Latest Legend wrote:
SARTRE: The donut is because it thinks
Am I doing this right?
Am I doing this right?
REMEMBER, REMEMBER! THE FIFTH DONUT, THE GUNPOWDER TREASON AND DONUT; I KNOW OF NO REASON WHY THE DONUT PLOT SHOULD EVER BE FORGOT.
-YE OLDE ENGLISH FOLK
emoriam wrote:
I'd probably understand philosophy this waySome of those are actually inaccurate. Hum.
Latest Legend wrote:
SARTRE: The donut is because it thinks
Am I doing this right?
Am I doing this right?
Not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that it originated with Descartes rather than Sartre.
sirell wrote:
Some of those are actually inaccurate. Hum.
Not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that it originated with Descartes rather than Sartre.
Okay, now I'm even more interested. Which ones would you call inaccurate?
Sadly I don't know many of the philosophers, I can only talk about Plato but what I read about his "world of ideal objects" philosophy is kinda rusty too xD
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
Latest Legend wrote:
Touché, monsieur. I guess I wasn't right to begin with because only the donut would know it existed. xD
In fairness, Sartre said it also, but it's more famously attributed to Descartes.
Latest Legend wrote:
Okay, now I'm even more interested. Which ones would you call inaccurate?
Sadly I don't know many of the philosophers, I can only talk about Plato but what I read about his "world of ideal objects" philosophy is kinda rusty too xD
I major in philosophy. Just as a disclaimer, I also understand the point of the donuts is just for humour purposes, so some I consider inaccurate aren't really inaccurate in that sense, but the way the donut is inserted changes the context of some of those sayings so that it means nothing like the original meaning.
So the following:
Hera****us: He originally said, 'You cannot step into the same river twice.' For a river, it's understandable why that would be the case, because the running water and the stones and such makes it so that the river is constantly changing. However, the context isn't the same for a donut where you could, for example, eat part of a donut, then eat the rest of it later and you would still call it the same donut.
Augustine: Speaking of grace was specifically for humans, so it doesn't really apply to donuts or anything else other than humans.
Descartes: He was speaking about using definitions in order to prove that something existed (specifically a most perfect being, i.e. God). Donuts don't have to have holes, so the definition is wrong in the first place (the same might be said for the definition of the most perfect being, but there are donuts that don't have holes, so the definition is indisputably wrong). Plus, he was more famous for his 'Cogito Ergo Sum' (I think, therefore I am), so your phrase would have been more apt for Descartes.
Mill: Mill considered foods and superficial things that feed the desires of lower happiness value, so it's unlikely that a donut would be central to his philosophy. It's more in line with his predecessor, Bentham who didn't make a hierarchal distinction between different pleasures.
The rest more or less make sense even in this context. I lol'd at the accuracy of the last two though.
Vapora Dark wrote:
so only playing one or two champions for 3 years is starting to yield results :^)
sirell wrote:
I major in philosophy. Just as a disclaimer, I also understand the point of the donuts is just for humour purposes, so some I consider inaccurate aren't really inaccurate in that sense, but the way the donut is inserted changes the context of some of those sayings so that it means nothing like the original meaning.
So the following:
Hera****us: He originally said, 'You cannot step into the same river twice.' For a river, it's understandable why that would be the case, because the running water and the stones and such makes it so that the river is constantly changing. However, the context isn't the same for a donut where you could, for example, eat part of a donut, then eat the rest of it later and you would still call it the same donut.
Augustine: Speaking of grace was specifically for humans, so it doesn't really apply to donuts or anything else other than humans.
Descartes: He was speaking about using definitions in order to prove that something existed (specifically a most perfect being, i.e. God). Donuts don't have to have holes, so the definition is wrong in the first place (the same might be said for the definition of the most perfect being, but there are donuts that don't have holes, so the definition is indisputably wrong). Plus, he was more famous for his 'Cogito Ergo Sum' (I think, therefore I am), so your phrase would have been more apt for Descartes.
Mill: Mill considered foods and superficial things that feed the desires of lower happiness value, so it's unlikely that a donut would be central to his philosophy. It's more in line with his predecessor, Bentham who didn't make a hierarchal distinction between different pleasures.
The rest more or less make sense even in this context. I lol'd at the accuracy of the last two though.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
You need to log in before commenting.
Am I doing this right?