 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 1021-1042 |
| ||||||
| 1021. Many study philosophy but few live it, and only the second know the difference. Yet if one to believe Diogenes Laertius, the third century A.D. writer whose "Lives and opinions of eminent philosophers in ten books" is the most comprehensive collection of biographies of the ancient Greek philosophers from Thales to Epicurus, it wasn't always like this. According to him, the majority of these early philosophers felt obliged to give credence by their daily conduct to what they espoused as thinkers. But with philosophy gaining popularity and prestige and, as a result, becoming more and more a subject to study and a trade to earn a living, and less and less the way to live, the separation between the theory and a personal behaviour began. The Romans, who were too busy building the Empire to devote much time and energy to develop their own homegrown philosophy, had appropriated amongst the many other things the Greek one, but mostly as a matter of fashion and hardly of practice. In the Dark Ages of barbarism and dogmatic, fanatical Christianity anyone with philosophical inclinations would translate it into the acceptance of a monastic life - this gross and superstitious perversion of Stoicism. Later, during the Renaissance, with the proliferation of the European universities, philosophy again became a requisite course for students to take, and teaching it would simply be another respectable academic career for the ambitious middle-class intellectuals, but seldom a way of life. Which was just as well. For this development was spurred on by the historical inferiority complex and the desire to imitate the illustrious ancestors , not necessarily one's own. This slavish impulse was never successful, for the moderns have no way of knowing how the ancient actually lived, and despite the best intentions and assiduous efforts it seldom resembled more than a grotesque and silly caricature. Besides, as far as philosophy is concerned, the Renaissance men, notwithstanding the favourable publicity they received later, were more preoccupied with the conspicuous consumption, trying to make up for the scarcity and austerity of the lean and hungry Dark Ages, than with contemplation, and paid but an obligatory lip service to the vanities of it all. In short, to use the modern expression, they were doers, not thinkers. Today, philosophy is a jealously guarded monopoly of a select group of university professors, securely tenured and well paid, not averse to good living and comfortable housing, guiltlessly enjoying such perks as departmental wine and cheese parties, international conferences, grants, sabbaticals, etc., etc. In a word, the followers of Diogenes of Sinope, who wore coarse clothing, ate plain food, and slept on the bare ground, they are certainly not. Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising therefore that the questions of personal morality and virtues, good and evil, truth and falsehood, right or wrong, etc. are as far from their daily concerns as of any layman, whose idea of philosophy is that it is something very few smart people occupy their free time with, and which has no practical application whatsoever. 1022. The reason why the Canadians in general are given so little to hero worshipping, the trait much lamented by the ardent Canadian nationalists, could be as simple as having so few of them that for the lack of practice they have never acquired a habit. 1023. All who are married, men and women alike, would like to believe that their own spouses like Caesar's wife are "above suspicion", while at the very same time indulging in fantasies, innocent or otherwise, that somebody else's are "open to suggestions". Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's particular situation, the simple rules of arithmetic does not allow the both possibilities present themselves simultaneously very often. 1024. Ever wonder why there is Loch Ness monster but nobody ever suggested the presence of a similarly mysterious creature in Thames River, especially in its part flowing through London. Or why flying saucers have never been sighted over New York, but always somewhere in Nebraska or Montana and in the places one might have great difficulties finding on a map. If you did, but haven't come up with a satisfactory answer yet, try this one. It is the relentless monotony of the rural life, its mind-numbing uneventfulness that produces the insatiable hunger for the unusual in the midst of ordinariness, and gives birth to fantasies in order to relieve the tediousness of reality. And then, if we go several thousands years back when, unlike now, the overwhelming majority of the world population lived in small isolated villages, and realize that without books, newspapers, radio, television life then was immeasurably duller than even in the most remote places at the present, we can understand why that age, unlike ours, had produced such a tremendous variety of myths, legends, fables and fairy tales. For the main purpose of such creative fantasies was then essentially the same as now - to survive the excruciating boredom of the rural existence. 1025. In a Bible study class at the local church I've been attending for the past few years, and which is sufficiently supplied by the identical copies of the Bible for all participants, there are some who stubbornly insist on bringing their own, each of which is a different version of translation of the same Bible. In addition, they are usually the ones, who more often than others, volunteer to read it aloud, to the great inconvenience of the rest who, using the stereotype edition, cannot follow them, the fact they totally ignore. And if unity on such a small matter can not be achieved among a couple dozens of parishioners of the same church, is it any wonder that throughout its whole history Christianity has been racked by divisions caused mainly by the different readings of the same text. Moreover, if one extends by analogy what is happening in this small group at the local church to humanity at large, it may be supposed that a lot of misunderstanding between people, and engendered by it continuous strife, could have been avoided if we all agree to read from the same version of the Book of Life, instead of tenaciously clinging to our own, however beloved translation of it. 1026. If there is God, I want to trust He won't deny me justice, for I know that as long as I live the people would. 1027. The tendency to generalize from one's personal experience, which is prevalent in people who grew up in certain cultures, and the reluctance bordering on aversion to do so clearly displayed by those who are the product of the different type of societies, is the indication, in the first case, of the implicit assumption that everybody is the same and one is an integral part of homogeneous "whole", while in the second of emphasizing the uniqueness of each individual and one's separateness from the rest. The first way of seeing and thinking comes from sense of belonging that encourages acting in common interest, the second bespeaks of alienation and "take care of yourself first" mentality. And while by generalizing one is "saying" to all around him " I'm like you, for you are like me, and so lets live and work together in harmony", the refusal to generalize sends the opposite message - "we are all strangers who have little in common, and you'd better watch me, because I'm certainly going to watch you". 1028. Why is it that the "dirty" jokes, which are invariably concerned with bodily parts and bodily functions, sexual or otherwise, and either of the straight vulgarity kind or of more sophisticated double-entendre type, are so universally popular with seemingly everybody, from the semi-illiterate to the proud possessors of advanced degrees? Now, as far as the illiterate are concerned, such a popularity could be the result of simply not knowing, for the most part, any better. The other possible explanation is that having obvious inferiority complex due to the low educational and/or social level they might use the physical humour, consciously or subconsciously, to erase this difference in the process which could be called "the democratization of the smut". It is more difficult to understand what the educated and elevated get out of it. Do they want to show that all this learning hasn't turned them into "blue stockings", that no matter how high they soared they never lost the connection with "reality", which they equate in this case with obscenity? And furthermore, why people in both classes who find such humour disgustingly distasteful never have enough courage to openly say so in the midst of the salacious merriment of the majority who obviously enjoys it? But perhaps the answer to all these questions is as simple as it is unacceptable: we are but a rotting flesh emitting the noxious vapours of filth and depravity in the process of the decay. 1029. By the analogy with the mood altering drugs, people who cause similar psychological reactions in those around them by what they do, say or sometimes by their mere presence could be called "uppers", "downers", "sedatives", "depressants", "anti-depressants", "stimulants", etc. But of course, unlike their original chemical namesakes, the human equivalents cannot for the most part be bought and their intake cannot be as easily controlled. For quite often they are absent when badly needed and present when we'd rather do without them. 1030. When charity must be relied upon it means that justice has failed. For where there is justice there is no need for charity. 1031. As one's name is almost never mispronounced, if it is of the run of-the-mill variety, so is one's character seldom judged unfairly, if it is of rather ordinary and conventional type. But having a rare name or unusual personality, one has to be famous enough for people to take trouble to learn the difficult pronunciation, or spend sufficient time and energy to decipher unique combination of the contradictory attributes. Otherwise, if unknown, be prepared to hear dozens of variations of your name, none of them correct, and the most charitable epithet to be used to describe your unusual character would probably be " a screwball". 1032. How strange are the times we're living in now, when the very people, who allow themselves to act freely out all sorts of perversions, would not brook any opinion, unless it 100% positive, about what they do , especially if expressed by those who refuse to follow the trend. 1033. Being long in coming, it should perhaps have happened sooner. For only recently it dawned on me that though I'm 56 years old I've never been to a psychiatrist, nor had a therapist or counsellor. I was never addicted to drugs, nor even "experimented" with any, and never drunk enough to become an alcoholic. As far as I remember, I was never abused as a child, nor was I a child abuser myself. I didn't beat up my wife, nor had an affair with somebody else's. I must admit always liking to talk to other men, but certainly never lusted for one. Yet, despite all of that, I considered myself up till now to be an average, "normal" man, when in truth I probably belong to the rapidly shrinking minority, which proves how mistaken one could be about oneself. But as the saying goes, better late than never. For suddenly I realize there must be something terribly strange about me, and the only question is, do I still have enough time left to do something in order to join the rest of mankind. 1034. Why is it that when it comes to sharing the fruits of the good times, the poor are thrown only the meagre leftovers from the rich man's table, but they get the lion's share of sacrifices when things turn to the worst. And while the benefits of prosperity are never permitted to more than"trickle down" to those at the bottom, the deprivations of the hard times are allowed to crush unhindered like a waterfall on their unprotected heads. 1035. Given even the modest gifts by Nature, it is not that difficult for a young female to appear attractive. But how to age gracefully is an art not every woman is capable of. 1036. Recently I've witnessed an attempt by a musicologist to trace the progression of Nietzsche as a philosopher using as a guide the kind of music he composed at different periods in his life. At the end I personally was left with an impression that this musicologist had failed in his however commendable undertaking, though not for a lack of trying or some personal inadequacy to the task. So, why in my opinion was he less than successful? To answer this question it has to be established first whether music in general can be used as a key to the intellectual make-up of its creator. I for one doubt it very much. For at best music can express only the most basic emotions but not the thoughts. One can hear in it the feelings of joy and sorrows, triumph and defeat, elation and depression but not the ideas and opinions. Moreover, such universal emotions are equally shared by all human beings, whether they are philosophers or not, wise or foolish, conservative or liberal, Platonist or Aristotelian, materialists or idealists. And since the sounds of music could only be interpreted as the universal signs of such emotions, lacking therefore the necessary specificity, no particular insight into the intellectual life of the composer can be gained by listening to his music, but only the fact that like the rest of us he was, while composing, sometimes sad, sometimes happy, depressed or elated, angry or calm, etc., etc. Perhaps one can discern in it the temperament or mood swings of the composer, but hardly anything else. For like the colours of a painting, unless depicting a recognizable picture, convey an impression but not the story, the notes of music can create emotional but not the intellectual atmosphere. In addition, the above-mentioned effort to read more in music than it is essentially capable of saying may be compared by analogy with Freudian attempt to use the interpretation of dreams to analyse the personality of a dreamer. In our case what has been tried by the lecturer was to achieve the same end by interpreting the sounds, which are even more ambiguous and undetermined than dreams, to decipher one's mind. For how one's intellectual growth and development can be correlated to the kind of music one writes, unless of course it is assumed together with Ecclesiastes that only fools can be happy but the wise are always sad. And since wisdom usually comes with old age, then the music of a young composer must be happy but as he grow older has to become more and more sad, which is contrary to the facts. And finally, if what has been said till now is not convincing, then the fact that the music of Beethoven is equally enjoyed by fascists and democrats, atheists and believers, young and old, etc. means that music has neither ideological nor intellectual content. It is all about what we feel, but not about what we think. 1037. The only life one has a right to take chances with is his or her own. 1038. The United States of America is like a huge world's laboratory to study all kinds of evil and corruption. For though no country on Earth can claim innocence of the same sins and depravities, they are usually more or less disguised and covered up, so that it requires some efforts to expose them. But in the USA, because of its obsession with bigness, everything and especially evil reaches such gigantic and grotesque proportions that it is impossible to avoid seeing it even with the naked eye. 1039. The sweepingly generalized pronouncements, especially of the wholesale condemnation of universal sins kind, are often used for the lack of specificity as an equally universal weapon of convenience by the opposite and warring sides in any conflict and with seemingly equal justification or lack thereof. The Bible is the most perfect example of such misuse. For by condemning the ungodliness, wickedness, foolishness, etc. without specifically indicating, as many biblical prophets and saints were prone to do, who is actually ungodly, wicked, foolish, etc., its authors had provided, perhaps unwittingly, the successive generations of Christians with the excuse to split into numerous factions and with the ready made all-purpose ammunition to hurl at each other. Thus, when the universal truth is turned into the universal condemnation, instead of the unifying force it becomes the means to division and internal strife. 1040. One can never please those who decide well in advance, before anything done to them, whether to be pleased or displeased. But after they have made up their minds (and don't try to figure out what governs their choice, for even they have a rather vague idea of it) to assume certain pattern of behaviour for an hour or for a day (it seldom lasts longer) and put themselves in this or that particular mood, i.e. to be petulant or magnanimous, angry or forgiving, ungrateful or appreciative, etc., rarely anything external can change it. For if such a capricious person decides to be happy the stones thrown at him or her will be called flowers and vice versa, when in an angry mood will react to the flowers he or she is showered with as if they were stones. 1041. When some 2300 years ago Aristotle introduced in his "Politics" the still useful classification of different types of states, such as Monarchy, Aristocracy, Tyranny, Oligarchy, Democracy, including their various subdivisions, he had failed to point out (to the best of my knowledge) one very important feature common to all of them, namely, the type of individuals who invariably rise to the top, no matter what system of government is in place. For as far as their personal characteristics and psychological profiles are concerned, the people in the positions of power in any kind of state are always the same, i.e. vain, over-ambitious, power hungry, callous, cruel, ruthless, unscrupulous, greedy, etc. And whether they are born to power , seize it, or elected to govern is largely irrelevant to who they essentially are or for that matter to the governed. So it shouldn't surprise anybody, especially one who lived through the 20th century, that the more things change, politically, economically and ideologically speaking, the more they, as far as who rules is concerned, stay the same. And if one is looking for a concrete example of this universal phenomenon, the "miraculous" metamorphosis of the former Soviet apparatchiks and uncompromising communist ideologists, who used to possess the power as appointed members of Politburo, into the free-wheeling capitalists, devoted body and soul to the market economy, and who exercise the similar power as the elected members of the new Russian parliament, should suffice. 1042. It is absolutely essential for one's peace of mind to do, or strongly believe in being capable of doing, at least one thing well. For then we can go on with our lives forgiving all the rest the sin of being better than we are at almost anything else. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00954 |