Two important factors are logically implicit by your use of the word ‘us’ – conditions which I shall now examine in turn.
Firstly, the ‘us’ implies that you and your colleagues consider yourselves somehow ‘ different ‘ to the rest of society – plainly, if you were exactly the same, it would be impossible for you ( or anyone else ) to distinguish the boundaries of the group.
That given, and bearing in mind that through science’s vastly expansive investigations into genetics we now know that the DNA from any two humans anywhere on the planet is, to all intents and purposes, identical – this proposed ‘different-ness’ would seem rather unconvincing.
I put it to you then, that the ‘group’ does not, in fact, exist – except in the minds of its members.
Now onto the third point – your concerns that the rests of humanity ‘hates’ your (erroneously) perceived group.
Why would this be ? The only possible objection which I could imagine that anyone could hold against you would be that you and your colleagues steadfastly persist in calling yourselves members of a ‘group’.
Have you considered this could be intensely trying for others – who can quite plainly see that you’re not ?
After considerable lucubration, and with some lamentation, I have come to the conclusion that there is little compensation in the ‘ study of information ‘. On reflection ( after accubation ) it is my observation that if you examine the erudition ( despite extensive accumulation ) there is little cause for celebration – I am not sure that it is worth the exertion.
[ that’s enough homoioteleuton thanks Eiron. Ed ]
I am very glad indeed that you asked your question, as it is not all that often that I receive queries in the field of philosophy and logic. And yes, you are quite right that it was Friedrich Nietzsche, the Prussian-born 19th-century philosopher, who first coined the phrase :
‘ God is Dead ‘ ( Gott ist tot ) back in 1882.
In order to clarify the situation for you, I should like to explore the implications of this highly controversial pronouncement in some considerable detail.
Let us begin by examining . . .
[ Due space constraints, the following eight chapters have been deleted Ed. ]
. . . and so then, in summary, should we not also contemplate the following alternatives ?
‘ God is unwell ‘ or even, to bring Friedrich’s ideas right up to date
‘ God is in rehab ‘
The function of headaches is to remind you of how agreeable things can be on days when you don’t have one.
No, until your letter, I was not aware that “ Koala Bears are so-named because ‘ Koala ‘ means ‘no drink’ in several Australian aboriginal dialects. “ Many thanks. I would like to point out though that :
They’re not bears.
And they do ( occasionally ) drink.
Other than that, the information which you vouchsafed has proved most serviceable.
No, although, in the light of certain very high profile recent cases we should not detract from the obvious benefits to society of auctioning celebrities’ bodily discards – e.g. hair – I feel that we should certainly not in any way encourage such behaviour. What next ? [ name ███████ ] ‘s [███████] ? Or [ name ███████ ] ‘s [███████] ? Agreed ?
Your question, trite though it may appear at first glance, is, if I may say so, replete with profound implications.
NIllPlatter simply asked “ How can we determine the correct price for something ? “ I am not at all sure how to give a definitive answer. There are various auction methods which get close to the truth. One such technique involves selling the auctioned item to the second highest bidder. This, to some extent, discourages buyers from bidding too high – fearing that they might lose the item if they do.
Perhaps I can suggest another method which I used for some years whilst in New Guinea ?
When you show interest in buying an item, the vendor will name his/her price – which is always vastly inflated. You then offer the seller between 1% and 5% of their asking price. They will of course indignantly refuse your offer. You then feign a complete lack of interest and walk slowly away from them. They will then begin to shout out prices – which get lower the father you walk away ( turn your back by all means ). At some point though, they will stop their downward bargaining. Now, carefully remember the last price you heard. Next, find another vendor of the same product, and start the proceedings by offering him/her 50% of the price you have remembered. The seller will immediately be impressed by your keen grip on the ‘correct’ price, and will treat you with respect. Keep bargaining – at length you will probably both agree at roughly the 75% level. On a local basis at least, that will be acceptably near the right price for the item in question.
You are quite correct to point out that substantial efforts are underway to classify various psychological problems – previously considered simply as unwelcome foibles – as illnesses. Some current examples : ‘Addiction’ to coffee. A love of gambling. etc. etc. etc.
I probably do not need to point it out to you, but some of my other readers may be interested in the fact that the oodles of cash which is currently being funneled into ‘research’ of these various ‘illnesses’ is coming, in the most part, from the big pharmaceutical companies.
It has not escaped them that if such problems are indeed officially recognised as illnesses, then they will be able to sell drugs to ‘cure’ the problems.
Now, regarding your own particular troublesome ‘syndrome’ : Yes, I can quite well believe that one can develop a ‘pathological lack of patience’ – in fact, I admit that I myself have worrisome preliminary symptoms of this ‘illness’. And I have been in considerable anticipatory suspense for quite some time now hoping that the medical establishment will get on with things and define it as an illness – and, frankly, I’m utterly sick of waiting.