6 ms·
>And the animals ate the fruit as they were annoyed (there's no other negative emotion there, and the whole point of the story was the animals didn't like that
by jere 14y ago
>And the animals ate the fruit as they were annoyed (there's no other negative emotion there, and the whole point of the story was the animals didn't like that the pineapple seemed to be tricking them).
But practically speaking animals usually eat because they're hungry. Even in a story about talking fruit, that has to seem like a viable option. So I think the point about the question being ambiguous is fair. Anyway, I actually thought the passage was rather amusing, which I guess is why I remembered it here.
- kmfrk 14y agoI also think that there's a problem with the realistic approach to the story contra the Aesopian interpretation where animals should be seen as human-like beings in animal form in order to let the moral be inferred on a figurative, abstract level instead of a literal, concrete level. It's a silly test, because it's ambiguous. Ambiguity is fine in a class setting, but not one where you don't require one canonical answer. It's perfect for something like this, because we assume it's Aesopian and open-ended, but not as a test. I still like it on its own.