As a young boy, I watched this unbelievable life-long sacrifice that my grandfather exhibited and often wondered if I could ever show that much humility for those around me. After his passing, I knew that carrying on his humble legacy was something I no longer wanted to do, but something that I knew I had to do. After all, it would only be fair to honor someone who had dedicated their life to self-sacrifice; to put them in the spotlight for once, to hold them up for everyone to see.
Mischel and his colleagues continued to track the subjects into their late thirties—Ozlem Ayduk, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, found that low-delaying adults have a significantly higher body-mass index and are more likely to have had problems with drugs—but it was frustrating to have to rely on self-reports. “There’s often a gap between what people are willing to tell you and how they behave in the real world,” he explains. And so, last year, Mischel, who is now a professor at Columbia, and a team of collaborators began asking the original Bing subjects to travel to Stanford for a few days of experiments in an fMRI machine. Carolyn says she will be participating in the scanning experiments later this summer; Craig completed a survey several years ago, but has yet to be invited to Palo Alto. The scientists are hoping to identify the particular brain regions that allow some people to delay gratification and control their temper. They’re also conducting a variety of genetic tests, as they search for the hereditary characteristics that influence the ability to wait for a second marshmallow.
This sort of worshipper will look for that which best embodies the lovelinessof the stars and the worlds and the forests and the seas and the sunsets, and which best actsout the blandness, lordliness, accuracy, self-sufficiency, cruelty, independence, and contemptuousand capricious impersonality of all-governing Nature.
There is a rogue element somewhere - forconvenience's sake we'll call it the self, although, in less metaphysicallychallenged times, the "soul" would have done just as well.
Beauty and sufficiency—twin qualities of thecosmos itself—are the gods of this aristocratic and pagan type; to the worshipper of sucheternal things the supreme virtue will not be found in lowliness, attachment, obedience, andemotional messiness.
Our flickering cultural memory of “the ’fifties” (beginning 1945) is of some brief moment when happiness prevailed. There was broad consensus on such topics as, 1. which way is Up and, 2. which way is Down. The churches were fuller than they had been for a long time; food was plentiful and cheap (except in England); and anyone who wanted one had a job. The lights had come on again, all over the world, and there were movies, and soda fountains, and avante-garde in Paris and New York. (London a bit grim, perhaps.) …. I was myself born into those halcyon days.
After the returning board has brought in the grand total of zero we shall be betterable to refrain from ingenuous censure of the ‘selfish’ cat.
The superior imaginative inner life of the cat, resulting in superior self-possession,is well known.
Apart from its value in the salvation of souls, the Catholic Confessional has certain prudential uses. One is invited to tell the truth, not about others, but about oneself; and to a priest trained to expect it; and through whom, alone, absolution will be conducted. A good priest (and they are not so rare) is not there to collect excuses. He is there to hear patiently what you did. The “you” in this formula may, from sheer embarrassment, get out of the habit of doing just those things that will need to be confessed.
If it be argued that these feline fondnesses are essentially ‘selfish’and ‘practical’ in their ultimate composition, let us inquire in return how manyhuman fondnesses, apart from those springing directly upon primitive brute instinct, have anyother basis.
Cats come to associate certain persons with acts continuouslycontributing to their pleasure, and acquire for them a recognition and attachment which manifestsitself in pleasant excitement at their approach—whether or not bearing food and drink—anda certain pensiveness at their protracted absence.
The interestingthing about this view of friendship, whether it is what Aristotle had in mind ornot, is that it does not try to force Aristotle's very self-oriented view ofhuman relationships into an other-oriented framework. Thus Millgram does not find it necessary to reprocess ordisregard the pieces of text that are apparently egoistic. He concludes by showing that desiring goodsfor one's friend's own sake is compatible with desiring one's own well-beingprimarily--in much the same way that I have been hinting. My friend's good ispart ofmy own eudaimonia, as I will explain in detail in what follows.
a limber elf,
Singing, dancing toitself.”
But whole volumes could be written on the playing of cats, since the varieties and aestheticaspects of such sportiveness are infinite.
The Barren Sacrifice An Essay on Political Violence Studies in Violence Mimesis Culture Paul Dumouchel Mary Baker Amazon com Books The Bourne Consultancy
I can only guessthat Kraut gets the idea for his conflicting claims example from the fact thatAristotle thinks that we might not wish all goods to our friends, since thegood man wants the best things for himself (and there might not be enough ofthese for more than one person). However, the fact that Aristotle says that wedo not wish all goods to our friends would tend to support the view that hedoes think that each person should try to maximize his own good; this is justwhat Kraut denies when he says that Aristotle is not the kind of egoist thatrecommends maximizing one's own good come what may for others. The phrase "come what may for others" mustbe carefully analyzed, (especially since Aristotle does not use it), whentacked onto the phrase, "maximize one's own good." As long as we are indulgingin guessing how Aristotle would resolve Kraut's own conflicts-of-interestpuzzles, indulge me: assume that Aristotle would tend to follow his own wordsin the passage concerning disputes and ask for the specifics of the situation:who are the parties; how did the conflict arise; and what exactly is the "what"in "come what may for others"? As Kraut notes this phrase `come what may forothers' implies that hurting others is acceptable, and Kraut believes thatAristotle would not allow such action to be called moral. But there is textual evidence that Aristotlewould condone hurting others to maximize one's own good: when dealing withstrangers, one has much less obligation to pay debts and fulfill promises(1164b30-1165a3). Whether we care aboutthe stranger or not, does this treatment not hurt him if he is counting on us?