November 16, 2025
Mind the gap!
Holes (1970) [pdf]
Cheese Has Holes—But Do Holes Exist? Internet Turns Philosophy Into Snack-Fight
TLDR: A classic cheese-fueled philosophy piece asks if holes actually exist or are just words for “perforated.” Comments erupted into grammar vs logic, topology debates, and jokes, showing how everyday language can shape what we think is real—and why counting holes is harder than it sounds.
A resurfaced 1970 think-piece, “Holes,” has the internet arguing over whether holes are real or just fancy words. In the dialogue, one character insists he believes only in material stuff, then gets trapped by a slice of Swiss cheese: if there are “holes in it,” do holes actually exist? The twist: he tries to dodge with “it’s just perforated,” then later flips to claim holes are material. Cue philosophical whiplash—and comment section chaos.
The community brought the drama. The top vibe: It’s not logic, it’s language, with one commenter waving off the whole cheese duel as a grammar squabble. Another crowd insists holes are a topological feature—basically a shape property—and warns that counting depends on scale and who’s doing the measuring. Meanwhile, comic relief lands hard: someone thought this was the YA novel Holes, another declared hollers are real because that’s where papaw lived, and a consultant joke about tunneling through a mountain derails the thread into pure dad-joke territory.
Strongest opinions? Team Semantics vs Team Reality. Hottest disagreement? Whether saying “there are holes” commits you to invisible non-stuff. Funniest memes? Swiss-cheese puns, “mind the gap” one-liners, and book confusion. Philosophy met snack food—and the comments ate it up.
Key Points
- •Argle claims belief only in concrete material objects and rejects non-material entities.
- •Bargle argues that acknowledging holes in cheese implies holes exist, even as absences of matter.
- •Argle treats “there are holes in …” as a shape predicate (“is perforated”), not existential quantification.
- •Counting and comparative claims about holes force tension in Argle’s predicate-only approach.
- •Argle concedes holes exist but calls them material, which Bargle questions if holes can be empty.