If the rationalist deduces what is logical based on their empirical experience then their reasoning is flawed. We have to accept the axiomatic truth that our senses are limited and cannot account for an absolute truth.
To separate valid perceptions from invalid ones, a person first must assume that the world can be known through the senses. They must also assume that the world is objectively real. These assumptions do not get along well with one other. To say the world is objectively real is to say it is independent of and indifferent to sense perception. Then what in the world can we know? We can know only the effects of the parmesan cheese upon our senses, not the cheese itself.
Rofl
You jest, but some actually do often confuse objective perception with objective reality.
Fact is though, the pursuit of a perfect vessel with which to observe reality is silly and impractical, so we make due with common shared characteristics.
In other words, the cheese itself is not cheese, we only perceive it as cheese
Ceci n’est pas fromage.
Are even our eyes real?
How do they taste?
There is no cheese.
Only Zuul
Lmao
The only truth is that there is no truth
I aspire to your level of philosophical ascension
But mightn’t we perceive it as cheese because it is cheese?
Also maybe not, but I don’t think we can say it is not cheese.
How would you define objective perception? If empiricism is equally problematic for all humans, then what could possibly qualify as objectivity in perception?
Twas a joke
There is no spoon
We experience a world through the senses. We have no other way to experience any world that may or may not exist. The world experienced through the senses is apparently consistent, and if we do not deal with it, we have bad sensory experiences, or cease to be experienceable to each other entirely. So, since this is the only world we can interact with, and how we do so matters to our happiness, all we can do is take this world on its own terms and deal with it.
The objectively real world may be separate from and indifferent to sense perception, but sense perception isn’t indifferent to the objective world. Sense perceptions are caused by an interaction of our sense organs and the world. Surely from repeated patterns of sense perception we can draw some CC correct inferences about the external world.
How can we be sure that those inferences are correct? Any appeal to empirical evidence would be circular reasoning.
“correct” is a heavy word there. Would reproducible and predictable suffice?
And don’t call me Shirley.
Surely you can’t be serious
You’re supposed to taste it before you have them do their little cheese ritual. All that intelligence, and like 7 wisdom.
No you’re supposed to take all the cheese and make little cheese angels on the floor while they grate it around you
You and I may have different objectives at an Italian restaurant. Yours sounds more fun.
I agree with the chef.
I agree with the pasta, which questions if it’s good enough and takes the notion of an implied revisit of another ingredient as a validation of its inadequacies.
I love parmesan and will take as much as I can before my spouse starts to scowl at me
That shit is like $50/lb so just keep grating and I’ll take it in a to go box.
what would happen if you never told them to stop? would they eventually stop of their own accord or keep coming back with new blocks of cheese?
Eventually the cheese would begin to form a singularity and the grater would exist on the boundary, slowing their own perception of time with each subsequent grate.
wormhole life hack
Now I’m wondering if that’s actually possible
If you had enough cheese would the collective mass create enough gravity to pull it all together and create a blackhole
I too love cheese and want to eat a shit ton of it but I count my calories because I don’t want to end up fat
This is definitely the best thing I’ve seen today.
I like it. It is a bit heavy handed with the philosophy. I would love to see more.
Existential Comics is a philosophical comic.
Oh fuck I’ve had this same thought when the waiter offers pepper or parmesan.
The philosophy is plagued with circular logic (thus is the joke). Occam’s Razor would state that the guy probably just likes cheese.
The gourmet has not proven that it is impossible to make a decision, only that it is impossible to make an optimal one. In order to do that, he would have to collect data, presumably by patronizing the restaurant multiple times and ordering the same dish each time with different quantities of cheese.
Had the waiter simply reminded the gourmet of this, he would have generated possibly substantial additional revenue for the restaurant, not to mention substantial savings on cheese. It is therefore my recommendation that
I don’t say “when” until there is a mountain of cheese 2 feet high on my plate. And I sit there watching the plate in awkward silence the entire time.
Instead of making it awkward, perform the Austin Powers photo monologue.
“Yes. Yes! YES.”
“NO! NO!”
“Yes”
I used to go thru this every night at the olive garden. 12yr olds can be so mean.
I see that the chef is of the same I Always Want More school of parmesan as Ben Lapidus and Heidi Klum.
If all knowledge is empirical, you have your solution already. Just make an experiment. Use a heuristic to estimate an amount, test it and adjust as you go.
He did! The heuristic was “what the chef recommends” and the next meal will adjust that estimate downward… assuming “as much cheese as possible” doesn’t result in the collapse of the universe.
All information is empirical, but all decisions are not. Life clearly requires approximation, and this is such a simple idea which a ton of really smart people fail to grasp.
