What if being a Utilitarian makes you sad? We should probably kill all the Utilitarians just to be safe.

A lot of the critiques of Utilitarianism, the doctrine that we should try to create a world that maximizes happiness, point out the bizarre and inhuman actions that we would seemingly have to accept if we accepted the theory. For example, we can imagine that if we wanted to maximize happiness, it would be morally justified, and perhaps even required, to murder and healthy person and harvest their organs in order to save five people. After all, five lives are more valuable than one, so even if it doesn't seem like justice, we should kill one person to save the five. However, as the comic points out, you don't even need to get five people involved. It seems as though a single happy person is intrinsically "worth" more than a sad one, so we should even kill one person who is sad to save one that is happy. All in all, utilitarianism usually sounds great when people first hear about it, and the theory really only suffers from one minor flaw - no one wants to live in a world where we actually believe it is true.

A lot of the critiques of Utilitarianism, the doctrine that we should try to create a world that maximizes happiness, point out the bizarre and inhuman actions that we would seemingly have to accept if we accepted the theory. For example, we can imagine that if we wanted to maximize happiness, it would be morally justified, and perhaps even required, to murder a healthy person and harvest their organs in order to save five people. After all, five lives are more valuable than one, so even if it doesn't seem like justice, we should kill one person to save the five. However, as the comic points out, you don't even need to get five people involved. It seems as though a single happy person is intrinsically "worth" more than a sad one, so we should even kill one person who is sad to save one that is happy. All in all, utilitarianism usually sounds great when people first hear about it, and the theory really only suffers from one minor flaw - no one wants to live in a world where we actually believe it is true.

"Please...no! No more examples of teaching primitive language games, I give up, I'll tell you anything!"

"Okay fine, I agree, it is not yet proven false that Einstein would have had a catch with me whenever I wanted."

Karl Popper was interested in the demarcation between science and non-science. That is to say, he sought to find an exact definition which would distinguish all things that count as "science" from those that don't. He found that earlier attempts to define science as something like "constructing theories that are verified empirically through observation" to be too broad. For example many horoscopes, which are clearly not science, are written in such a broad way that they can, and are, easily verified to be "true". My horoscope might say "you will find a good fortune today". If I were to attempt to verify this, and I went outside and found some money on the ground, it would indeed seem verified. But the same would be true if I heard some good news about a friend, or the weather was nice, or really any other numbers of things. The problem with the horoscope wasn't that it wasn't verified empirically, it was that the prediction was too general. For Popper, it could only be science if it attempted not to be verified, but to be falsified. So the horoscope would have to say "you will find some money on the ground today, and if you don't the theory of horoscopes is false." This is a much riskier prediction, and only theories that make such exact, specific predictions, which would cause the theory to be thrown out if they were not found to be accurate, can be true science.
This caused him to rethink many theories of the day that he has admired, which were trying to claim to be scientific. Freudian psychoanalysis was one such prominent theory which he found to be lacking. It seemed as though Freud's theories could explain anything and everything, but they never seemed to make specific predictions which put the theory as a whole in danger. The human psyche was so complex that there were always alternate explanations for everything. For example, say Freud found that an overly strict father caused anxiety and repression later in life. Popper points out that in order to be a real science Freud would have to stake the reputation of the theory itself on predictions in specific cases, such as that a man who was anxious and repressed had an overly strict father. But if the Freudians found that a man's father wasn't that way, they would simply find another Freudian explanation for his anxiety, rather than discard the theory. Of course, there is more than one cause for anxiety, so this might be a sensible course of action, but at least for Popper, not scientific. Popper does not make the stronger claim that what Freud was saying was not true, or that it was completely useless, just that it was a different sort of inquiry than what Einstein was doing, who had made extremely exact, falsifying predictions about how light would bend around a black hole, etc.

According to the Stoic doctrine of Apatheia, one should not be bothered by the fact that someone carelessly translates "apatheia" as "apathy", leading to misleading and inaccurate representations for comedic effect.

The Stoic philosophers had a concept called "apatheia", which literally translates as "apathy", but is often left untranslated to avoid confusions. Unlike the word "apathy" in English, it doesn't really mean "not caring about anything" in the sense that you have no motivations or goals, but rather have an ability to block out the word and "not care" in the sense that you are not subject to what is happening around us to control us. So in other words, we have the ability to rise above the circumstance and not be affected by them. So think of it less like a college kid who is too cool to care about doing his schoolwork because he "just doesn't care", and more like a ship captain who remains calm while his ship is sinking, evacuates the passengers, then calmly goes down with his ship. It isn't that he "doesn't care" that the ship is sinking, in the sense that he has no preference about whether the ship sinks or not - obviously he will do anything he can to prevent it from sinking, but once it is inevitable that it is sinking he doesn't allow that fact to have any bearing on his mind, or to affect his character, which is to behave honorably and with virtue.