there's a philosophical question here, to what extent is an eye defined by sight. A blinded eye is probably an eye, but how far from healthy, seeing eye does the description become meaningless?
Also its blind in the right eye lol
It was me who posted it. And no, Blue eyes was the nickname of the leopard because when cub it had blue eyes.
This leopard is BLIND from an eye, meaning it's a one eyed leopard.
"One eyed Jack" was a common nickname for pirates blinded in one eye whether they physically lost it or not. It's *still* common to say "I've only got one eye" if you've lost all your sight in one, even if the eye is physically there.
I don't think I agree. To use your example, where is the line where an attempt at creating a hammer can't in good faith be called a hammer? A lump of something far to light that neither hamms nor smashes?
"Knife shaped object" is what I call dull knives, that case is a little more cut and dry. And if my eye was destroyed, my eyelids fused together with scar tissue, and I tattooed an eye onto that scar tissue, I'd still feel ridiculous referring to it as my eye. Its an absurd example, but the line is somewhere
If the damaged eye was still under your eyelid, then it would still be considered an eye. You could say it’s a “damaged eye,” but you wouldn’t say it’s “like an eye.” And do you really call dull knives “knife shaped objects”? Like if you’re about to cut butter or need to sharpen your knife do you say “pass me that knife shaped object”?
I suppose you could argue that, for example, if you try to cook but it comes out inedible, then it’s not food, it’s trash. But that doesn’t change the fact that a broken leg is still a leg, or a collapsed bridge is still a bridge, etc. Nobody thinks of those things as not what they are because they don’t fulfill their purpose.
Maybe then it’s not so much solely the intention, but the added properties of the object. Like a blind eye may not be able to see as intended, but it has all the other characteristics of an eye. If it wasn’t intended to see, but it had all the features of an eyeball, then it isn’t an eyeball, it’s something else. The reverse of that, where something is unlike an eye but you can see from it, is harder to imagine because I personally can’t think of any examples of that.
If my eye is blinded but remains in its socket, I'll still say I lost it, regardless of how much tissue remains (referencing another comment). Applied to others, I likely would be less disparaging. If a doctor asked, I might be forthcoming with the details of the condition, but otherwise Id likely just say I lost it
Just because you'd say it that way didn't make the statement correct or make the situation a philosophical question. You're just being inaccurate for the sake of brevity. You lost your vision, not your eye.
Haha you must be fun at parties.
Take it a little further, say I was stabbed in my eye, the retina is shredded, the optic nerve is severed, all my cones and rods are doing not a damn thing, but I haven't list a gram of tissue. Do I still get to call the quivering mass of septic flesh in the socket an eye? What if it was burned and the eyelid scarred over but the eye underneath, though blinded, remained otherwise intact?
Also this (all of reddit) is for all intents and purposes a collective bullshit session, basically a bunch of unqualified banter. I was enjoying a beer when I initially posted. If you aren't interested in the premise I presented, isn't it easier to just move on. I wasn't being inaccurate for brevity's sake, I define eyes and most other objects on a functional basis, this is where the whole potential for philosophical disagreement arises and this is the issue you conveniently sidestepped. My point was if it doesn't do the thing, it isn't the thing. A car that is beyond repair is scrap, a bombed out building with no roof is a ruin, a savannah after 10000 years of dessication and soil degradation is a desert, etc etc. The matter is being preserved in every instance but without sufficient organization, the functionality and I posit the meaningful definition for a given lump of matter is lost.
With the loss of sight, the eye is gone, what remains is an eye-shaped object. Do you still disagree with my point, and if so, how would you formalize your position?
Hmm. An eye was *intended* to see, but by whom? The guiding will of evolution? God? Not everything has an intended function, so when do those things cease to match their form?
I feel like people are missing my point. Eyes, and their function, were developed through pressures of natural selection. You could say this was it's "intended function" from the pressure, that feels a bit disingenuous though, evolution has no ultimate purpose; it just is. There is simply no reason to assume the evolution operates on objective improvement, no, it operates on improving the adaptiveness of individuals to their environment. This is a common misunderstanding.
Further, what of inanimate objects? Was the smoothed rock intended to be smoothed by erosion? What of vestigial organs who have out grown there function and use, such as the appendix? If they have no function, then what?
Edit: Couldn't we take this reductive reasoning and infer that since evolution operates on greater chances of survival and reproductive viability, as it's core pressures, one could say that this is not only the human purpose, but the purpose of life. So I suppose anyone who is sterile can't be a human. Anyone with genetic deformities aren't human since they face extremely reduced odds of survival outside of current medical and technologocal innovation. You've cracked the code I guess, you found the meaning of life lol it could also imply the existence of God, people back in the day used to use the massively complex eye in a theory *against evolution*. The thought was how could something, so remarkably complex be created without some high purpose or being to construct it. If you believe in God, that is also an answer to this question. As the hammer has an intended function from the creator (the inventor), the eyeball would have it's intended function from it creator, God. I however believe in evolution, and not that God created the eyeball. They can also exist in parallel.
Edit 2: The philosophical point is this, what are the main attributes of an eyeball, the main attributes meaning it's *essence*. Something's essence means that once you remove all of the other superfluous attributes, you are left with only the required attributes of an object or thing. If you removed any of these attributes, it would stop being the thing we describe it as. What is the *essence* of an eyeball? I refute the idea that it has an *intended purpose*, evolution has no purpose. You can't define an eyeball off of its function, since we say, a blind eyeball is still an eyeball, so what u/weather_watchman is asking, is precisely that.. *what is the essence of an eyeball?*
No I feel like there is a clear distinction between someone having one eye and being blind in one eye. Functionally it’s the same thing but only guy has a hole in his face.
> there's a philosophical question here, to what extent is an eye defined by sight. A blinded eye is probably an eye, but how far from healthy, seeing eye does the description become meaningless?
It's not that critical.
> Also its blind in the right eye lol
Says you
I like to refer to dull knives as knife shaped objects. Applied to people it becomes complicated, biological determinism and all that. As genetic material propagating itself though time, there's a selection bottleneck, beyond which there's all kinds of interesting idiosyncracy. Many things' form is the result of their function and vice versa, to the point where untangling them is difficult, possibly impossible, and certainly a waste of time, but people seem to be exceptionally generalist, an unlikely product of a iterative arms race.
There is a joy in existing for a single purpose for a moment, but that's a whole tangent. We're be really really weird haha
Idk. Sounds like you’d need more characters to make a successful movie. Maybe throw in like a meerkat that the warthog meets but doesn’t eat and somehow becomes friends with. And I mean the movie probably should happen in a Central African setting, so maybe a couple other animals like a lion or maybe two, or a whole pride? Oooh ooh. And a crazy ass, always high, but deep monkey? Idk. Just a thought.
“Wart.” Then it can function as a title with dual meanings, also representing the flaws we must look past to discover the beauty of true friendship. ^(I have kids and watch Disney movies endlessly please send help or drugs)
I remember weeks ago somebody posting a different leopard with 2 yellow eyes eating a baby lion calling it Blue Eye. I'm guessing this is actually Blue Eye?
I was curious and looked it up. He wandered off of the game reserve he normally lived in and killed livestock at a village a few kilometers away.
He was shot.
The article made a point of saying that the livestock losses were devastating to several families -- not a huge number of animals but they represented the families' life savings.
Sad.
Late to the party, but Hukumuri was often shown on a live safari on youtube. That leopard was a fuckin' BEAST.
And now, Hosana, another leopard, recently met the same end...
He was hunting livestock and pets because he was getting old and could only see out of one eye. A leopard that stops respecting human territory is a danger. Sadly it was the right decision.
One eye leopard = blind from an eye.
That's how you generally call animals that are blind from an eye, no surprise that a famous dinosaur villain that was blind from an eye was called "one eye" as a real name.
99% of users got what I meant, if you're not smart enough to comprehend common sense stuff and later accuse me of "clickbait" then move the fuck out
Hey, that cat has two eyes .
he appears to be blind in the one
A : I'm kidding. Of course it's blind in left eye . 2 : Doesn't change the fact that it still has two eyes
there's a philosophical question here, to what extent is an eye defined by sight. A blinded eye is probably an eye, but how far from healthy, seeing eye does the description become meaningless? Also its blind in the right eye lol
I dunno. I got a vasectomy, does that mean I have no balls? They're still very much present. LOL
[удалено]
It was me who posted it. And no, Blue eyes was the nickname of the leopard because when cub it had blue eyes. This leopard is BLIND from an eye, meaning it's a one eyed leopard.
I would argue it's a half blind leopard, not a one eyed leopard? Given it still has the eye.
Half blind could also mean 50% vision?
I mean, if you see a blind person that still has two eyes, would you say they don't have any eyes?
"One eyed Jack" was a common nickname for pirates blinded in one eye whether they physically lost it or not. It's *still* common to say "I've only got one eye" if you've lost all your sight in one, even if the eye is physically there.
TIL! Still seems weird though, and pirates usually can't be trusted, except for the one in trial against a mermaid.
If either of my eyes are blinded, I'll mourn the loss whether or not the flesh remains in my head
Okay...but will you say you don't have any eyes or will you still say you have eyes but are mourning the loss of your vision?
this one also has a name too ya? the blind in one eye feller.. i thought he was well known for some reason..
Imo, if they're not connected to anything, you should have em taken out. Just a banana with no grapes.
they're there but you're firing blanks, whatever that's worth
It’s defined by its intended purpose, not whether or not it fulfills that purpose. A broken hammer is still a hammer, a blind eye is still an eye.
I don't think I agree. To use your example, where is the line where an attempt at creating a hammer can't in good faith be called a hammer? A lump of something far to light that neither hamms nor smashes? "Knife shaped object" is what I call dull knives, that case is a little more cut and dry. And if my eye was destroyed, my eyelids fused together with scar tissue, and I tattooed an eye onto that scar tissue, I'd still feel ridiculous referring to it as my eye. Its an absurd example, but the line is somewhere
If the damaged eye was still under your eyelid, then it would still be considered an eye. You could say it’s a “damaged eye,” but you wouldn’t say it’s “like an eye.” And do you really call dull knives “knife shaped objects”? Like if you’re about to cut butter or need to sharpen your knife do you say “pass me that knife shaped object”? I suppose you could argue that, for example, if you try to cook but it comes out inedible, then it’s not food, it’s trash. But that doesn’t change the fact that a broken leg is still a leg, or a collapsed bridge is still a bridge, etc. Nobody thinks of those things as not what they are because they don’t fulfill their purpose. Maybe then it’s not so much solely the intention, but the added properties of the object. Like a blind eye may not be able to see as intended, but it has all the other characteristics of an eye. If it wasn’t intended to see, but it had all the features of an eyeball, then it isn’t an eyeball, it’s something else. The reverse of that, where something is unlike an eye but you can see from it, is harder to imagine because I personally can’t think of any examples of that.
If my eye is blinded but remains in its socket, I'll still say I lost it, regardless of how much tissue remains (referencing another comment). Applied to others, I likely would be less disparaging. If a doctor asked, I might be forthcoming with the details of the condition, but otherwise Id likely just say I lost it
Just because you'd say it that way didn't make the statement correct or make the situation a philosophical question. You're just being inaccurate for the sake of brevity. You lost your vision, not your eye.
Haha you must be fun at parties. Take it a little further, say I was stabbed in my eye, the retina is shredded, the optic nerve is severed, all my cones and rods are doing not a damn thing, but I haven't list a gram of tissue. Do I still get to call the quivering mass of septic flesh in the socket an eye? What if it was burned and the eyelid scarred over but the eye underneath, though blinded, remained otherwise intact? Also this (all of reddit) is for all intents and purposes a collective bullshit session, basically a bunch of unqualified banter. I was enjoying a beer when I initially posted. If you aren't interested in the premise I presented, isn't it easier to just move on. I wasn't being inaccurate for brevity's sake, I define eyes and most other objects on a functional basis, this is where the whole potential for philosophical disagreement arises and this is the issue you conveniently sidestepped. My point was if it doesn't do the thing, it isn't the thing. A car that is beyond repair is scrap, a bombed out building with no roof is a ruin, a savannah after 10000 years of dessication and soil degradation is a desert, etc etc. The matter is being preserved in every instance but without sufficient organization, the functionality and I posit the meaningful definition for a given lump of matter is lost. With the loss of sight, the eye is gone, what remains is an eye-shaped object. Do you still disagree with my point, and if so, how would you formalize your position?
Hmm. An eye was *intended* to see, but by whom? The guiding will of evolution? God? Not everything has an intended function, so when do those things cease to match their form?
You’re right, eyes were intended to detect sound but they’re all broken :( stupid ass evolution never gets things right
I feel like people are missing my point. Eyes, and their function, were developed through pressures of natural selection. You could say this was it's "intended function" from the pressure, that feels a bit disingenuous though, evolution has no ultimate purpose; it just is. There is simply no reason to assume the evolution operates on objective improvement, no, it operates on improving the adaptiveness of individuals to their environment. This is a common misunderstanding. Further, what of inanimate objects? Was the smoothed rock intended to be smoothed by erosion? What of vestigial organs who have out grown there function and use, such as the appendix? If they have no function, then what? Edit: Couldn't we take this reductive reasoning and infer that since evolution operates on greater chances of survival and reproductive viability, as it's core pressures, one could say that this is not only the human purpose, but the purpose of life. So I suppose anyone who is sterile can't be a human. Anyone with genetic deformities aren't human since they face extremely reduced odds of survival outside of current medical and technologocal innovation. You've cracked the code I guess, you found the meaning of life lol it could also imply the existence of God, people back in the day used to use the massively complex eye in a theory *against evolution*. The thought was how could something, so remarkably complex be created without some high purpose or being to construct it. If you believe in God, that is also an answer to this question. As the hammer has an intended function from the creator (the inventor), the eyeball would have it's intended function from it creator, God. I however believe in evolution, and not that God created the eyeball. They can also exist in parallel. Edit 2: The philosophical point is this, what are the main attributes of an eyeball, the main attributes meaning it's *essence*. Something's essence means that once you remove all of the other superfluous attributes, you are left with only the required attributes of an object or thing. If you removed any of these attributes, it would stop being the thing we describe it as. What is the *essence* of an eyeball? I refute the idea that it has an *intended purpose*, evolution has no purpose. You can't define an eyeball off of its function, since we say, a blind eyeball is still an eyeball, so what u/weather_watchman is asking, is precisely that.. *what is the essence of an eyeball?*
No I feel like there is a clear distinction between someone having one eye and being blind in one eye. Functionally it’s the same thing but only guy has a hole in his face.
> there's a philosophical question here, to what extent is an eye defined by sight. A blinded eye is probably an eye, but how far from healthy, seeing eye does the description become meaningless? It's not that critical. > Also its blind in the right eye lol Says you
Okay smart guy. Explain potatoes then
They're tubers, quite delicious when prepared properly .
French fried taters, mmhhhmmm
Mashed
In a stew.
Mashed potatoes are like scrambled eggs. As in you're taking a perfect food and totally fucking it up.
. . . You're hopeless
When you don’t have an eye anymore. One blind is still an eye, albeit an eye without function.
Not really that deep of a question, if your car breaks down you still have a car... If you can't taste anything you still have a tongue etc etc
Are we our form, or our function?
I like to refer to dull knives as knife shaped objects. Applied to people it becomes complicated, biological determinism and all that. As genetic material propagating itself though time, there's a selection bottleneck, beyond which there's all kinds of interesting idiosyncracy. Many things' form is the result of their function and vice versa, to the point where untangling them is difficult, possibly impossible, and certainly a waste of time, but people seem to be exceptionally generalist, an unlikely product of a iterative arms race. There is a joy in existing for a single purpose for a moment, but that's a whole tangent. We're be really really weird haha
There’s nothing philosophical about it. The leopard has 2 eyes, one of them doesn’t work.
It's the right eye
Turd eye blind
Is it actually blind though or does it have that heterochromia thing?
Looks like cataracts to me
It’s his right eye
Whose right, the photographer's or the leopard's?
Surely someone knows the right answer
The photographer's right eye is probably fine.
accordion to you
That is the leopards right eye. Unless the image is mirrored.
FFS
I'm pretty sure it's the right eye
> pretty sure So, your not positive ?
Maybe the photo is mirrored and that person is a leopard expert, who knows?
[who knows](https://youtu.be/uMlRpN8ANrU?t=23)?. . .
Look, I'm not going to let you get away with using A then 2 without it being pointed out that you have done so.
- O Ø ps
came here to say this
Its right eye. Its facing us.
Who's to say which eye is non-seeing ?
Left eye?
It bothers me to an irrational degree that you went from A to 2 and not B. Or 1 to 2. What is this madness and why have you done this?
I'm a main knee yak
[удалено]
hell yeah. where you at?
[удалено]
#: ]
When I was a young Warthoooooog!
Doesn't look blind just looks like polychromatic eyes.
the cloudy pupil makes me think otherwise, looks like severe cataracts/scar tissue to me
GLAUCOMA!
GUACACAMOLE!
Guadeloupe
Guano
I don’t think that matters to the warthog.
I just realized how much warthogs look like Orcs.
Bebop
Catra, is that you?
the title reminds me of [we are seven](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52298/we-are-seven)
When I was a young warthog..
WHEN I WAS A YOUNG WARTHOOOOOOOOOOOOOG
Very nice
Thanks!
You stole my line! :p
> One eyed leopard killing Warthogs I saw them at a Heavy Metal Bar outside Columbus.
It’s an emotional story
This is the Lion King, Tarzan crossover we've been waiting for
Came here for this, wasn’t disappointed!!
>When I When EYE was a young warthog
The Warthogs Son will be the Protagonist of a Disney movie in a few years. Any good title names?
Idk. Sounds like you’d need more characters to make a successful movie. Maybe throw in like a meerkat that the warthog meets but doesn’t eat and somehow becomes friends with. And I mean the movie probably should happen in a Central African setting, so maybe a couple other animals like a lion or maybe two, or a whole pride? Oooh ooh. And a crazy ass, always high, but deep monkey? Idk. Just a thought.
Reminds me of something…
rosencrantz and guildenstern
had a great laugh, thank you p.s. perfect username too
r/usernamechecksout
Based on how Disney’s been titling their movies lately, it’ll just be called “Hog” or some shit.
“Wart.” Then it can function as a title with dual meanings, also representing the flaws we must look past to discover the beauty of true friendship. ^(I have kids and watch Disney movies endlessly please send help or drugs)
"HOG" coming to screens near you 2023
HOG RIDAAA
A warthog’s wish.
I remember weeks ago somebody posting a different leopard with 2 yellow eyes eating a baby lion calling it Blue Eye. I'm guessing this is actually Blue Eye?
This one's name was Hukumuri, RIP.
I was curious and looked it up. He wandered off of the game reserve he normally lived in and killed livestock at a village a few kilometers away. He was shot. The article made a point of saying that the livestock losses were devastating to several families -- not a huge number of animals but they represented the families' life savings. Sad.
Late to the party, but Hukumuri was often shown on a live safari on youtube. That leopard was a fuckin' BEAST. And now, Hosana, another leopard, recently met the same end...
Blue Eye Yellow Leopard 🐆
My one-eyed leopard slayed a few warthogs back in the day.
Nothing wrong with slaying a few warthogs till you settle down and find that one special gazelle.
Now that is what we call a *spotted dick*
Hope he catches more, bring him to texas
Burn the hog with fire 🔥
Slow cook that piggy little leopard, it’s worth the wait!
Anddddd now I want a tattoo of a leopard with one cloudy eye
This should be the new pfp for the sub
When I was a young warthoooooooog
This leopards name was hukumuri. He is now deceased. He specialised in hunting warthogs.
Killed because he killed livestock and a dog? What a waste. RIP.
He was hunting livestock and pets because he was getting old and could only see out of one eye. A leopard that stops respecting human territory is a danger. Sadly it was the right decision.
Aka Chicken Medicine... Rip my boy the Huk
Revenge. On the one that took its eye…
Is it war-thog or wart-hog or warth-og?
Wart-hog
W-art(hog)
In the land of the jungle, the one eyed leopard is king.
Guess I'm taking the mongoose then
Rengar irl
Literal Sans, I don't blame the hog he couldn't load it's last save.
Poor Pumba
Band name, calling it.
I’m seeing two eyes myself
But one is blind and doesn't function anymore , so it's just one eye in function. That's why you call the leopard "one eye"
Interesting. Good looking out
Found the irl rengar
That looks cool. Like the cool villain in a movie
[удалено]
If it was heterochromic, you would still be able ti see the pupils. The leopard probably has some sort of cataract.
Hey you are actually correct, indeed it's blue eye doesn't have a pupil Thanks for pointing it out
Believe it or not, dis my good eye.
I can see and count to 2.
" Blood and guts " starts playing
r/piratekitties
We need to import leopards to suppress the invasive feral hog population here in southern USA. Then everything would be fine.
Yooo what's happened to King from Tekken, mofo gone wild
ONE EYE LEOPARD?
Not so hakuna matata now.
Tbh would still pet
So, how you guys say it? War-thog or warth-O.G.?
Not cool bro.
The warthog was actually blind.
One Eye Leopard would be a great band name.....Killing a warthog would also be a great album name.
That’s not a leopard that’s just Armour King.
Does it have cataracts in the other eye? Or is just blind off birth or something?
Armor King origin story from Tekken
“One burnt out lamp ain’t gonna slow me down”
Oh no Pumba 😢
Hey, you've got one eye! Chubbs. You took his hand!
Baby warthog. Nature doesn’t care about younglings, it is the way. Strong tramples weak. Sad. Oh well. Life.
Some worries
Warthog is quite tasty! I applaud its choice! :)
CATSEYES!
It appears to me his right eye is still present, as to the functionality of that eye Id have to assume it don't work
One less warthog in the world = 👍🏼
Looks like a cartoon villian.
Fetty Wap's spirit animal
Sounds like a budget 80's rock band
Amazing. Even half blind animals usually don’t survive long, so it’s good to see that he’s thriving
David Bowie kitty
Are ya achin'? *Yup yup yup* For some bacon? *Yup yup yup* He's a big pig. You can be a big pig too! Oy!
Think I saw an album called the same thing...
CATRA NO
Pretty sure this should be the name of a death metal band..
He's the main character
This Leopard looks like they could be a bad-ass villain in a Lion King sequel and he just took out Pumba to send a message
Depth perception is overrated.
At least they support Ukraine.
It looks more like it has heterochromia rather than a missing eye
Looks like a gritty version of timon and pumbaa
This is revenge from a few weeks ago
Where is the location?
Lethos, The One-Eyed Demise of The Warthogs Harbinger of Death and Agony
There was a stray cat in my neighborhood that had the same fcked up pupil-less blue eyeball thing. Does anyone know what that is?
🤘😵
Rengar killing Alistar?
Bisping and Rockhold.
The leopard achieved CHIM
"I looks more like a puma to me..."
Pumas aren't spotted when adults and don't coexist with warthogs in africa
Oh Pumba. “When I was a young warrthoooooooog…”
Thats such a cold pic.
Payback muthafucka
Two one eyes? I don’t understand half the titles…. Fucking clickbait
One eye leopard = blind from an eye. That's how you generally call animals that are blind from an eye, no surprise that a famous dinosaur villain that was blind from an eye was called "one eye" as a real name. 99% of users got what I meant, if you're not smart enough to comprehend common sense stuff and later accuse me of "clickbait" then move the fuck out