Jam Man
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Jam Man
-
-
I never said they were murderers or that I was condemning them.
"Those that really drove the economy were bringing it to an abrupt halt, throwing 'theirkind' off head first onto the pavement, plus any 'neutrals' as Galt called them, which I am assuming are children, babies, etc...."
What Galt said in his speech and their reaction is not relevant to this discussion.
I was referring to Galt's capitivity in the hotel, when Mr. Thompson, Dr. Ferris, and such each confronted him tete-a-tete.
Ragnar to Cuffy: "Mr. Meigs, kindly pull out your copy of Prior Analytics and define for me a syllogism, please?"
-
None of the posts I made have such a premise.
Dear me. I've committed a horrible error, then, if I assumed that "Galt, Ragnar, et al., are murderers who are purging the world of not theirkind so that they may rule it" is your main premise. And I've committed further errors still, if I assumed that "Galt, Ragnar, et al. ought to have picked up chalk and taught the world how to live rather than destroying it" was implicit in your main premise, and explicit in your posts.
Are you not condemning them for striking? Are you not damning them for murdering the globe? Are you not pronouncing them guilty for wanting to live free? Are you not holding their retaliation to the use of force -- by forceful and non-forceful means -- as immoral is the initiation of it?
I don't know what it would have done to them.
But you do. Galt spoke with almost each one of them, and they each ran out of the room screaming when they heard what you wanted him to teach them. Just because they are helpless does not give them the moral sanction to rule men by force. Just because they have built their society to rely upon the sanction of the victim, does not mean that the victims are morally obligated to sanction such a society.
-
And post #11 wasn't rhetorical. Please do answer.
-
Every post you've made in any of these inter-connecting threads is based on the premise that it is immoral to break the bonds that tie the abuser and the abused; that one adversary doesn't have the right to withdrawl from the other, but instead must continue taking abuse in order to teach the other why abuse is wrong. Especially if breaking those bonds would cause harm to the abuser.
Consider that a kid at school takes my lunch money every day. According to you, I would not only have to continue to let him take it, but take the trouble to explain to him why it's wrong for him to take it -- the lesson being delivered, presumeably, through a bloody nose. Well look, it's not like my missing lunch money is breaking me; and I still continue to study and excel at my main goal, which is keeping up with my scholastics; and in fact when I leave school for the day I don't have him to worry about, and all in all life is pretty damn good. You would tell me: "Suck it up. You know how to live, he doesn't. Teach him, even as he pummels you."
You also teach me that I am in fact responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What happens if I leave that school, and without my lunch money he starves to death? Or is malnourished to the point that his success is impossible? You would say "He needed your lunch money and you knew it: you starved him." What if I went further, and rallied my classmates to oppose bullying? Or if I went further still, and built my own school where there would be no bullies allowed? Then you would say I was purging the world of bullies, that I was a murderer and responsible for all the things that the bullies ought to have known, even as I taught them and they rejected the lesson.
- SapereAude and dream_weaver
-
2
-
I'll ask again: what would mind and chalk have done to persuade a man like Cuffy Meigs? Or Dr. Ferris? Or Orren Boyle? Or even Jim Taggart, who had his sister there with him his entire life, perpetually at the chalkboard, constantly showing him the right way?
-
At risk of assuming the nature of a broken record, I'll restate:
"You seem to imply that if they were not his "kind" (you keep forgetting a space between those two words), then Galt would hunt them down and continue the purge; or, if he stumbled across of a band of altruists in the wilderness, he'd exterminate them on the spot.
You curse Galt for wanting to live, and damn him for not caring enough to stop living his life long enough to show you how to live yours. It's his life! That's kind of the theme of the novel, that Atlas has a right to his own life, no matter what the demands of the entire globe might be. Galt doesn't want to plie-drive the globe, Ragnar doesn't want to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, they just wanna be fuckin' free, man, and the easiest way to do it AIN'T going door to door with pamphlets extolling the virtues of freedom. They saw that the world was going to shit, and they withdrew to a safe location... one where whatever the rest of assholes on the planet did to themselves didn't affect them, one where they could be free.
What could Galt have said to Cuffy Meigs that would have made a man like that want to give it all up?"
And what about the babies... all the babies, so innocent, so unentangled with the affairs of the world.... Indeed, unentangled and and innocent they may be, but John Galt's responsibility they are not. Should he remain a slave, because society has rigged it so that if he frees himself, innocents suffer?
Why wage war or commit violence against a society that is already committing suicide? Why do you equate the recognition of the fact that a society is comitting suicide, with the murder of that society by the one who recognizes that fact and steps out of its influence?
You even admit that it's moral to let a society act how it wants, rather than wage war against it, which is just what Galt did. What exactly is your beef?
-
You seem to imply that if they were not his "kind" (you keep forgetting a space between those two words), then Galt would hunt them down and continue the purge; or, if he stumbled across of a band of altruists in the wilderness, he'd exterminate them on the spot.
You curse Galt for wanting to live, and damn him for not caring enough to stop living his life long enough to show you how to live yours. It's his life! That's kind of the theme of the novel, that Atlas has a right to his own life, no matter what the demands of the entire globe might be. Galt doesn't want to plie-drive the globe, Ragnar doesn't want to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, they just wanna be fuckin' free, man, and the easiest way to do it AIN'T going door to door with pamphlets extolling the virtues of freedom. They saw that the world was going to shit, and they withdrew to a safe location... one where whatever the rest of assholes on the planet did to themselves didn't affect them, one where they could be free.
What could Galt have said to Cuffy Meigs that would have made a man like that want to give it all up?
-
Pray tell, where does and how does and to whom does he think he's going to be teaching, when the earth is "desolated", the country ruined, by the time he and the others go back? And, aboveall, why is he going into teaching, then, rather than beforehand?
Looks like Rearden is already signed up. Extrapolate from that.
Before he could teach, he had to answer brute force with mind and force.
-
Precisely. And that is why I am raising the issue on why they choose that, then.
They not only foresaw a collapse, but were waiting for it, eagerly anticipating it, and speeding it up. Galt was trying to get theirkind the hell out of the way for hiskind. Ruin the country/world, not try to change it, then to return to it afterwards.
Why would they choose the alternative: to spend their lives living in a world which hates them as much as it needs them, and which takes from them as much as it damns them, and then turn all their energies to the task of lecturing to that world (while it sucks their life out of them) "Let me be free; here's why"? Why choose to live as livestock professors who attempt to educate their farmers, when they can choose to live as free men?
-
About Ragnar:
He was metaphorically slaying Robin Hood. His exact agenda was to repatriate the money with its rightful owners. Observe the detailed records he obtained from the IRS, and the accounts he had set up in the rightful owners' names with the rightful owners' money in them, waiting for the rightful owners to collect it.
About converting the shrugged world:
It was never about "them" to begin with. The strike was not to teach them or convert them or to purge them, it was to get out of their path of evil and destruction and, in fact, to stop feeding and sanctioning the evil by remaining active in an evil system.
That was the main purpose: for the strikers to live as free men, removed from a society of evil. Did they forsee the collapse of such a society (which had engulfed the globe) when they withdrew their minds and sanction from it? They did. Did they wish to become educators and instill the same virtue of foresight upon the rest of the world? They did not. They wished to live, apart and seperate from the rest of world who (implicitly or explicity) didn't. That a group of men is walking off a cliff doesn't obligate another group of men to stop them, particularly when the second group of men was formerly a part of the first and has been trying to steer the first away all along (if only by showing the rest how to avoid the cliff -- how to live -- by example, if not by explicit education) and all they get for it is damned and used on the way to it, only to be taken over the edge of it with the rest, to boot.
-
Ragnar recovered stolen money. The stolen money, before it was repatriated, was being shipped off to prop-up Peope's States across the globe... states who have already drained themselves of resources and capital and who were now looking at the US as the last apple on the tree. Yes, Ragnar took money that was to keep it all from falling apart, thus allowing it to fall apart. What you fail to recognize is that he didn't steal the money in the first place, he was recovering it for its rightful owners; he didn't promise the citizens of the People's States stolen wealth from abroad, the leaders of those states did; he didn't organize the collapse of those states, the states' leaders did when they erected their society upon the moral foundation of a tapeworm.
Ragnar destroyed nothing except a criminal enterprise. I'm sure there are innocent benefactors of the mafia who suffer when a local don is gunned down or arrested. Giving to the poor is an effective and popular method of maintaining favorability within a community, particularly when you want the community to turn a blind eye to some of your less-moral endeavors. That an entire continent was dependant upon criminals to steal and extort money from productive men for their survival was a non-issue for our just pirate Ragnar. The criminals -- the leaders, the politicians, the dictators -- were dooming themselves and their people when they began to rely upon force for their livelihood.
-
Obviously, the country was deteriorating. As was mentioned, the very first words of the novel you read describe the dilapidated condition of America. Nowhere in the novel do you even begin to consider thinking about getting a vague impression that just maybe everything was possibly somehow A-OK and hunky-dory. We get that idea about America's past: we read about Nat Taggart, and the former greatness of The 20th Century M.C., and of Dagny's youth, etc.. But everything written about the novel's present conveys that sense of denouement.
Therefore I cannot accept the premise that Galt was the cause of it all. Instead, he was being swept up in it, along with the rest of humanity, until he decided to remove himself and his sanction from it.
-
The title itself may give you some insight. Why did Atlas shrug? Because "...he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders." In short, he was quickly approaching a point where he had to make a choice: It's either me, or the world. He shrugged to save himself. As was proper.
Your concern lies with the shrugged world.
That it was to perish was a given in either circumstance. Either it would crush Atlas and therefore cause its own destruction, by removing the support upon which it depended; or, it would perish after Atlas removed himself as that support. Atlas had no choice about the destruction of the world. Neither did Galt. That the world set itself on its own path towards doom was beyond their power to alter. To use your metaphor, the world was already gassing itself, whether Galt took he and his friends into the clean air chamber or not.
You're confusing an act of self-defense for an act of agression. You're mistaking the shrug for a body-slam. And you're mistaking the strike for a purge.
"Hey guys, look: the world's going to shit. You see it, I see it. And besides that, you see how they're riding us like jockeys? Stealing from us to survive, then damning us for having something to steal? I don't know about you, but I'm out. Who's with me? I got some nice land in the mountains, we'll be free and live as men.... Well, what about the rest of them? They have no right to weigh upon our backs. I'm not forcing them to do anything at all, except live without including me in their unspeakable evil. Sure, their ways will bring death and destruction. But not to me... or you, if you strike with me."
Yes, Galt knew that defending his own life against another who claimed it for himself was the highest moral feeling (it stems from "I am worthy to be alive"). Not an act of murder, but of self-defense. What he went out to do, that night after the meeting in the factory, was defend himself against that unspeakable evil. He spoke in terms of motors, but you could also say that he collected all the good meat and kept it ziplocked while the parasites consumed the rest of the contaminated meat. Of course, the unprotected meat and the parasites would both perish: the meat by being consumed by the parasites, and the parasites by having no more meat on which to feed. All Galt really did was step aside and let nature take its course. He didn't have to purge the world of the parasites. He knew they would purge themselves. He just went on strike against being food.
-
I prefer honest socialists (Democrats) to dishonest socialists (Republicans). It's not a great choice, no, but the choice is clear anyhow.
Republicans implement socialist policies precisely because the reigning philosophical current in America has been altruistic. They don't know how to get capitalism and altruism to jive. Of course you get mixed results, when you hold mixed premises. But you will not effect philosophical revolution by electing the proponents of the philosophy from which you wish to revolt. Which is altruism, is it not?
-
I have the impression that the Republicans are intellectually vague, and don't know exactly what course to set; while the Democrats are intellectually firm, and know exactly what course to set. So with the R's, as with Bush, we get a sloppy, inconsistent administration that has a general tendency towards capitalism (but without really knowing why its best), and with the D's we get as clear a path as they can make to Marxism.
I also have the impression that the OP admires the fidelity to a central ideal that the D's display, and has disdain for the half-hearted bumbling done by the R's when they have the ball.
Firm convictions, founded upon an intellectual base, inspire confidence in the man or men holding them. Wishy-washy notions of tradition have the opposite effect upon the men holding them.
If this were enough to judge a man or party fit for leadership, then the D's win. But the analysis doesn't end there. We must consider what convictions these men hold.
A liberal professor, say, can articulate very well why private property doesn't exist. But that doesn't make the professor right, even though some schlub can't express his argument for private property any better than "It's mine 'cause I earned it". The professor makes his claim based upon (faulty) reason and logic, and the schlub makes his based upon a seemingly self-evident principle but without any real argument to support it.
So do I stand by the professor or the schlub, when the time comes to implement their ideas? Do I stand by a party dedicated to an end, or a party which can't justify its own ends? One clearly expouses Marxism. The other gives lip service to Freedom and Capitalism, while not knowing how justify them in altruistic terms, or perhaps in any terms outside of being endowed by our Creator....
But God-damn, at least the R's know the Constitution is GOOD, even if they don't fully understand it. They respect Individual Rights*, even if they don't have a thorough comprehension of them. They don't want to violate the Constitution's every principle in favor of fairness and equality.
Neither party espouses laissez-faire, which is, politically, the only way to implement Individual Rights. But one is closer to doing it than the other.
(*This is untrue of the R's in every aspect, of course. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage, Abortion immediately pop into mind)
- Nicky and softwareNerd
-
2
-
Back in June when I first saw the video, I felt compelled to voice my displeasure directly to the University of Minnesota:
date: Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM
subject: Unfair Campaign
Repugnant video. You make the asumption that hard work, intelligence, self-discipline and determination play no part in anyone's success, white or otherwise. Instead, you proffer the idea that society as a whole is the "distributer" of rewards, and then only distributes these rewards based on nothing but skin color (undoubtedly the enlightened staff and students of your university are the exception).
It may be a shock to you, but there are those of us out here who judge a person based on their character and the content of their mind, and who do NOT feel guilty about whatever rewards we've earned for ourselves -- rewards gotten from the attributes I mentioned above, and from nowhere else.
You must learn to see each person as an Individual. You, my dear freinds, are less color-blind than you accuse society of being. Open your own eyes before you preach to me about how closed you think mine are.
Sincerely (and not without a foul aftertaste from your video)....
The next day the Office of the Chancellor blogged about the PSA, and ended up agreeing with the premise, but not the "creative strategy" of it: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/chan/umdnews/2012/06/unfair-campaign-1.html
-
With each example, I gave the context of multiple values and considerations, in addition to honesty. By principled, I mean there is a hierarchy of values. By context, I mean looking at the bigger picture (i.e., the consequences, cost/benefit, etc.).
What value would you be gaining by praticing the "virtue" of lying? The value of another's consciousness redirected from what actually is, to whatever fantasy you feel they can emotionally handle? What else must you consider, besides what actually is? Give your fellow man the same oppurtunity you had: to judge, evaluate, and deal with real life. And isn't that really what honesty is all about: being true to reality, to existence itself? What is the actual cost, when you substitute your own inventions for bits and pieces of reality that you find socially undesirable?
Was I throwing my integrity out the window? Was I rejecting honesty as a principle? Why or why not?You weren't. Having knowledge someone else doesn't have isn't dishonesty. If she really wanted to know, and she'd asked, you couldn't get away with "I don't wanna talk about it" for very long without her insisting. (So by God, she wants to know how your mother is doing, not how you want her to think she's doing. She wants to know what actually is, not what you want her to believe actually is.) But either the truth, or "I don't wanna talk about it," are the only two honest answers you could've given if she had asked. And would she have been able to tell something was wrong? Probably, but that's also probably because something was wrong. Would you think she is ill-equipped to deal with reality, that you must give her a gentler alternative? Instead of looking at it as doubling-down the pain on her, couldn't you see it another way: might not she realize that, if she wants to support the man she loves, then she must be stronger than she has been? Isn't that building character? Isn't that a pair united against what's really there for them to face? What would you have gotten with a lie, if she had asked? Not a chance for her character (and yours) to build, but the equivalent of giving an "A" on an unanswered test. The cost is character, etc... there is no benefit.
But you weren't lying, at all. I wouldn't have told her either. Unless she'd asked. And then there really is no alternative.
-
Jam Man, I see the points you make and acknowledge it is very tough to justify lying when you should be able to present who you really are. But let me ask you this,
Suppose you're a starving salesman and closing a big deal would be greatly aided by a white lie?
Roark makes this point while being a starving architect in The Fountainhead:
'It's sheer insanity!' Weidler moaned, 'I want you. We want your building. You need the commission. Do you have to be quite so fanatical and selfless about it?' Roark smiled. He said, 'That was the most selfish thing you've ever seen a man do.'Would I be tempted to lie? Absolutely. Would I feel like a piece of shit after I did? Without a doubt. Would I enjoy the steak dinner it bought me? It would lack savour, and fail to nourish my integrity and self-esteem as it would my body.
"Yes but a just a little teeny white lie!? You would feel so bad over a very small compromise of your values and integrity!?"
Indeed I would. Hopefully it would cause me to realize I need to find a career where I can perform my work honestly, and more fruitfully than I have been. Dominique sums it up:
'Roark, I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between'There is no difference between "honest" and "totally honest" or "completely honest". You don't start sentences with "Let me be honest..." because it ought to be a given, and you shouln't have to make that distinction to youself when you realize you're speaking to someone else out loud instead of thinking privately; as if everything you say without that qualifier may or may not represent your true and actual thoughts and opinions, or reality. Either you're honest, or you're not. To yourself and to others. The first step to being honest with yourself is to stop trying to justify your dishonesty, especially with life-or-death scenarios that don't represent day-to-day life.
Mr. Foddis,
But now you are dying. Is this the time to be honest about the affair? Your wife is already in a lot of pain in anticipation of your death, and she will be grieving for a long time after you've gone. Is honesty the best policy, that is, is it essential to your integrity to you drop this bombshell on her? I'd be curious to know whether you believe it is a good idea to be honest in this situation and why?To be honest does not mean that you must reveal secrets, or may not have them. If she asked me, I would tell her the truth. If she didn't ask, I would die with that knowledge, hoping for her sake she'd never find out another way, because she would've rather heard it from the man she loves than his lover. Either way, the consequences of my dishonesty in the past are unescapable. I'm a wreck on my deathbed, and instead of a solemn, final goodbye I'm left consumed with guilt or a twice heartbroken soon-to-be-widow on my conscious. If I've lived dishonestly, what else should I expect?
A person doesn't need to be honest 100% of the time. Certainly he can lie his way into a win-win situation, and even rationalize to himself that he did right, given the results. A man only needs to be honest to the extent that he values his integrity. Some men don't, and lie willingly, white or otherwise. And being honest doesn't mean broadcasting every thought in my head out loud for the world to hear. It just means if you ask, you'll get the truth.
Again about the dress: if she asks for my opinion, I'm going to give it to her, because that's what she asked for. It's more important to my integrity to be honest to her than to lie to her, yes. Just because social considerations come into play doesn't mean that principles go out the window.
As to the buddy example, the lying in this case is to postpone a conversation because the timing was not right.Is there no other way to postpone a conversation than to lie? If you're saying I tweaked my argument to show that honesty was the only option, then certainly you're tweaking this whole argument to show that lying is the only option that wouldn't lead to a shit-storm. "...with Dude X? No thanks, everytime he's around my girlfiend he tries to get her to leave me for him. I'd rather not." The possibilities are endless. Just tell your buddy the truth. "Why not Dude X?" "Don't worry about it right now man, go enjoy yourselves, we'll catch up later on." Done. Conversation postponed, integrity intact.
There's no "principled" approach to lying other than the rejection of honesty as a principle....That's the nail being hit on the head right there.
-
The point is not missed: that white lies are a form of social lubricant, and outright honesty can cause social friction. In terms of dresses, certainly "I'd rather not get into that now" is an awkward response. Here, just be honest. There's no need to be rude or demeaning while stating it. "No, not really; you look better in this-or-that type of dress, or this-or-that color..." etc.. If she loves the dress, well then friction may occur. To me, that's her bad if she can't handle someone else's honest opinion, politely stated nonetheless, with reassurances that she is still beautiful, and that the object of my negative opinion was her dress, not her.
Your buddy thinks Dude X is a great guy; you can't stand him. What's wrong with saying that? "Yeah man, sounds like a good time... but really, Dude X just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather not...." Is your buddy gonna be pissed? Does he know you well enough to understand why you think Dude X is a douche? Consider the alternatives: lying to your buddy, going out with another buddy instead, and having him find out. Now instead of explaining reality (why you'd rather not hang with Dude X), you're explaining sommersaults of fiction in your head. "Well look man I wasn't up to it, but then I changed my mind...." Or would you NOW offer the truth, only after you've been caught in the lie? "Look man Dude X is a douche but I didn't wanna say that on the phone...." How credible is your explaination now? How credible are YOU, now? And if you're gonna offer the truth anyway, why not save a step and offer it to begin with, and save your integrity (and your buddy's opinion of you) in the process?
Yes, lying is an easy way out of sticky situations. But honesty is the RIGHT way out. And you may have to face uncomfortable results: others may not like you (become displeased, not give up the booty, etc.) for who you are. There's nothing you can do about that, if you wish to maintain your integrity, except explain why your opinions are what they are. They will see the light -- or not. You can't force them to, so deal with reality accordingly and move on.
I cannot help but to throw a link to the Lexicon out here for you to consider: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/honesty.html
(Btw, I absolutely agree with Goodman Foddis' statement that it's more important to be a good man than a good Objectivist. However, the two are practically interchangable)
-
That's why I don't call myself an Objectivist. A student of Objectivism? Sure. An Individualist? Of course. But A) I'm not fully versed in the philosophy, haven't read all of Rand's works, etc., and B ) I don't fully apply all the principles of Objectivism to my life. Honesty is one of the most important ones to me; on the other hand, I can be willfully lazy, and let emotion and whim dictate my action (vs. rational thought) if I'm not careful... or sometimes I'll even say "fuck it" when I know better, letting my emotional state again dictate my actions.
In my defense, untangling the unwieldy root-ball of your emotional mechanism is harder than inventing something to say that isn't true. I do try. There's definite progress, and that's pleasing and rewarding. As is knowing I'm an honest man.
-
1. Yes, if you want to be a hypocrite. When someone tells me they're an Objectivist, they're telling me that (among other things) they value honesty, and are honest with themselves and with others. If you willfully are not, then drop trying to come across as if you are.
2. You're not obligated to divulge anything. If asked a question, answer honestly, or answer that you don't wish to answer ("I don't wanna get into that right now")
Why lie? To gain a short-term satisfaction? What are the long-term consequences? If you say you like her dress to avoid conflict, have fun dealing with the conflict caused by 10 new similar dresses added to her wardrobe. But perhaps you don't plan anything long-term at all -- maybe this is a one-and-done shot, and once it's done you don't plan on seeing her again. Then have fun sleeping at night knowing that the women you sleep with must be lied to and flattered, that they don't really want you, but the illusion of you that you had to build for them.
Why go through all the trouble of inventing lies for someone who doesn't like you as you are?
-
If this discussion weren't held over the internet, you'd be perfectly able to demonstrate reality with speaking a word. You could, for example: tap him on the shouler; point at something; grab his hand and hold it to a flame; pour ice water down his pants; turn off the lights; wave smelly material under his nose. How would he handle this demonstration of reality: hand him a lit firecracker without uttering a syllable, without raising an eyebrow or curving the mouth into a smile. Would his reaction to reality be subject to your explaination of it? Even if he didn't know what a firecracker was, once it exploded in his hand he would learn a lot about it, entirely through sensory experience, without one peep of language coming into play. And more: he would sense EXACTLY what anyone else would sense when a lit firecracker goes off in their hand. Hand him another lit firecracker, after the first, and you will discover that he has learned a truth about reality without language coming into play at all.
Ask him what his language will talk about without reality preceeding his perceptions, which preceed his concepts, which preceed his language. Even his imagination is based on concepts that he learned from perceiving reality -- the very same reality in which we all live. Explaining a firecracker to someone and holding one while it explodes are two different ways of learning about the firecracker. But primarily, SOMEONE had to observe the firecracker and identify it, before any linguistic (oral or written) explaination can be given.
-
Nine times out of ten I return the cart to the corral, simply because I want to live in a world where shopping carts are in their place. If ever I don't, it's because the weather is downright nasty. Even then I'll shove it up on the median or make sure it's not free to roll around into parking spaces or driving lanes.
As to ethical 'duty' - ha, I recognize no such animal.
Nice catch!
-
Charming topic. My most favorite word to speak is French, peut-être, pronounced "puh-tet-ruh" You almost don't need your vocal chords; push out the puh (oh so lightly, don't spit it out!); start the tet with a sharp te and quickly cut it off with another sharp, staccato t; and finally, directly from the last t, airily roll out the ruh with the back of your tongue.
I love speaking French in general. The nasally vowels in words like sont and plupart cause the whole length of my sonorous apparatus, from the top of the sinuses down to the diaphragm, to resonate pleasantly. I do wish I'd've kept up studying it. The best I can do now is read the French portion of some stereo instructions out loud, and it's an embarassingly guilty pleasure.
Existential Crisis
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
Concerning the longetivity of our species, first take ten minutes to listen to Carl Sagan: http://youtu.be/LDIo_SpFI60
If you're that terribly concerned with events that won't occur for billions (and billions!) of years, take some solace in the fact that, if we do become able to "soar through the lightyears", our descendants will have aquired knowledge about the universe that we cannot even begin to imagine to understand. Perhaps they will have the ability to jump from universe to universe, or dimension to dimension, or they will have mastered technology which actually prevents the end of the universe. Who can imagine? Who can know? Maybe we have it all wrong to begin with... maybe our understanding of the universe and its fate is as simplistic a view -- compared with what our far-flung descendants will understand -- as the ancient understanding that the Earth was flat. It makes perfect sense, until you know better.