This is how it feels watching conservatives interact with scientists, only belligerent.
More like:
ME: Aw, hey, don't say that. You know things.
SOCRATES: Oh really? You seem well informed about me. Tell me, what is it that I know?
ME: Well, uh, you know that's a tree, right?
SOCRATES: Do I? What makes you confident that I know that?
ME: Uh, you know, you can see that it's shaped like a tree...
SOCRATES: Perhaps, but don't you think that other things could be shaped like trees, sometimes?
ME: Uh... like what?
SOCRATES: Hey, I'm asking the questions here, wise guy! Anyway, you seem to know a lot about trees, can you tell me how to know the difference between a tree and a large bush?
ME: Well I'm actually not, like, a botanist...
SOCRATES: So you don't know? But you seemed so confident that I knew! Perhaps it's not trees you're well informed about, but knowledge itself? Tell me, what does it mean to know something?
ME: *epistemological stammering*
Aristophanes: Think normally, ya weirdo!
Diogenes: presents a wooden back scratcher behold a tree
For those curious: a tree has one central stem, in bushes all branches are basically the same
Are there species most people think are bushes, but are really trees?
The line between "tree" and "non tree" is quite vague
Is a palm tree a tree? Depends on the definition you use
But that's beside the point. A palm is far from a bush. The line between bush and tree is quite clear and intuitive
At the same time, I have a very bush-like palm thingy in my garden that if trimmed right can be made into a small palm tree. They're a protected species though, so I just trim it a bit
We have a good intuition on the difference between tree and bush. It's rather that species can grow as tree or bush depending on subspecies or environment. Trees aren't closely related too each other but an evolutionary strategy that developed many times independently
It's a base reflection of the platonic ideal of a tree.
They were just roommates!
Socraties 🤝 Scotty
not knowing
Descartes, Hundreds of years later: "Nothing is certain, so I don't trust my knowledge. I need to start from scratch...."
Pondering ensues
"I think, therefor-"
Everyone: "Shut up, ripoff!"
Was Descartes ripping off Socrates with cogito ergo sum? Did Socrates doubt his own existence, or was his "knowing nothing" hyperbole?
IIRC, his reasoning was that he could not take knowledge and truth for granted, as that would mean assuming that his senses were accurate. He then proceeded to reason that he had to start from scratch, and only build knowledge based on truths he could land on without sensory inputs.
And that's how he landed on Cogito Ergo Sum.
Not really a ripoff, but without his famous conclusion, it could seem that all he's about is his starting point, which is very similar to that of Socrates.
It feels like an actual quote by Diogenes.
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
