I get it now. I'm enlightened

I guess

an allegory is an animal based similarity
this is more like a metaphor
also... meh it's not really about discovering something new but rather some post-modernist shit about "not there being a concept to begin with"
so... I'd say it goes in the trash with the rest of this jewish marxist bullshit

It's no small thing, fren, though it's really not a thing at all. But also remember: before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.

You should have placed him inside the object. If the back side is closed it still has the same shadows

Attached: 1626641511449.jpg (506x460, 46.08K)

It's more like enlightenment era basic philosophy of science. Nothing to do with postmodern anything. That people are confusing the two just means the kikes are winning. They actually managed to conflate science and postmodernism somehow.

>an allegory is an animal based similarity
No, maybe you're thinking of anthropomorphism

wrong, it has nothing to do with science
for example the light hitting a cylinder from the side would never project a straight cube because no light comes parallel to an object and the edges would be different and faded
the circle instead would be slightly bigger but we can't really tell if that's the case
either way that image is wrong because it presupposes an ideal abstract world that has no ground in reality
just like these "food for thought" good-for-nothing post modernists

No. Only the one on the bottom is true. The top two are false.

Attached: Platos-Allegory-of-the-Cave-Featured-Image-1.jpg (1920x1080, 217.52K)

no, dante used to do it all the time in inferno/purgatorio/paradiso
I studied them at school and I'm pretty sure of what I meant
wikipedia and google in general seem to generalise and say it's a symbolic representation of a meaning, like a dog in an old family painting meant loyalty
dante really used them with animals though

I wouldn't still say it's an allegory and I redact what I said and think it's not a metaphor either, it's just a visual representation of a concept, that's all

Attached: Screenshot_20220208-025405_Chrome.jpg (719x487, 118.61K)

>the edges would be different and faded
Is completely missing the point to focus on irrelevant pedantry.
It's basically the cave like someone said but it's most relevant today to the scientific method.
In science you create models of reality and see how much they predict. The square model predicts observations from a certain perspective. Then if you add observations from the circle perspective you have enough data to theorize it's actually a 3d cylinder despite nobody seeing a cylinder.
The model is created not found but it's created to match an underlying objective reality as closely as possible. This has nothing to do with delusions or redefinition of language like postmodernist trannies saying they're women.

Wtf is that real? I'm riding with biden if I can ride Harris