>apple jack, what's a fuck?
>"Well, depending on the context, it's either an individual sexual encounter, or an arbitrarily small unit of interest in a particular thing. Why do you ask?"
>"Jus' thought it was a funny word, that's all. Anon says it all th' time."
>"Well if he really says it that often, I'd reckon he's using it as an intensifier. In that case it doesn't really mean anything, and just works a bit like a 'very'. Excepting of course that 'very' is generally speaking only an adverb, and thus has a mite less versatility."
>"Well modern Equestrian philosophy seems a bit everwhichways to me, but near as ah can tell it seems to break down into rationalists and empiricists, least as far as epistemology is concerned. Rationalists put their faith in innate ideas and deduction fer their knowledge, which frankly I don't cotton to. Ah'm more of a empiricist, myself. I trust my eyes and ears, they ain't never let me down before."
neither concept could exist without the elements of the other. You can't trust observations without deducting that the observation method is correct, and you can't make a deduction without some form of observation. using either exclusively would be considered faith
>"There's no need to insult my intelligence sugarcube."
>"Ah did say 'generally' an adverb, as in 'apples are very good'. The adverb modifies another part of speech, in this case the adjective 'good'. It can also be an adjective as you pointed out though, as in 'that is the very apple ah'm looking for'."
>"Ah don't know about that. Ah'll grant you that ya need both to form a cohesive worldview, but saying they're that interdependent? You don't need to observe a bunch of triangles to know that all triangles have three sides, it's an apple priori analytic truth. Same goes for the purely empirical truths."
you're right, in an intellectual vacuum. but to learn to make deductions, examples need to be shown to teach the very concept. this is due to the lack of pure abstract thought in sentient beings. dig deep enough and every rule, law, and definition is rooted in an observation used as a reference. how would explaining shapes work without a observable representation of sides and angles?
I began writing an example to this when I noticed, how does one define observation when the thing in question is a concept. It's late and I think I'm rambling.
anyway, what do you think of Asian Pears, are they apple enough? or are they too pear?
I meant no disrespect. I never thought you were stupid.
It's just that I didn't expect for you to go so... in-depth about such things. I expect this sort of thing more from the purple one.
>"Well now y'all are getting into applied philosophy, which is a horse of a different color, if you pardon the expression. Ah suppose from a pragmatic standpoint that's true."
>"Whadd'ya mean? Ah'm no fancy thinker, if thats' what ya'll are saying!"
>"Dang it, Twi, remember what we talked about? Thinking is a good thing."
yes, I've always has an applied mindset. learning never appealed to me unless it had a clear use. I suppose that led to my interest in Engineering over mathematics.
do you have... mental capacity issues when you lose your wings? were you relying on magic princess power too much?
It's not heretical, it's true. Think about it: our concept of fruit is usually something that grows on trees and has a specific flavor, size, form and smell. Now, about flavor and smell, those are generally subjective, different people probably get different feelings from those. So, let's get to size and form. Apples and Oranges are both spheroids, roughly of the same size, and both can produce a juice if squezed/mashed in the right way. This means that, ironically, apple and oranges pertain to the very same concept, not taking in account subjectiveness.
>"Land's sake, I ain't going to stand for this kind of lies and slander! Y'all can keep your oranges! I'm having nothing to do with it!"
>"Dunno what you're saying, bruh. Now if you'll excuse me, me and my li'l bro have to go wrap up winter, we unicorns don't have time for fancy talk like earthies do all the time."
RELATIVISM IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE, AJ! You can love apples and oranges at the same time! And accept the fact that they do indeed are the same thing, as long as subjectivity is not involved!
good sir, taste and smell are objective at a chemical level. it is subjective at a brain processing level, but the properties of the fruits are physically significant and measurable.
You're using the old "is what I see as green the same as yours?" argument. that doesn't change the fact that green and red are different colors
ERROR 404: Applejack not found.
She ran away because of oranges.
Of course. But point is, the labels we give to things are based on our experience of them. Now, apple and oranges are definitely different on a rational level. On a more conceptual one, they do play the same part. Think of it like this: apples are earth ponies, oranges are unicorns. Are they the same kind of horse? No, as we all know unicorns have horns, while earthies don't. But, on an epistemologic level they both fulfil the 'little ponies' trope. This means that when somebody mentions "ponies" earthies, unicorns and even pegasi are equally represented in our mind, thus they share a meaning.
This doesn't lower their singular value as individuals, but simply proves that apples can be as good as oranges, when concepts are involved
well yes, if your measurement of "good" is simply from a random person's perspective. what I don't agree with is the arbitrary grouping of objects based on a small group of similarities, then saying they are comparable. I could say apples and cardboard are virtually the same because they are both edible and come from trees in some way. they both fulfil the 'tree product' trope. I think the mindset is valid by itself, but not as applicable in the given scenario as you think. but now we come to an argument of perspective from a different angle, and it's now 6AM. My brain is tired enough
>captcha: select the oranges
>"Anon, stop sayin' that. It may be ok where you come from, but it ain't fine here."
"I can't fucking help it, can't you fucking see? It's a fucking disease, and I got fucking caught in the fucking middle of it!"
>"I don' get it."
"I sure fucking do! Help me fucking get to fucking Twilight motherfucking Sparkle and she'll surely fucking something about it!"
>"A'ight Anon, just keep yo' mouthhole shut. Ponies in town ain't gonna tolerate this, disease or not."
>Applejack takes you to the gay bathouse to get some duct tape and shut your mouth
>You two approach Ponyville
>"Now be quiet and it'll be fine."
>"Yeah, that works."
>"Why can't we just keep you like that?"
>could say apples and cardboard are virtually the same because they are both edible and come from trees in some way. they both fulfil the 'tree product' trope.
That's exacty it: given a specific mindset YOU CAN.