posiputt ÖvÖJun 26, 2023

I still don't understand the phrase "having your cake and eating it, too" as a metaphor for unreasonable expectations. could someone explain to me what good cake is if you can't eat it? what is the point of having cake then? I'm angry about this! >:(

edit: okay, so it seems I just wasn't aware of the way "to have" can also mean "to keep", which makes a lot more sense. I'm just editing this in so I won't be flooded with that same point for too long :D thanks

Show threadmusr

@posiputt I may be wrong, but this phrase means something like "wanting to both have one's cake stay unchanged and to eat it too" - an impossible situation. So by default of inaction, one would have one's cake, but suffer the agony of not being able to eat it without consequently losing it (not having it).

A more straightforward way is to say that one wants mutually exclusive choices, which is impossible. It's easy to see from an observer point of view, but when one is mired in desires, it cannot be clearly seen, or there is a willful disregard for logic.

Jun 26, 2023 at 12:07pmWeb
Show threadposiputt ÖvÖJun 26, 2023
@musr "mutually exclusive choices" is interesting because I think that metaphors about those are often ideological in nature and rely on false dychotomies like "you can't have freedom and the good life for everyone" (of course, both freedom and the good life are hardly well-defined in the public discourse :D)
Show threadmusrJun 26, 2023

@posiputt yeah, words can sometimes be misused/used wrongly technically, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

I remember getting mildly annoyed when the fast food restaurant cashier asked (probably required by their boss though) whether I wanted a medium or large drink. Small! I want a small.