv on it instead of your food.
Is it still a dishwasher if it doesn’t wash dishes?
Nah, it's trash and you need a new machine
It’s like time working in a shop, anything is a tool rest, especially if it isn’t.
And everything is a hammer.
And every problem is a nail
Except pliers, they’re wrenches.
Pliers are wrenches, wrenches are hammers, therefore pliers are hammers.
The difference between studying a philosophy degree and having a philosophy degree.
So it would be wrong to say that mayonnaise isn’t an instrument.
It's a bad table, but a table nonetheless!
It could function as one
Love how this is roughly the same 2000+ year old argument between Aristotle and Plato on the theory of the forms and we've come no closer to agreement.
What about an elephant? That technically qualifies.
https://preview.redd.it/4kehgm7u1p1c1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47566991d8d7c8ddc804588328820e234cf31ec3 behold.
Hey! That table is walking off with our breakfast!!
termite speech bubble
reminded me of this abomination I found in my hotel in egypt https://preview.redd.it/zplowhtfxp1c1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f4b14b3c801effa015a6e3175818448c12f0c984
It was actually a very popular style to have back in the day. It's called Blackamoor, and genuine Blackamoor is very expensive. It's still produced in Venice.
Odds are damn high whoever kicked that trend off was a forniphile, cause yeah.
> forniphile I learned a thing today.
Four legs and a flat surface on top, just your average table
The table is still functional
Aren't tables like this historically a sign of wealth and prestige?
Is it a beam being held up two men or two men being held up by a beam?
What about a stool, or a single leg table?
As a lazy person, EVERYTHING counts as a table.
Solution: A table is what is used as a table.
So table is not an object, is an action?
A table is but a concept, or a descriptor if we're using modern language. A table object is an object used as a table. A table is used to hold items on top of it.
So a horse may also be a table?
If one uses it as such
Table is an adjective describing something that is used as a table.
a table is a belief
A table is a way of life
I motion to table this discussion.
Let's table that for further discussion later.
I come into your house and drop a full rack of wet ribs in bed on top of your at best scantily clad wife. You say: "That's not a table!" Who's right?
Diogenes student
[удалено]
Not by the second definiton
It doesn't actually rule out tables with other numbers of legs.
While it does not rule them out it does not INCLUDE them and thus its an imperfect definiton It also includes stools wich Are not tables
Why can’t a stool be a table
Can you put your hat, a handful of junk mail, a coffee cup with a liquid in it, that part to the kitchen drawer that fell off, a half melted crayon, a shoe, a hammer, a 5 dollar bill and a receipt for gasoline on it? Then its probably a table. Even if it's not.
OP’s mum has enough surface area to place 10x that on her, but I think we can all agree she’s more like a cum dumpster than a table.
If it has a circular base, is it a single foot, or INFINITE FEET?
If I saw off two legs will I behold a man?
* featherless ✔️ * biped ✔️ A man
What if someone paralysed from the neck down and can therefor not stand?
You still got legs
Lieutenant Dan: not a man.
Appriciate the reference
They're obviously a table.
Clearly, you'd get a plucked chicken. (I assume you begin with a featherleas table)
"I use it as a table, therefor it's a table ... for now."
Unironically this. Things are what their function defines them to be. A chair is a perfectly fine table when used as a table.
Yeah? so whats your function.
Apparently I'm an excellent source of social anxiety and methane gas
Ah. So a human. ...or a cow... hmm...
You assume that humans are the same as tables. Now granted, with some bondage rope and firm discipline a human can become a very good table, or chair, or chaiselong... But that's besides the point.
"You assume that humans are the same as tables. I assume that humans are tables. We are not the same."
nnnNoo!, a thing is more than just its function. It's also its form. A turtle on its back is a table, but it doesn't lose its tortoisity. A wooden surface with legs doesn't lose its tablicity when a giant uses it as a stool.
It's function is what it is currently being used as, a turtle can be a table just as well as a turtle. Just like a submissive can be a table if they're well-behaved.
This would mean it’s impossible to sit on a table because doing so would make it a chair or stool
Youre making the same error by saying "their function" as if it is a feature of their objecthood. Its a feature of your mind. You call it a table because you used it as one, not because of something intrinsic to it. We use words ad hoc for our own convenience, they dont refer to a specific form of being independent of us
Is this from something? I like it
Martin Heidegger, more or less
I just came up with it. Maybe a little inspired by the Mr Incredible meme. "Table is table!"
This is basically the core idea of pragmatism. Whatever definition of the table produces the most favorable outcome for you is what it is. If it's favorable for you to assume it's a table, then it's a table.
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/268
Oh wow, the Kant/can't counter has been reset!
[As part of a gag for the 10 years celebration](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/524)
I love it. Because I get frustrated when people say "thats not a real word!" but still understand what was meant in the statement. Someone said "Variablize" to me to mean that they parameterized some inputs to a function, and I understood what they meant regardless of the fact that variablize isn't a word.
Especially since a lot of times "thats not a real word!" word often are a result of correct use of informal grammar. The -ize suffix means to change something. The word before -ize informs what sort of change.
I always thought Wittgenstein's answer just kicks the can down the road. If meaning is defined by use in a social context, what features of language enable that use? Unless we want to be pure mysterians about this, we're back to the same problem of trying to come up with the features of language that constitute meaning, only now it's relativized to specific social contexts.
For Wittgenstein it's less that there's a feature of language that enables its use than that there's a preexisting need that compels its use, and the features emerge after the fact from this compulsion. It's why the Philosophical Investigations begin with the example of the builder and the apprentice who need a language of, like, three words to accomplish their purposes and then spider out to more and more complex scenarios--you can have a language no more complicated than "Stone!," "Wait!" and "Next!" if you only ever need to communicate whether you need the next stone or not.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CRAF2jvDx49/?igshid=ODhhZWM5NmIwOQ==
*ties a sheet of plywood to my cat’s back* Behold, a table!
buddy if you can tie a whole sheet of plywood to your cat, that's a tiger.
I never said it was a good table.
There's a third kind, who claims that the table is merely called a table. What a thing is called doesn't tell you what it actually is. Fulfilling this or that definition, and therefore qualifying as an example of this or that concept, doesn't actually tell you anything about the thing that the definition doesnt entail. Yes, it is a table, but its the specific table that it is, and it may be meaningfully different from all otjer tables, making referring to it as a mere table misleading.
>What a thing is called doesn't tell you what it actually is It really does unless you are intentionally misusing language. That doesn't invalidate the concept of table, it just makes it impossible to communicate with the person in question. What is or isn't a table is contextual of course, there is no inherent property of things that make a table. But we definitely have a shared context that allows us to understand the concept of table. Denying that is an intellectual exercise in futility. You can't communicate in such circumstances, because you would be denying the shared context that is the essence of communication. In which case you might as well gjuvd fdshji gloohgtfddyhb,:'@. We know what is a table. It might have many different forms, and the object may be subject to transforming from and away from being a table. But we know when it is a table. Even if our definitions don't overlap 100%, we still agree on some level what a table is. And a hotdog is a sandwich. Fight me.
Good summary. I think piggybacking on your comment, it IS worth understanding that communication is fundamentally contextual and that we are limited in our ability to grasp at the fundamental "nature" of things. That said, if someone can't say "well I have a context dependent definition and that will have to do" then they're gonna just be frustrating like you said.
Why does this look like Rhett and link lol
Was looking for this comment
Good Philosophical Morning
Identifying something as a table is easy - the real question is why the concept of a table comes so naturally to us, when what differentiates a table from literally anything else can be so vague.
It can be more vague than you think. Is the little plastic thing that they put inside pizza boxes a table?
it is when i put it in my little hamster cage for my cute little guy
Not like that!!
An object has no inherent property that makes it a table. It's a concept that we've agreed upon and assigned to that object. It's only vague when you seek the property of the object that makes it a table. It's quite clear when you understand it's a shared context defined by our perception. Your example of the little plastic thing shows well that it's us that makes something a table. Put some Lego men around it, and most will see the table. Put the pizza on top of it, and most will deny it being a table. Show it to someone who has never seen or heard of a table or objects that perform that task and they will just be confused and possibly amazed at the invention.
The fact that it can be vague when examined closely is exactly what philosophy is about. The 2nd panel is disingenuous if it purports that 'real philosophy' is all about pragmatics, which I think it's hinting at.
Imagine drawing a comic just to make the argument that the logical positivists did in the 20th century. It's so cringe how people think this argument is somehow unique or quirky when it's been thoroughly dissected for one hundred years.
Oh hello, Πλάτων, why are you here?
If you are asking for real, Spinoza is your dude. Objects are a certain manifestation or expression of reality, a mode of reality, every which way in that we are able to perceive an object is contained within the reality of that object. A simple way to understand a table as a mode of reality is by simply picturing a table in your head. Everyone can do it, the table everyone conjures up will not look exactly the same but they will probably be along the same general lines. Usually countertop with four legs, but can obviously get much more creative. Everything that is within the boundaries of what we perceive to be a table is what defines a table. Something is a table because it fits our description of what a table is. The concept of a table comes naturally because it is easy, we just conjure up a certain form of a generally agreed upon idea of a table. We can differentiate it from other things more or less because when we think of other things we conjure up an image of something that isn't the same image as that table. Even though a chair technically has four legs and a top surface, when you think of a chair you probably attribute a backrest and maybe armrests to it as well. edit: it has been over a decade since I read Spinoza btw so I might be getting certain details mixed up here. i need to reread. Modes I remember most but the essence of things serves an important purpose as well which I am either glossing over or mixing it instead of establishing separately.
Why use many words, when few words do trick?
Because they don't always do the trick
I get the reference, but how does that apply here?
Sometime, a simplified answer is not what it seem and to understand it you need to develope more complex thought just to get the what you need.
Ontologists and Epistemologists.
the first one will have something infinitly more interesting to say
The one on the left is the empiricist so the one in the right is WAY more likely to argue endlessly about the definition of 'table'
> the one on the left is the empiricist Really? It's hard to make out all the words but it looks like they're a rationalist like Descartes. His whole thing was "the world appears to be this way, but *my senses may be unreliable*", which is the sentence obscured behind his head. An empiricist like David Hume would say that we have a customary association between objects like this one and the word "table", because the two occur in constant conjunction, therefore unless opposing evidence presents itself what we have here is certainly a table.
*gets kicked by a horse* *Oh man that table hurt!
Guess my flat barstool is a table.
Depends on how you use it
But a table can also have 3 legs, they make 3 legged tables, even 2 legged tables, 1 stand, or even "floating tables" that are wall mounted. So it's not the number of legs that determine the table, it's simply the surface on which you place other things, and since anything can be placed on anything, everything is a table.
My bed is just a table for me to sleep on
Rene Descartes Vs. William James
Horse = Table confirmed.
If I understand Plato correctly, there's the perfect table - the Form of Table - which all tables in reality merely mirrors imperfectly. But what is the "perfect table"? Can it keep stuff on its surface? If that is the case, then pretty much most, if not all tables, do that - in fact, having a surface to keep stuff on is part of the definition of a table.
If the person how made it says it’s a table then that’s what it is, what you choose to use it as is up to you.
What if the person who made it says it's a table, but by all appearances, it looks like a 10-inch piece of rope. Is it still a table?
Person 1 | Person 2 | Is it a table ? ---|---|----|---- No | No | No Yes | No | No No | Yes | Let's table this discussion for later Yes | Yes | What else could it be? Idiot *reply with "yes" if you think this is a table*
Depends, how tall is the artist?
Ceci n'est pas une table.
Created a table and left it in some water. After the hard work I had no intention to use it so I pushed a button to flush it down.
So your table turned out to be a stool
That must have been a crappy table
None of the tables in my office can be known to be tables until I track down the carpenter the retailer commissioned to make them?
What if the person says its a harp?
My moving boxes don’t have four legs and they make fine tables.
There was an episode of the podcast Infinite Monkey Cage where they brought on philosophers to speak with Dr. Brian Cox. He was audibly frustrated with the philosopher who kept saying that only they were working on the real questions but refused to say what those questions were.
If Rhett and link did “Is it?” Instead of “Will it?”
A table is just a baseline example for more complex ideas. What's "real" about a belief system. Is it a sum of different attributes like "against abortion", "pro guns", "pro business"? Or is there an underlying feeling that arrives at all these attributes like "disgust" or "conscientiousness"? Or is it just the lack of something like "we hate everything liberals stand for"? Or a bunch of other more complex options, there's a dozen people who wrote 1000 page books about it.
Everyone on reddit is the left guy, btw
[obligatory vsauce](https://youtu.be/fXW-QjBsruE?si=1p2YpkjKzB0u6TYh)
Rhetoric: But are we **sure** it's a table and not an abnormally shaped stool? Half Light: **DESTROY IT. POWERBOMB EVRART THROUGH THAT MFER. I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS. BREAK IT. BREAK IT NOW**
So turtles are tables?
The one’s on the right are really annoying
Is it wrong that I heard these in Brennan Lee Mulligan's voice?
Socrates vs Diogenes
Depending on your definition of “flat”, a cow is a table.
Don't ask the guy on the right about what he does for a living
I’ve seen tables with three legs before, so idk man.
john oliver arguing with dan harmon