A Fable For Everyone

[Mortalsfool]

I posted this story because I thought it represents many of our characters: both the good and the stupids.

A FABLE FOR EVERYONE

Aesop lived as a slave in Greece over twenty three hundred years ago and is generally held to be the father of fables. He was a slave who found favor with his stories. The power in his fables that made them timeless came from its structure. It has a nonsensical and simple story attributing human reasoning to animals, while portraying a mini-slice of human behavior. First it sets up a 'cause', and then it ends with a clearly understood ‘effect’. It then begs a question about something that was not contained in the story; it is a question where the answer demands that you ‘deduce’ it from material you did not hear; called a moral!

It is likely that word of the old story teller's arrival preceded him. I make this assumption because he was in fact, commissioned by some ruling power [it may have been King Croesus of Lydia], to travel throughout the province telling his cute and clever animal stories. Because the stories could be easily understood by the more simple populace, the ruler felt it would teach them the rational of better behavior, which in turn makes for a more harmonious society to rule.

I’m going to give an example of what I mean, by creating an imaginary story telling. The point is not directly related to the story. I’m more concerned with the setting as it contains my point.

Since it is a ‘crowd’, it represents all of us. You stand somewhere in the audience, and one of my descriptions of the characters will represent you. I can’t decide for you, who you will be, so I’ll take no blame if your character is represented by those on the wrong side of the moral.

Aesop arrived:

The children paying rapt attention, gathered close at his feet not wanting to miss a word, they beamed with their open minded innocence; some of the adults surrounded them also wanting to hear what he had to say; some hung back not wanting to look too anxious; and those that presumed themselves to be ‘learned’, or officers, or priests, and others that preened themselves, hung on the fringes, leaning in doorways, surreptitiously seeking to be in hearing range, but not wanting to appear as though they were part of the masses.

The story:

One afternoon a fox was wandering through the forest and saw a juicy bunch of grapes hanging from a branch. “Ah, the perfect thing to quench my thirst”, says he. Taking a few steps back he jumps for the grapes and missed. He tried it again, he went further back and jumped as high as he could, and missed again. He tried and tried, but still he couldn’t reach them. Finally hotter and more thirsty than when he began; he haughtily walked away and said, “They were probably sour anyway!”



As he tells his story, those that wanted to appear wiser than the old man, he is after all, talking to ‘their flock’, show by stage whisper, shout, and mutual chuckles between themselves, how they surely know more than the old man; they holler out ‘Foxes don’t eat grapes!’ or ‘Animals can’t talk!’ and things of other common knowledge. Some of those in the audience, not wanting to look foolish to the men of matter, mutter the same comments to their peers, hoping to be noticed by the ‘real intellectuals’. The children and those listening, pay no attention to the comments, not caring that someone of higher station feels it important enough to interrupt the old man by telling what everyone with common sense already knew.

Some of the crowd when seeing the disdain and disapproving looks and comments of the elders, furtively move back, not quite wanting to show their interest in the story. When the story ends, the audience laughs at the saddened fox’s reaction. The adults that listened laugh because they recognize the fox’s personality; the children laugh with glee at the silly antics of the animals; and ‘the wise’, who didn’t hear the fable due to their scoffing and high-fives of mutual-congratulation, go to their respective places having never learned the moral of the story. Content with what they knew, and smug in their wisdom, they learned nothing; and some of the others who originally wanted to listen but were sidetracked by the ‘wise ones’, went home with the same silly pride as ‘the scoffers’, both thinking that they were smarter then the old man that told silly stories where animals talked.

The children and listeners learned the moral;
“It’s easy to despise what you can’t have”

[Dalek Prime]

Not quite a universal moral. I despise (perhaps an overly strong word) life, or rather, consciousness. Mind, I didn't jump for it. Someone else did, and I got stuck with it, like it or not.

[Mortalsfool]

Not quite a universal moral. I despise (perhaps an overly strong word) life, or rather, consciousness. Mind, I didn't jump for it. Someone else did, and I got stuck with it, like it or not.

I personally find it very difficult to relate to people that see life, and most specifically consciousness, as anything other than a gateway to great potential. Of course, this requires a belief in something after death. Without that belief, if your life is being led in absolute despair, I could understand having a negative view of the life experience. But, if your life is led in what I'll call normal experience, meaning your not one of the world's suffering people, I see it hard to find a justification for such a negative view.

I feel fortunate, in that my view of consciousness is not as despairing as your own appears. While I don't have much in material goods, I do enjoy a sheer exhilaration with the experience of life itself. And although I didn't ask to come into this world, I have to say that I'm thankful I did.

Could you actually say, I wish I was never born!

[Dalek Prime]

Not quite a universal moral. I despise (perhaps an overly strong word) life, or rather, consciousness. Mind, I didn't jump for it. Someone else did, and I got stuck with it, like it or not.

I personally find it very difficult to relate to people that see life, and most specifically consciousness, as anything other than a gateway to great potential. Of course, this requires a belief in something after death. Without that belief, if your life is being led in absolute despair, I could understand having a negative view of the life experience. But, if your life is led in what I'll call normal experience, meaning your not one of the world's suffering people, I see it hard to find a justification for such a negative view.

I feel fortunate, in that my view of consciousness is not as despairing as your own appears. While I don't have much in material goods, I do enjoy a sheer exhilaration with the experience of life itself. And although I didn't ask to come into this world, I have to say that I'm thankful I did.

Could you actually say, I wish I was never born!

Re. The last sentence, yes. I am an antinatalist/antifrustrationist to the core of my being. Having said that, I am not without happiness. But the preference is still never being born. Bit late for that, so I make do for the interim, and never had kids myself.

Cheers, Mortalsfool.

P.S. Personally, I don't have issues with people who aren't of my philosophical bent. I hope you can find a way to tolerate other perspectives.

[Mortalsfool]

post_id=388243 time=1545256003 user_id=12397]

Could you actually say, I wish I was never born!

Re. The last sentence, yes. I am an antinatalist/antifrustrationist to the core of my being. Having said that, I am not without happiness. But the preference is still never being born. Bit late for that, so I make do for the interim, and never had kids myself.


Cheers, Mortalsfool.

P.S. Personally, I don't have issues with people who aren't of my philosophical bent. I hope you can find a way to tolerate other perspectives.

Hi Dalek, Its not that I have any issues with "intolerance" when I say that I have difficulty relating to your position, it's just that I have difficulty understanding how that view comes about. My natural response is that it must be from a bad experience in life, like intolerable conditions or pain. Or perhaps, it could come about because of an empathy shared with all the suffering that does go on in the world. I say that because, I have heard it said it's cruel to bring children into a world that has so much suffering in it.

It appears from what you said, that we're pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm 81 years old, so I learned to be tolerant with any view that doesn't promote harm for anyone else.

In my disagreements with others beliefs, my stock position is "We will see!" Of course, if I'm wrong, none of us will 'see' anything; which is also okay. Although I must admit that the possibility of Nothing afterlife gives me a little feeling of disappointment.

I say, that as long as you are happy, you're doing good!
With absolute respect, jack

P.S. I would never broach questions about such a subject, but since you were the one that showed your view to me, I have a curiosity about your reasons for disliking life so much. Please understand that it's mere philosophical curiosity when I ask Why? Especially since you are happy.

[Dalek Prime]

Ok. Well, I posted some literature in books, but David Benatar wrote the most rigorous book on reasoned antinatalism. And Fihige's writing on antifrustrationism is in the same vein. ie. If you understand one, you'll get the other.