H
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Hopefully like what an apple should taste like.
Some things I think can't be said in a straightforward manner. Words are after all our makeshift way of trading meanings with each other. It should come as no surprise that they often fall short of the mark, especially when we attempt to order the words so that the concepts line up in a way that seem to relate to what we are talking about. The concepts don't matter, what matters is that the receiver gets the meaning. I could write a well-thought out and extensively argued essay, but if no one gets my point, why bother? And if I write a limerick and the reader immediately gets my point, even thought it seemingly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, should we say that I am a bad communicator? The idea got there in the end, after all. Best not to worry about the words and concept strings after they have served their purpose.
Perhaps it would be possible to explain to someone what an apple tasted like, even if they had no sense of taste. But you couldn't do it in a straightforward manner. It would be necessary to assemble words into tricks and attacks until the concept somehow got into their head. If you can do that then you are a poet and should be highly respected. I'm a bit lacking in this area though, I know I couldn't accomplish a feat that great.
We think of words somehow conveying meanings by themselves, but I think it would be better to think of them along the lines of koans. The only thing is that most koans are fairly easy for us. But what do I mean? I mean that you can easily answer a koan and from a technical, a purely word-oriented, standpoint you could be said to be correct. Just look up what the last master said. But if you do that you miss the point of the koan. You wrap your mind around the koan, becoming it and seeing everything that it means. And through this process there is learning, even if the koan itself is nonsense. Words are all ultimately nonsense. It is the meaning that they later impart that is important.
Some things I think can't be said in a straightforward manner. Words are after all our makeshift way of trading meanings with each other. It should come as no surprise that they often fall short of the mark, especially when we attempt to order the words so that the concepts line up in a way that seem to relate to what we are talking about. The concepts don't matter, what matters is that the receiver gets the meaning. I could write a well-thought out and extensively argued essay, but if no one gets my point, why bother? And if I write a limerick and the reader immediately gets my point, even thought it seemingly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, should we say that I am a bad communicator? The idea got there in the end, after all. Best not to worry about the words and concept strings after they have served their purpose.
Perhaps it would be possible to explain to someone what an apple tasted like, even if they had no sense of taste. But you couldn't do it in a straightforward manner. It would be necessary to assemble words into tricks and attacks until the concept somehow got into their head. If you can do that then you are a poet and should be highly respected. I'm a bit lacking in this area though, I know I couldn't accomplish a feat that great.
We think of words somehow conveying meanings by themselves, but I think it would be better to think of them along the lines of koans. The only thing is that most koans are fairly easy for us. But what do I mean? I mean that you can easily answer a koan and from a technical, a purely word-oriented, standpoint you could be said to be correct. Just look up what the last master said. But if you do that you miss the point of the koan. You wrap your mind around the koan, becoming it and seeing everything that it means. And through this process there is learning, even if the koan itself is nonsense. Words are all ultimately nonsense. It is the meaning that they later impart that is important.
Upvote
0
Apples taste sweet. 
That out of the way, when you ask what apples taste like, do you mean to ask how we deal with qualia (IE, experienced stimuli that can't be quantified) or do you want to ask about a language problem (when I say 'apples taste sweet', that means an infinite number of things to an infinite number of different possible people)?
Or do you just want to know what an apple tastes like?
That out of the way, when you ask what apples taste like, do you mean to ask how we deal with qualia (IE, experienced stimuli that can't be quantified) or do you want to ask about a language problem (when I say 'apples taste sweet', that means an infinite number of things to an infinite number of different possible people)?
Or do you just want to know what an apple tastes like?
Upvote
0
H
Helo
Guest
You both are reading too far into the question. And no matter how many inferences and other tastes you string together to describe the taste of an apple, thats still not exactly how an apple tastes.
Just...how does an apple taste?
Just...how does an apple taste?
Thats one aspect of how they taste
Upvote
0
I
*~i surrender~*
Guest
they taste good! ahh but then what is good..? hehe
is a lot easier to describe appearance or its substance but taste hmm.. tastes different to everyone i guess if we consider what type, how old or whatever etc.
but it tastes sweet, sugarless (if that can be used to explain something altho is an absense of sugar..) apple like?
is a lot easier to describe appearance or its substance but taste hmm.. tastes different to everyone i guess if we consider what type, how old or whatever etc.
but it tastes sweet, sugarless (if that can be used to explain something altho is an absense of sugar..) apple like?
Upvote
0
Spidermantx
Member
Well, since the only thing that tastes like an apple, is an apple, there is nothing to really compare it too.
Upvote
0
fuzzyh
Senior Member
- Jun 26, 2004
- 665
- 28
- 43
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
An apple tastes like an apple. It does not taste like an orange. It does not taste like a pear. But it seems that commonly find that apples taste like some type of fruit, based upon common experience.
Of course, the real question is not what an apple tastes like, but what a Granny Smith Apple tastes like or a Red Delicious tastes like or even a Fuji Apple. Of course, the original question is a general apple. Because apples have slightly differing tastes do to type, perhaps we cannot truly define with words what an apple tastes like. Perhaps there must be a platonic apple with a certain taste.
I write most of this off the cuff. So take it as you will.
Of course, the real question is not what an apple tastes like, but what a Granny Smith Apple tastes like or a Red Delicious tastes like or even a Fuji Apple. Of course, the original question is a general apple. Because apples have slightly differing tastes do to type, perhaps we cannot truly define with words what an apple tastes like. Perhaps there must be a platonic apple with a certain taste.
I write most of this off the cuff. So take it as you will.
Upvote
0
DailyBlessings
O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!
- Oct 21, 2004
- 17,775
- 983
- 39
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
An apple has no innate taste. Each person has an individual mental response to the sensation of their taste buds meeting the apple's unique chemical blend.
Upvote
0
Lynden1000
Senior Veteran
- Nov 6, 2005
- 2,454
- 196
- 54
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Jacob4Jesus
Dork For Jesus and Proud of It
- Sep 18, 2003
- 2,826
- 170
- 50
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
B
BrownCoat
Guest
I'm definitely going to have to go with the "it tastes like an apple" option.
Because, an apple tastes, well, like an apple.
Because, an apple tastes, well, like an apple.
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Why does this whole conversation remind me so much of Zhuangzi? Particularly the quote:
"Making a point to show that a point is not a point is not as good as making a nonpoint to show that a point is not a point. Using a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a nonhorse to show that a horse is not a horse."
Too bad that I'm not skillful enough to not make a point.
"Making a point to show that a point is not a point is not as good as making a nonpoint to show that a point is not a point. Using a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a nonhorse to show that a horse is not a horse."
Too bad that I'm not skillful enough to not make a point.
Upvote
0
Jacob4Jesus
Dork For Jesus and Proud of It
- Sep 18, 2003
- 2,826
- 170
- 50
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
My syllogism of the day:
Apples taste appley
Apples are apples
Therefore, Apples taste appley
Apples taste appley
Apples are apples
Therefore, Apples taste appley
Upvote
0
Similar threads
