I am presently a Philosophy minor and this comic (as all Baldo comics) stood out to me. I found it very amusing--no kidding. To those of you that aren't familiar with the Philosophical line of questioning you really need to read anything written by Plato. My two personal favorites of his are "Crito" and "Euthyphro".
Let me give you a mind boggling peek into some of Plato's works. First you must understand that Plato is a student of the great Socrates, but we only know of Socrates' existence through the works of Plato, ie Plato writes dialogues (stories where there are people talking, hence dialogue) where he includes his teacher, Socrates, as a character. (If you are still lost, email me).
It seems like a lot, but its an easy read. This comes from the dialogue Euthyphro.
Soc. And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen; nor is a thing led because
it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the
state of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I
think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my
meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous
action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming,
but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes; neither does it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in
a state of suffering because it suffers. Do you not agree?
Just one more....
Soc. But, friend Euthyphro, if that which is holy is the same with that which is dear to God, and is loved because it is
holy, then that which is dear to God would have been loved as
being dear to God; but if that which dear to God is dear to him
because loved by him, then that which is holy would have been
holy because loved by him. But now you see that the reverse is
the case, and that they are quite different from one another.
For one (theophiles) is of a kind to be loved cause it is loved, and the other (osion) is loved because it is of a kind to be loved.
Thus you appear to me, Euthyphro, when I ask you what is the
essence of holiness, to offer an attribute only, and not the
essence-the attribute of being loved by all the gods. But you
still refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness. And
therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really
is, whether dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about
which we will not quarrel) and what is impiety?
Did I lose you somewhere in there? Sorry, If I did and great if I didn't. I personally feel this was an easy read, but I'm adept to reading Philosophical texts.
I love Plato!