I suppose I could read Hegel’s “Final Result” once a week... or I could play Final Fantasy 12 for 15 hours a week. Think I'm going with FF12. Y'know, I'm one of those people that thinks at some point in the future I'm gonna start doing exercise and reading thinky stuff, but right this minute, impoverished and stressed out, I'm going with the masses.
Let's leave the thinky stuff to the people who think they're thinking.
I'll be playing Gears of War and watching the Superbad trailer over and over again.
Usually Poe, I think you're too flip and apolitical for me to dig, but I just googled "Superbad" and that looks so cool! You win.
Apolitical?! But I read teh Stranger!!1one
That you do...
Did you watch the unedited trailer, or the lame trailer?
Mainly, Charles, what I see is someone who knows the use of metaphor (Goethe). And then there are two selections reflecting the pitfalls of argument by analogy. Goethe's description relies on two known experiences, with experience B bridged to experience A. It's the perspective on the moral world you get while standing next to a sewer grate.
But then with Oparin you have an analogy doing the brute force work of uniting living and dead -- two exclusive categories which if united would cease to be meaningful. The crumbling earth here is from the shoddiness of his logic, opposing biology and physics, as if human categorization was somehow deeply reflective of the nature of being. Experience B is all supposition, so there's no particular constraint (or worth) in comparison -- he might as well say that when knowledge about living and dead things unites it'll be like a jello dish with pineapple in it.
And then again, Hegel, though here the earth is crumbling because it's so obviously an intellectual construct, a dirt that hinders the luminescence of spirit. (How delightful it would be, really, if there were nothing between us and the light of the sun?) The level of abstraction acts against the employ of the crumbling earth analogy; it's simply poetic speech without poetic rigor, a manipulative institution of the apparently real to provide contrast for the transcendent majesty of spirit. This perspective is simple assertion -- it pretends to link the metaphysical and physical, but only to undermine the physical. Spirit, naturally, doesn't crumble.
So three different translators used the same word. What's actually in the texts?
Reading translations is like eating a photograph of bread.
@7,Yes, but does Charles actually read the comments?
@9, yes, every word. very much enjoyed what mvb had to say.
He reads them, but he's very careful when and where he replies. Besides, why should he actually care what we have to say? He's like Bush. He's in his own little world.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).