Why Joel Is Dissatisfied With The Company Of Human Beings
Peggy:
"...had been one of the few humans with whom he could talk at all.
"Had been. He exhausted her possibilities in a year, as he drained most people in a month. He had known how she would react to any situation, what she would say to any remark of his, he knew her feelings with a sensitive perception beyond her own knowledge. And the loneliness had returned." (p. 36)
At University:
lectures about the obvious were pointless;
assignments were about problems that had been addressed many times before;
he could anticipate the professors' replies;
and those replies were increasingly trite!
Only when he has hypnotically changed Peggy's feelings does she become unpredictable but that would not have lasted.
By the same token, he has been feral too long to be incorporated into the society of his own species. Personality is determined in early childhood. Unused attributes have atrophied. Induced amnesia is the only humane (kind and wise) treatment.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Assuming, of course, there are species as advanced as Joel's native race. Which I don't believe is at all likely or possible. Unless such powers springs from a race not being Fallen. Something C.S. Lewis touched on in his essay "Religion and Rocketry."
Ad astra! Sean
We are not Fallen.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree. Real history, real life, real human beings, observably refutes such views.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: we describe it differently, but we agree on human nature... 8=).
Sean,
Disagree.
You cannot keep appealing to real history, real life and real human beings! I do as well.
Real history etc does not prove that God created human beings in a sinless state but they were tempted and fell from grace by an act of free will.
Can't we just clarify this issue, then leave it, instead of continuing to flounder around with it?
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: We do! And we also basically agree about economics and politics, that only free enterprise (with some reasonable restraints) and the limited State, in no matter what form, is the optimum realistically possible for mankind. And that fantasies about ideal, perfect States/societies will always fail.
Paul: I will "appeal" to history because the harsh facts/evidence it provides supports my beliefs, not yours.
You are the one "muddying" matters, because I did not mention God in my immediately prior comment above. You deny (unconvincingly) that the supernatural, God, exist. Hence it would be pointless to cite what Scripture and the Church teaches about mankind. What I do believe is that real history, history you cannot deny, does show is that mankind is not perfect, not in a state of sinless grace.
I believe both Mr. Stirling and I, in different ways, have been very clear.
Ad astra! Sean.
Sean,
The harsh facts/evidence support my belief that everything changes and that far greater changes have now become possible.
The doctrine of the Fall is that mankind has Fallen from a Paradise created by God. Pointing this out is muddying matters?
I do not try to deny history! You are always arguing and defending a belief instead of just discussing these issues. "Not perfect" falls a long way short of "Fallen."
I deny that the supernatural exists? You have to prove that it DOES exist. We really do go round in circles with this. Do we need to continue with it?
Paul.
Sean,
What exactly does "unconvincingly" mean here? That I fail to convince you? Of course I do! We know that I do! That is why we disagree! Equally, you fail to convince me. That puts us on an equal footing, surely? Thus, the fact that one of us is unconvincing to the other is in no way an additional point in the argument. But it is presented as if it were that. You try to tilt the playing field of a disagreement in your favour all the time and do not even realize that that is what you are doing.
Either we start again from the beginning on the basis of acknowledging that this is a genuine disagreement honestly held on both sides or there is no point in continuing.
Paul.
If the truth of your beliefs is not a conclusion that you must demonstrate but a premise that you assume and that you challenge sceptics to disprove, then of course we miscommunicate. (I think that I have said this one before.)
Free enterprise, like all economic competition, will be redundant when technologically produced wealth is abundant, democratically controlled and equally distributed. Then, what was thought of as Utopian will be reality and there will be no reason for it to fail.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, there will be "changes," but I don't believe they will be the kind of changes that you seem to hope for or expect, that all human beings will somehow no longer be as what we actually are: flawed, imperfect, quarrelsome, often prone to violence, etc. Iow, the more things change the more they stay the same. I expect technological changes, not some kind of transformation of human beings.
I believe in the Fall, which you deny. There's no point in discussing that, only its CONSEQUENCES, as seen in real life and history.
There are philosophical arguments for defending the reasonableness of the supernatural being real, such as by John Wright, who used to be an atheist. I suggest you discuss that with him, because he is far better qualified, as a philosopher, to debate that than I am. He likes to discuss philosophical topics.
By "unconvincing" I mean things like your insistence, with no proof, that human beings will somehow no longer be as what we actually are and as we see them. I also find unconvincing your insistence that "Free enterprise, like all economic competition, will be redundant when technologically produced wealth is abundant, democratically controlled and equally distributed." I don't believe one bit in this fantasy. Such a set up still boils down to having the State, no matter how ostensibly "democratic," trying to run things from the top down, and all such socialist regimes have failed.
Free enterprise works whenever it's been given a chance, socialism never has.
Do you even understand what is this "democracy" you keep talking about? It's just a political form where it's agreed that ambitious men seeking power, office, status, agree to gain power by persuading a majority of voters to back them. With the losers agreeing to accept defeat. It's an effort to channel the competitive drive many have into peaceful, non-violent paths. And it can work, sometimes, as long as all agree that counting noses as a means of getting office is better than shooting one's way to power.
Nor have I ever accused you of being dishonest. I simply don't believe in what you believe.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I cannot reply to all of this in one go. I might come back to some of it later but WHAT is the point of repeating all of this yet again and at such length? I want to add something to the blog, then get out into town.
I KNOW you don't believe what I am saying! And I am NOT saying that human beings will SOMEHOW change totally for no reason and with no explanation. The very same human beings that we are now behave very differently in very conditions and conditions can now, especially with the advantages of modern technology, be completely transformed. We should discuss all those possibilities, not always start the conversation again from word one. But you want us to keep doing that.
Of course I even understand what this "democracy" is that I keep talking about! - but why do we have to keep talking about it like this?
That is all for now and might have to be the end of the matter.
"Socialism never has." I have replied to that ad nauseam. Free enterprise will be redundant when competition is.
Paul.
behave very differently in very DIFFERENT conditions
Kaor, Paul!
No, the drive, urge, passion, whatever, many humans have to be competitive is something that is innate to us. And cannot be eliminated unless genetic engineering is used. And that would probably turne the human race into either Eloi or into creatures like the Lugals serving the Yildivans as their slaves in Anderson's "The Master Key."
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment