Crossed eyes to the approaching Apes, vexed from Sitcoms
Respect? Please spare us with such a word. Ryan Duff doesn't get the luxury of respect after death when risking the lives of children and families driving 130mph in his Porsche.
What happens now when there's conflicting actions (e.g. breathing and well, not) or toasting or raw? There's always choice in all of this and it leads no where. Every choice doesn't give us more or less. We think it does but that's because we live everyday out of habit and we build of tolerances and dams to other choices that don't fit in our mold we've formed with each of these passing days. Questions like "what is end result?" is equated to how much pleasure comes with the choice even of the long term future. We feel that this kind of thinking is called prudence- how? How is it prudent for me to stick to the habitual motions? It's only prudent when you compare it to drastically negative alternate realities, and its our way of justifying whatever choice we make or intend on making. Some then counter with stating that we're systematic mammals, or say, "well, that's human nature for you".
For any individual who says that anything is explained by the mere statement of pointing to human nature as a cause for anything- I can accurately say you're perfect for the job of USPS driver, since you lack the capacity of anything else (I hesitate on that because driving is almost crossing the threshold of "too much to handle" for you). If my shadow of the self wants to question the harshness of this paragraph, I'll go ahead and play. What is Human Nature then?
"Well Anti-Taylor, human nature is the collection of human attitudes and actions, which include sub-categories such as culture and intellect among a whole slew of other things. Basically encompassing the human for what he or she is".
Given this definition, and trust me this is one that is used for individuals who beg the question of human nature, it's then part of human nature to have a man kill another man because of human nature. The layman would then proclaim how easy that is to explain with human nature because the killing of another man is a physical act of power, and power is part of human nature. Again, that begs the question.
What am I trying to get at in any kind of conclusion to myself in this? Stating human nature is a source of causal fact is the most ambiguous of all statements to give for the action in question.
Nothing gets anywhere. All this stupidity including my own. Start the show.
What happens now when there's conflicting actions (e.g. breathing and well, not) or toasting or raw? There's always choice in all of this and it leads no where. Every choice doesn't give us more or less. We think it does but that's because we live everyday out of habit and we build of tolerances and dams to other choices that don't fit in our mold we've formed with each of these passing days. Questions like "what is end result?" is equated to how much pleasure comes with the choice even of the long term future. We feel that this kind of thinking is called prudence- how? How is it prudent for me to stick to the habitual motions? It's only prudent when you compare it to drastically negative alternate realities, and its our way of justifying whatever choice we make or intend on making. Some then counter with stating that we're systematic mammals, or say, "well, that's human nature for you".
For any individual who says that anything is explained by the mere statement of pointing to human nature as a cause for anything- I can accurately say you're perfect for the job of USPS driver, since you lack the capacity of anything else (I hesitate on that because driving is almost crossing the threshold of "too much to handle" for you). If my shadow of the self wants to question the harshness of this paragraph, I'll go ahead and play. What is Human Nature then?
"Well Anti-Taylor, human nature is the collection of human attitudes and actions, which include sub-categories such as culture and intellect among a whole slew of other things. Basically encompassing the human for what he or she is".
Given this definition, and trust me this is one that is used for individuals who beg the question of human nature, it's then part of human nature to have a man kill another man because of human nature. The layman would then proclaim how easy that is to explain with human nature because the killing of another man is a physical act of power, and power is part of human nature. Again, that begs the question.
What am I trying to get at in any kind of conclusion to myself in this? Stating human nature is a source of causal fact is the most ambiguous of all statements to give for the action in question.
Nothing gets anywhere. All this stupidity including my own. Start the show.
Comments
Post a Comment