/lit/ - Literature

>>4585388

The question for the essence of things has been recurrent over the ages Op. Being essence, very poorly described, that series of atributes, that make a thing be what the thing is, independently from the symbolic elements we use to refer to it.

Having this in mind, the word you use to refer to a thing, is a variable, as proven by the different versions of the term orange in the crucible of languages that exist, and existed.

But you also introduced mutability of the refered attributes, by stating the orange wasn't generated from planting a seed, and waiting for a tree to grow, and getting the fruit, but by re-composing the orange, with the collective memories of something that existed long ago.

Since there is no other reference to "orange" but what people believe it to be, you could end up calling orange to an apple, or a pear.

Now, let's think we got the DNA of several kinds of oranges, and that we are in position to introduce mutations in them, aside from the random ways of nature... In which point an orange stops being an orange, and looses it's "orangeity"? Which one of the new strains are oranges, and which ones are another thing? Are any of them an orange?

I'll give you a clue: go give an old person, one of the lab mutated stuff we pass as fruit nowadays, and ask them if it tastes like the one of their memories...

Not pretending to make you guys bend to what I said, I'm just exposing a point of view. Nevar forget that. ;)