Hi,
Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org> writes:
<<
Quite frankly, I didn't see that story as about
Failablity/Imperfection at all. It was obviously more about living
together with other people and accepting their ideas of what
constitues a "good life" for them, even when those ideas aren't based
on the same standards as your own.
Did you see something else?
>>
Yes. On re-reading, of course, I see what you saw as well. What's the point?
Absence of absolute standards doesn't imply absence of standards...
<<
>But then I'm obviously biased. I like hearing the truth -- even
>if it is ugly and immoral.
HAHAhahahahahahahaahahha! --that's cute! Who can argue against the
truth!
>>
I like the quote too (another classic Nietzsche). Of course, everybody can argue against the truth... but at the end of the day, god is still dead... we have killed him, you and I.
(ahh... stop me before I quote all of Nietzsche...)
<<
(And truth is, it wasn't the brothers house to fret so over, now was
it?)
>>
True enough. There is an irony in the character of the brother -- the do-gooder whom no-one likes. It is the same role that the Inspector plays: the man who cares too much. They both crossed the line from benevolence to "invasion of privacy", from giving advice to coercively implementing it.
I wonder if research into that line from a memetic prespective would be productive? ({...thinking...} interesting issue {...thinking...} yep, I'd say there is some meat here for the CoV -- anybody other than me want to spell it out for us?)
ERiC