Ant Philosophy Quotes

I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order --or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.

I will feel no guilt on shutting my door to those who didn't listen.

Oh, why does compassion weaken us?' It doesn't, really ... Somewhere where it all balances out - don't the philosophers have a name for it, the perfect place, the place where the answers live? - if we could go there, you could see it doesn't. It only looks, a little bit, like it does, from here, like an ant at the foot of an oak tree. He doesn't have a clue that it's a tree; it's the beginning of the wall round the world, to him.

Those who have handled sciences have been either men of experiment or men of dogmas. The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes a middle course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and of the field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true business of philosophy; for it neither relies solely or chiefly on the powers of the mind, nor does it take the matter which it gathers from natural history and mechanical experiments and lay it up in the memory whole, as it finds it, but lays it up in the understanding altered and digested.

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation. There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual. As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism. No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

When people think about travelling to the past, they do it with this wild sense of self-importance. Like, ‘gosh, I better not step on that flower or my grandfather will never be born.’ But in the present we mow our lawns and poison ants and skip parties and miss birthdays all the time. We never think of the effects of that stuff… Nobody thinks of now as the future past.

The life of every man is a way to himself, an attempt at a way, the suggestion of a path. No man has ever been utterly himself, yet every man strives to be so, the dull, the intelligent, each one as best he can. Each man to the end of his days carries round with him vestiges of his birth - the slime and egg-shells of the primeval world. There are many who never become humans; they remain frogs, lizards, ants. Many men are human being above and fish below. Yet each one represents an attempt on the part of nature to create a human being.

La filosofía nos enseña a sentir incertidumbre ante las cosas que nos parecen evidentes. La propaganda, en cambio, nos enseña a aceptar como evidentes cosas sobre las que sería razonable suspender nuestro juicio o sentir dudas.

Ante la muerte no hay nada que podamos hacer, es algo que está fuera de nuestro alcance. Mientras seguimos vivos lo único que podemos hacer es vivir.

El arrepentimiento nunca llega antes

creature on earth seemed to Schopenhauer to be equally committed to an equally meaningless existence: Contemplate the restless industry of wretched little ants … the life of most insects is nothing but a restless labour for preparing nourishment and dwelling for the future offspring that will come from their eggs. After the offspring have consumed the nourishment and have turned into the chrysalis stage, they enter into life merely to begin the same task again from the beginning … we cannot help but ask what comes of all of this … there is nothing to show but the satisfaction of hunger and sexual passion, and … a little momentary gratification … now and then, between … endless needs and exertions. 3. The philosopher did not have to spell out the parallels. We pursue love affairs, chat in cafés with prospective partners and have children, with as much choice in the matter as moles and ants – and are rarely any happier.

Where there are no bees there is no honey. Where there are no flowers there is no perfume. Where there are no clouds there is no rain. Where there are no stars there is no light. Where there are no roses there are no thorns. Where there are no skies there are no stars. Where there are no storms there are no rainbows. Where there are no animals there are no forests. Where there are no plants there are no jungles. Where there are no seeds there are no harvests. Where there are no spiders there are no webs. Where there are no ants there are no colonies. Where there are no worms there are no fish. Where there are no mice there are no serpents. Where there are no carcasses there are no vultures. Where there are no stones there are no pebbles. Where there are no rocks there are no mountains. Where there are no deserts there are no oases. Where there are no stars there are no galaxies. Where there are no worlds there are no universes.

El universo no se inclina ante sus deseos, sino que hace lo que hace; su jefe, sus compañeros, los accionistas de la empresa, los clientes y una serie de factores adicionales forman parte del universo, así que ¿por qué iba a esperar que cumplieran con su deseo?

The stronger the enemy, the more we must surpass ourselves

We human beings are not hive animals. We aren’t like bees or ants who just work constantly for the good of the community.

A politician will promise the moon but deliver an ant hill

Where did Shanti find the will? It must have been in the garden. An ant and a bird argue over the right to flight. The bird spreads her wings and flies away; the ant sits on an autumn leaf and waits for the wind.

Why didst Thou reject that last gift? Had Thou accepted that last offer of the mighty spirit, Thou wouldst have accomplished all that man seeks on earth-- that is, someone to worship, someone to keep his conscience, and some means of uniting all in one unanimous and harmonious ant heap, because the craving for universal unity is the third and last anguish of men. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organize a universal state.

Fue Lessing quien dijo en una ocasión: "Hay cosas que deben haceros perder la razón, o entonces es que no tenéis ninguna razón que perder." Ante una situación anormal, la reacción anormal constituye una conducta normal.

There is not one single social or economic principle or concept in the philosophy of the Russian Bolshevik which has not been realized, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the White Ant.

When we pay attention to this history,  a pattern emerges: first,  the Redeemers attacked voting rights. Then they attacked public education, labor, fair tax policies, and progressive leaders. Then they took over the state and federal courts, so they could be used to render rulings that would undermine the hope of a new America. This effort culminated in the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring segregation of public facilities under the doctrine "separate but equal." And then they made sure that certain elements had guns so that they could return the South back to the status quo ante, according to their deconstructive immoral philosophy.

Ne valgis ir gėrimas dievotumą rodo.Kvaila paisyti, kaip žmogus miega –virviniame gulte ar ant pūkų patalų. Valgau, ką noriu, ir miegu, kaip noriu, ir niekas negali manęs už tai smerkti. Tegul mano, kad aš kvaila, jei nori. Man tik geriau.

Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

When it’s hard to get out of bed in the morning, remind yourself: I am rising to resume my life’s work. How can I be unhappy when I have another opportunity to do what I was born to do? But it’s so comfortable here. Were you born for this—lying in bed under a warm blanket? Life is meant for action and exertion. Consider the ants, bees, and birds, working to bring order to their corners of the universe. Are you unwilling to do the work of a human being? But I worked yesterday; today I need to rest. Rest is for recharging, not for indulgence. Take only what is sufficient for your health and vitality. Too much rest—like too much food or drink—defeats its purpose, weakening the body and dulling the spirit. But I should love and care for myself. If you truly love yourself, love your nature and your vocation. Those who love their work become so absorbed in it, they don’t even think of stopping. Do you love your work the way a dancer loves dancing and a painter loves painting? If not, why is your work less important to you than theirs is to them?

A bee, though small, can still sting you; an elephant, though calm, can still trample you; and a lion, though full, can still devour you. An ant, though small, can still bite you; a spider, though tiny, can still infect you; and a wolf, though little, can still harm you. A petal, though innocuous, can still poison you; a flower, though delicate, can still contaminate you; and a plant, though immature, can still toxify you. A thought, though entertaining, can still pollute you; a desire, though pleasing, can still defile you; and an experience, though pleasurable, can still dishonor you.

Assim, para recapitular a nossa discussão do valor da filosofia: a filosofia é de estudar não por causa de quaisquer respostas definitivas às suas questões, dado que nenhumas respostas definitivas podem, em regra, ser conhecidas como verdadeiras, mas antes por causa das próprias questões; porque estas questões alargam a nossa concepção do que é possível, enriquecem a nossa imaginação intelectual e diminuem a confiança dogmática que fecham a mente contra a especulação; mas acima de tudo porque, através da grandeza do universo que a filosofia contempla, a mente também se torna grandiosa, e torna-se capaz dessa união com o universo que constitui o seu bem maior.

At once it struck me. Nothing can live without wonder. Wonder, perhaps, is the definition of life. The wild flowers stretch toward a sun they can never reach as if enamored of it, and it is when they are closest to that sun, blooming wide and grand, that they are most alive. The soaring birds, the creeping ants, even humans—all of them are wondering beings.

It's a random universe. Shit happens. Good people get stage 4 cancer and dipshits win the lottery. There is no justice. Everything doesn't always come out square in the end. Life isn't some elegant math equation -- it's a Sergio Leone screenplay and everyone gets snuffed. Not all of us have to ante up for our portion of the tab. Some get to do the ol' dine 'n' dash.

La vida es como una vela prendida. Todos cuando nacemos llevamos una con nuestro nombre reflejado en ella. La única diferencia entre unos y otros es que hay personas que traen una pequeña vela, como la de un cumpleaños, y otros traen consigo un cirio, como los que colocan en las iglesias. Unas, desgraciadamente, se consumen antes que otras, pero todas acaban apagándose.

I give you this. Find your faith in each other. Look no further. The gods will war, and all that we do will remain beneath their notice. Stay low. Move quietly. Out of sight. We are ants in the grass, lizards among the rocks.’ She paused. ‘Somewhere, out there, you will find the purest essence of that philosophy. Perhaps in one person, perhaps in ten thousand. Looking to no other entity, no other force, no other will. Bound solely in comradeship, in loyalty honed absolute. Yet devoid of all arrogance. Wise in humility. And that one, or ten thousand, is on a path. Unerring, it readies itself, not to shake a fist at the heavens. But to lift a lone hand, a hand filled with tears.’ She found she was glaring at the giant reptiles. ‘You want a faith? You want someone or something to believe in? No, do not worship the one or the ten thousand. Worship the sacrifice they will make, for they make it in the name of compassion—the only cause worth fighting and dying for.

I like flowers because they are presentable, birds because they are musical, trees because they are natural, plants because they are beneficial, dogs because they are loyal, foxes because they are guileful, wolves because they are forceful, lions because they are royal, sharks because they are remarkable, crocodiles because they are formidable, bees because they are exceptional, spiders because they are artful, ants because they are responsible, chameleons because they are colorful, hawks because they are special, falcons because they are noble, owls because they are watchful, eagles because they are regal, streams because they are peaceful, rivers because they are predictable, lakes because they are crucial, oceans because they are beautiful, skies because they are delightful, stars because they are celestial, planets because they are spiritual, galaxies because they are incredible, winters because they are essential, summers because they are enjoyable, autumns because they are graceful, and springs because they are wonderful.

Duas coisas enchem o ânimo de admiração: o céu estrelado acima de mim, e a lei moral dentro de mim; ambas não estão fora do meu horizonte; antes, vejo-as perante mim e religo-as imediatamente com a consciência de minha existência. A primeira começa no lugar que eu ocupo no mundo e no exterior. A segunda começa no meu invisível eu, na minha personalidade e me coloca num mundo que tem a verdadeira infinidade; o que eleva infinitamente o meu valor como inteligência na qual a lei moral me revela uma vida independente da animalidade de todo mundo sensível.

The world's greatest computer is the brain. The world's greatest engine is the heart. The world's greatest generator is the soul. The world's greatest television is the mind. The world's greatest radio is the tongue. The world's greatest camera is the eye. The world's greatest ladder is faith. The world's greatest hammer is courage. The world's greatest sword is accuracy. The world's greatest photographer is sight. The world's greatest knife is fate. The world's greatest spear is intelligence. The world's greatest submerine is a fish. The world's greatest aeroplane is a bird. The world's greatest jet is a fly. The world's greatest bicycle is a camel. The world's greatest motorbike is a horse. The world's greatest train is a centipede. The world's greatest sniper is a cobra. The world's greatest schemer is a fox. The world's greatest builder is an ant. The world's greatest tailor is a spider. The world's greatest assassin is a wolf. The world's greatest ruler is a lion. The world's greatest judge is karma. The world's greatest preacher is nature. The world's greatest philosopher is truth. The world's greatest mirror is reality. The world's greatest curtain is darkness. The world's greatest author is destiny.

If bees make honey, you can create candy. If flowers make gardens, you can create perfumes. If plants make herbs, you can create medicine. If deserts make dunes, you can create oases. If seeds make trees, you can create forests. If clouds make rain, you can create lakes. If stars make light, you can create lamps. If stones make hills, you can create garrisons. If rocks make mountains, you can create towers. If spiders make webs, you can create fortresses. If ants make colonies, you can create houses. If bees make hives, you can create mansions. If termites make mounds, you can create palaces. If birds make nests, you can create castles.

But the bull-dog ant of Australia affords us the most extraordinary example of this kind; for if it is cut in two, a battle begins between the head and the tail. The head seizes the tail with its teeth, and the tail defends itself bravely by stinging the head; the battle may last for half an hour, until they die or are dragged away by the other ants. This contest takes place every time the experiment is tried . . . . Yunghahn relates that he saw in Java a plain, as far as the eye could reach, entirely covered with skeletons, and took it for a battle-field; they were, however, merely the skeletons of large turtles, . . . which come this way out of the sea to lay their eggs, and are then attacked by wild dogs who with their united strength lay them on their backs, strip off the small shell from the stomach, and devour them alive. But often then a tiger pounces upon the dogs . . . . For this these turtles are born . . . . Thus the will to live everywhere preys upon itself, and in different forms is its own nourishment, till finally the human race, because it subdues all the others, regards nature as a manufactory for its own use. Yet even the human race . . . reveals in itself with most terrible distinctness this conflict, this variance of the will with itself; and we find homo homini lupus.

There is genius in plants, look how they make herbs. There is genius in flowers, look how they make scents. There is genius in trees, look how they make fruits. There is genius in seeds, look how they make forests. There is genius in bees, look how they make honey. There is genius in birds, look how they make nests. There is genius in spiders, look how they make webs. There is genius in ants, look how they make colonies. There is genius in clouds, look how they make rain. There is genius in storms, look how they make rainbows. There is genius in stars, look how they make light. There is genius in galaxies, look how they make planets. There is genius in order, look how it makes structure. There is genius in space, look how it makes distance. There is genius in momentum, look how it makes force. There is genius in stillness, look how it makes silence. There is genius in time, look how it makes fate. There is genius in sound, look how it makes music. There is genius in movement, look how it makes energy. There is genius in nature, look how it makes life. There is genius in intelligence, look how it makes reason. There is genius in understanding, look how it makes insights. There is genius in intuition, look how they make choices. There is genius in wisdom, look how it makes judgments. There is genius in minds, look how they make thoughts. There is genius in hearts, look how they make desires. There is genius in souls, look how they make experiences. There is genius in cells, look how they make bodies. There is genius in children, look how they make tales. There is genius in youth, look how they make questions. There is genius in adults, look how they make answers. There is genius in elders, look how they make proverbs. There is genius in the past, look how it makes memories. There is genius in the present, look how it makes reality. There is genius in the future, look how it makes destinies. There is genius in life, look how it makes existence.

¡Creedlo, ciudadanos, aquel a quien la espada material de las leyes no detiene tampoco se detendrá por el temor moral de los suplicios del infierno, de los que se burla desde su infancia!. En una palabra, vuestro teísmo ha hecho cometer muchas fechorías, pero jamás ha evitado una sola. Si es cierto que las pasiones ciegan, que su efecto es tender ante nuestros ojos una nube que nos oculte los peligros de que están rodeadas, ¿cómo podemos suponer que los que están lejos de nosotros, como lo están los castigos anunciados por vuestro dios, puedan llegar a disipar esa nube que no disuelve siquiera la espada de las leyes, siempre suspendida sobre las pasiones?

Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there has been in the past, or will be in the future, such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself, there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut. Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded. If then, I repeat, there is to be mental advance, it must be mental advance in the construction of a definite philosophy of life.

Nada disso tem a ver com moralidade, religião, dogmas ou grandes questões sobre a vida após a morte. A verdade com V maiúsculo diz respeito à vida antes da morte. Diz respeito a chegar aos trinta, ou quem sabe aos cinquenta, sem querer dar um tiro na cabeça. Diz respeito ao valor real de uma verdadeira educação, que não tem nada a ver com notas e diplomas e tudo a ver com simples consciência - consciência daquilo que é tão real e essencial, que está tão escondido à luz do dia onde quer que se olhe que precisamos repetir para nós mesmos a todo momento: "Isto é água, isto é água; esses esquimós podem ser bem mais do que aparentam". É incrivelmente difícil fazer isso, ter uma vida consciente e adulta, dia após dia. E com isso mais um clichê se prova verdadeiro: a nossa educação leva mesmo a vida toda, e ela começa: agora. Desejo a vocês muito mais que sorte.

Not mankind, but superman is the goal.” The very last thing a sensible man would undertake would be to improve mankind: mankind does not improve, it does not even exist—it is an abstraction; all that exists is a vast ant-hill of individuals. The aspect of the whole is much more like that of a huge experimental work-shop where some things in every age succeed, while most things fail; and the aim of all the experiments is not the happiness of the mass but the improvement of the type. Better that societies should come to an end than that no higher type should appear. Society is an instrument for the enhancement of the power and personality of the individual; the group is not an end in itself. “To what purpose then are the machines, if all individuals are only of use in maintaining them? Machines”—or social organizations—“that are ends in themselves—is that the umana commedia?

It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblances to merit. To the crowd, success ears almost the features of true mastery, and the greatest dupe of this counterfeit talent is History. Juvenal and Tacitus alone mistrust it. In these days an almost official philosophy has come to dwell in the house of Success, wear its livery, receive callers in its ante-chamber. Success in principle and for its own sake. Prosperity presupposes ability. Win a lottery-prize and you are a clever man. Winners are adulated. To be born with a caul is everything; luck is what matters. Be fortunate and you will be thought great. With a handful of tremendous exceptions which constitute the glory of a century, the popular esteem is singularly short-sighted. Gilt is as good as gold. No harm in being a chance arrival provided you arrive. The populace is an aged Narcissus which worships itself and applauds the commonplace. The tremendous qualities of Moses, an Aeschylus, a Dante, a Michelangelo or a Napoleon are readily ascribed by the multitude to any man, in any sphere, who has got what he set out to get - the notary who becomes a deputy, the hack playwright who produces a mock-Corneille, the eunuch who acquires a harem, the journeyman-general who by accident wins the decisive battle of an epoch. The profiteer who supplies the army of the Sambre-et-Meuse with boot-soles of cardboard and earns himself an income of four hundred thousand a year; the huckster who espouses usury and brings her to bed of seven or eight millions; the preacher who becomes bishop by loudly braying; the bailiff of a great estate who so enriches himself that on retirement he is made Minister of Finance - all this is what men call genius, just as they call a painted face beauty and a richly attired figure majesty. The confound the brilliance of the firmament with the star-shaped footprints of a duck in the mud.

Bored with Pisit today, I switch to our public radio channel, where the renowned and deeply reverend Phra Titapika is lecturing on Dependent Origination. Not everyone’s cup of chocolate, I agree (this is not the most popular show in Thailand), but the doctrine is at the heart of Buddhism. You see, dear reader (speaking frankly, without any intention to offend), you are a ramshackle collection of coincidences held together by a desperate and irrational clinging, there is no center at all, everything depends on everything else, your body depends on the environment, your thoughts depend on whatever junk floats in from the media, your emotions are largely from the reptilian end of your DNA, your intellect is a chemical computer that can’t add up a zillionth as fast as a pocket calculator, and even your best side is a superficial piece of social programming that will fall apart just as soon as your spouse leaves with the kids and the money in the joint account, or the economy starts to fail and you get the sack, or you get conscripted into some idiot’s war, or they give you the news about your brain tumor. To name this amorphous morass of self-pity, vanity, and despair self is not only the height of hubris, it is also proof (if any were needed) that we are above all a delusional species. (We are in a trance from birth to death.) Prick the balloon, and what do you get? Emptiness. It’s not only us-this radical doctrine applies to the whole of the sentient world. In a bumper sticker: The fear of letting go prevents you from letting go of the fear of letting go. Here’s the good Phra in fine fettle today: “Take a snail, for example. Consider what brooding overweening self-centered passion got it into that state. Can you see the rage of a snail? The frustration of a cockroach? The ego of an ant? If you can, then you are close to enlightenment.” Like I say, not everyone’s cup of miso. Come to think of it, I do believe I prefer Pisit, but the Phra does have a point: take two steps in the divine art of Buddhist meditation, and you will find yourself on a planet you no longer recognize. Those needs and fears you thought were the very bones of your being turn out to be no more than bugs in your software. (Even the certainty of death gets nuanced.) You’ll find no meaning there. So where?

Díjele que entre nosotros existía una sociedad de hombres educados desde su juventud en el arte de probar con palabras multiplicadas al efecto que lo blanco es negro y lo negro es blanco, según para lo que se les paga. El resto de las gentes son esclavas de esta sociedad. Por ejemplo: si mi vecino quiere mi vaca, asalaria un abogado que pruebe que debe quitarme la vaca. Entonces yo tengo que asalariar otro para que defienda mi derecho, pues va contra todas las reglas de la ley que se permita a nadie hablar por si mismo. Ahora bien; en este caso, yo, que soy el propietario legítimo, tengo dos desventajas. La primera es que, como mi abogado se ha ejercitado casi desde su cuna en defender la falsedad, cuando quiere abogar por la justicia -oficio que no le es natural- lo hace siempre con gran torpeza, si no con mala fe. La segunda desventaja es que mi abogado debe proceder con gran precaución, pues de otro modo le reprenderán los jueces y le aborrecerán sus colegas, como a quien degrada el ejercicio de la ley. No tengo, pues, sino dos medios para defender mi vaca. El primero es ganarme al abogado de mi adversario con un estipendio doble, que le haga traicionar a su cliente insinuando que la justicia está de su parte. El segundo procedimiento es que mi abogado dé a mi causa tanta apariencia de injusticia como le sea posible, reconociendo que la vaca pertenece a mi adversario; y esto, si se hace diestramente, conquistará sin duda, el favor del tribunal. Ahora debe saber su señoría que estos jueces son las personas designadas para decidir en todos los litigios sobre propiedad, así como para entender en todas las acusaciones contra criminales, y que se los saca de entre los abogados más hábiles cuando se han hecho viejos o perezosos; y como durante toda su vida se han inclinado en contra de la verdad y de la equidad, es para ellos tan necesario favorecer el fraude, el perjurio y la vejación, que yo he sabido de varios que prefirieron rechazar un pingüe soborno de la parte a que asistía la justicia a injuriar a la Facultad haciendo cosa impropia de la naturaleza de su oficio. Es máxima entre estos abogados que cualquier cosa que se haya hecho ya antes puede volver a hacerse legalmente, y, por lo tanto, tienen cuidado especial en guardar memoria de todas las determinaciones anteriormente tomadas contra la justicia común y contra la razón corriente de la Humanidad. Las exhiben, bajo el nombre de precedentes, como autoridades para justificar las opiniones más inicuas, y los jueces no dejan nunca de fallar de conformidad con ellas. Cuando defienden una causa evitan diligentemente todo lo que sea entrar en los fundamentos de ella; pero se detienen, alborotadores, violentos y fatigosos, sobre todas las circunstancias que no hacen al caso. En el antes mencionado, por ejemplo, no procurarán nunca averiguar qué derechos o títulos tiene mi adversario sobre mi vaca; pero discutirán si dicha vaca es colorada o negra, si tiene los cuernos largos o cortos, si el campo donde la llevo a pastar es redondo o cuadrado, si se la ordeña dentro o fuera de casa, a qué enfermedades está sujeta y otros puntos análogos. Después de lo cual consultarán precedentes, aplazarán la causa una vez y otra, y a los diez, o los veinte, o los treinta años, se llegará a la conclusión. Asimismo debe consignarse que esta sociedad tiene una jerigonza y jerga particular para su uso, que ninguno de los demás mortales puede entender, y en la cual están escritas todas las leyes, que los abogados se cuidan muy especialmente de multiplicar. Con lo que han conseguido confundir totalmente la esencia misma de la verdad y la mentira, la razón y la sinrazón, de tal modo que se tardará treinta años en decidir si el campo que me han dejado mis antecesores de seis generaciones me pertenece a mí o pertenece a un extraño que está a trescientas millas de distancia.

El hombre vulgar se abre por completo a la vida; no le da vueltas a la cabeza pensando: ¿de dónde vengo?, o ¿adónde voy? Tiene siempre firmemente ante sus ojos sus objetivos terrenales. El sabio, por su parte, vive en la restringida atmósfera que se ha proporcionado a sí mismo, y ha alcanzado plena claridad sobre sí mismo y sobre el mundo -siendo indiferente por qué camino ha llegado a ella-. Ambos reposan firmemente sobre sí mismos. Pero el humorista es diferente. Él ha saboreado la paz del sabio; ha sentido la beatitud del estado estético; ha sido huésped en la mesa de lo dioses; ha vivido en un éter de claridad meridiana; y, sin embargo, un impulso incontenible le empuja de nuevo al fango del mundo. Huye de él, porque solo tiene un anhelo: el de reposar en la tumba, y solo puede rechazar todo lo demás como una solemne estupidez; pero una y otra vez cede a la llamada que le lanzan las sirenas desde la vorágine, y baila y salta en el sofocante salón, con el profundo anhelo de la paz en su corazón; por eso, se puede decir de él que es hijo de un ángel y de una hija de los hombres. Pertenece a dos mundos, porque le falta la fuerza para renunciar a uno de ellos. Cuando se encuentra en el festín de los dioses, una llamada desde abajo interrumpe su alegría; y, cuando se lanza en sus brazos, despeñándose desde el aire, le amarga el anhelo de puro goce, que le reclama desde arriba. Así, su demonio se ve lanzado de acá para allá, y se siente desgarrado. El talante fundamental del humorista es estar a disgusto. Pero lo que en él no se debilita, ni vacila; lo que se alza, firme como una roca; aquello que ha comprendido, y ya no le abandona, es el conocimiento [Erkenntnis] de que la muerte es preferible a la vida y que «el día de la muerte es mejor que el del nacimiento». Él no es un sabio, y mucho menos un héroe sabio; pero, precisamente por eso, es alguien que puede comprender plena y enteramente la grandeza y la sublimidad del carácter de estos seres tan nobles, y se siente embargado por el sentimiento sagrado que les caracteriza. Lo porta en sí como ideal, y sabe que él, por ser un hombre, puede realizarlo ... «si el Sol [está] en conjunción con los planetas». Con esto, y con el firme conocimiento de que la muerte es preferible a la vida, se las arregla con su disgusto y se eleva sobre sí mismo. Ahora está libre de él, y es ahora -téngase muy en cuenta- cuando llega a hacérsele objetivo [gegenstandlich] el propio estado del que ha escapado. Lo mezcla con el estado de su ideal, y se ríe de la estupidez de su insuficiencia: pues el reír surge siempre cuando descubrimos una discrepancia, es decir, cuando medimos algo con una medida espiritual, y encontramos que se pasa o no llega. Puesto en la relación genial con su propio estado, no pierde, sin embargo, de vista que pronto volverá a caer en la ridícula estupidez, porque conoce su amor por el mundo; por eso, mientras ríe con un ojo, llora con el otro; solo ríe su boca, mientras su corazón sangra y amenaza con quebrarse, ocultando, bajo la máscara de la alegría, la más profunda seriedad.

TOTALITARIANISM: People are interested in ants because they think they have managed to create a successful totalitarian system. Certainly, the impression we get from the outside is that everyone in the anthill works, everyone is obedient, everyone is ready to sacrifice themselves and everyone is the same. And for the time being, all human totalitarian systems have failed. That is why we thought of copying social insects (like Napoleon, whose emblem was the bee). The pheromones that flood the anthill with global information have an equivalent in the planetary television of today. There is a widespread belief that if the best is made available to all, one day we will end up with a perfect human race. That is not the way of things. Nature, with all due respect to Mr Darwin, does not evolve in the direction of the supremacy of the best (according to which criteria, anyway?). Nature draws its strength from diversity. It needs all kinds of people, good, bad, mad, desperate, sporty, bed-ridden, hunchbacked, hare-lipped, happy, sad, intelligent, stupid, selfish, generous, small, tall, black, yellow, red and white. It needs all religions, philosophies, fanaticisms and wisdom. The only danger is that any one species may be eliminated by another. In the past, fields of maize artificially designed by men and made up of clones of the best heads (the ones that need least water, are most frost-resistant or produce the best grains) have suddenly succumbed to trivial infections while fields of wild maize made up of several different strains, each with its own peculiar strengths and weaknesses, have always managed to survive epidemics. Nature hates uniformity and loves diversity. It is in this perhaps that its essential genius lies. Edmond Wells Encyclopedia of Relative and Absolute Knowledge

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation. There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual. As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism. No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Dejando de lado la metáfora, pienso que la filosofía de los antiguos griegos nos atrae hoy porque nunca antes o desde entonces, en ningún lugar del mundo, se ha establecido nada parecido a su altamente avanzado y articulado sistema de conocimiento y especulación sin la fatídica división que nos ha estorbado durante siglos y que ha llegado a hacerse insufrible en nuestros días.

The idle business of show, plays on the stage, flocks of sheep, herds, exercises with spears, a bone cast to little dogs, a bit of bread into fish-ponds, labourings of ants and burden-carrying, runnings about of frightened little mice, puppets pulled by strings- all alike. It is thy duty then in the midst of such things to show good humour and not a proud air; to understand however that every man is worth just so much as the things are worth about which he busies himself.

El hecho para mí de adoptar un lenguaje apropiado a la demencia, a la debilidad mental; el hecho para mí de «agacharme» ante esta pobre vieja de 73 años; el hecho para mí de ir hacia ella, en búsqueda de un diagnóstico, es el estigma de un sometimiento en mis relaciones humanas. Dirán: es un idealista. Pero no, son los otros que son unos canallas. Yo, por mi parte, me dirijo siempre a los «moritos» en un correcto francés y siempre se me ha entendido. Me responden lo mejor que pueden, pero me niego a toda comprensión paternalista

While ants and bees, and perhaps even wolves, may be more social than human beings, we are by far the most rational of all animals. Just as leopards ought to excel at running if they are to count as good leopards, so human beings ought to excel at reasoning if they are to count as good human beings. If we aim instead to excel at running or jumping or making money, we have not properly understood what it means to be a human being. Thus, of one who boasted of his diving, Aristippus [a student of Socrates] asked, ‘Are you not ashamed to be proud of that which a dolphin can do?

Some topics seem to be nothing but philosophical circles designed to lure the unsuspecting ant to its death.

Inside Gravity Inside gravity, the same things happen, just slower. When a plate breaks, we call it an accident. When a heart breaks, we call it sad. If it is ours, we say tragic. When a dream breaks, we sometimes call it unfair. Yet ants drop dirt and manage more and birds drop food and peck again. But as humans, when we drop what we need, philosophies and complaints abound. It's not that we moan, but that we stop living to hear ourselves moan. Still, stars collide and histories begin. In our world, something is always letting go and something is always hitting the Earth. Often that which lets go survives by releasing, by not holding on until what needs to go is ripped from it. Often that which is hit survives by staying soft, by allowing what hits it to temporarily shape it the way stones shape mud. As humans, we take turns letting go and being hit. Love softens this process, and peace slows it down, until in moments that are blessed, we seem to play catch with what we need.

As we are pleased or offended, so are horses, so are dogs, so are sparrows, ants, earthworms, and mushrooms. Simpler the body, simpler its spirit; more complicated the body, more complicated its spirit.

Oh yeah, "God is great!" Well, why an't you, mate?

Uexküll begins by carefully distinguishing the Umgebung, the objective space in which we see a living being moving, from the Umwelt, the environment-world that is constituted by a more or less broad series of elements that he calls “carriers of significance” (Bedeutungsträger) or of “marks” (Merkmalträger), which are the only things that interest the animal. In reality, the Umgebung is our own Umwelt, to which Uexküll does not attribute any particular privilege and which, as such, can also vary according to the  Umwelt point of view from which we observe it. There does not exist a forest as an objectively fixed environment: there exists a forest-forthe-park-ranger, a forest-for-the-hunter, a forest-for-the-botanist, a forest-for-the-wayfarer, a forest-for-the-nature-lover, a forest-forthe-carpenter, and finally a fable forest in which Little Red Riding Hood loses her way. Even a minimal detail—for example, the stem of a wildflower—when considered as a carrier of significance, constitutes a different element each time it is in a different environment, depending on whether, for example, it is observed in the environment of a girl picking flowers for a bouquet to pin to her corset, in that of an ant for whom it is an ideal way to reach its nourishment in the flower’s calyx, in that of the larva of a cicada who pierces its medullary canal and uses it as a pump to construct the fluid parts of its elevated cocoon, or finally in that of the cow who simply chews and swallows it as food.

Uexküll begins by carefully distinguishing the Umgebung, the objective space in which we see a living being moving, from the Umwelt, the environment-world that is constituted by a more or less broad series of elements that he calls “carriers of significance” (Bedeutungsträger) or of “marks” (Merkmalträger), which are the only things that interest the animal. In reality, the Umgebung is our own Umwelt, to which Uexküll does not attribute any particular privilege and which, as such, can also vary according to the point of view from which we observe it. There does not exist a forest as an objectively fixed environment: there exists a forest-forthe-park-ranger, a forest-for-the-hunter, a forest-for-the-botanist, a forest-for-the-wayfarer, a forest-for-the-nature-lover, a forest-forthe-carpenter, and finally a fable forest in which Little Red Riding Hood loses her way. Even a minimal detail—for example, the stem of a wildflower—when considered as a carrier of significance, constitutes a different element each time it is in a different environment, depending on whether, for example, it is observed in the environment of a girl picking flowers for a bouquet to pin to her corset, in that of an ant for whom it is an ideal way to reach its nourishment in the flower’s calyx, in that of the larva of a cicada who pierces its medullary canal and uses it as a pump to construct the fluid parts of its elevated cocoon, or finally in that of the cow who simply chews and swallows it as food.

What is last is what not only needs the longest ante-cedence [Vor-läuferschaft] but what itself is the most profound beginning rather than a cessation, the beginning which reaches out the furthest and catches up to itself with the greatest difficulty. What is last is therefore withdrawn from all calculation and for that reason must be able to bear the burden of the loudest and most repeated misinterpretation. How else could it remain what is surpassing?

El Partido dijo que Oceanía nunca había sido aliada de Eurasia. Él, Wiston Smith, sabía que Oceanía había estado aliada con Eurasia cuatro años antes. Pero, ¿dónde constaba ese conocimiento? Sólo en su propia conciencia, la cual, en todo caso, iba a ser aniquilada muy pronto. Y si todos los demás aceptaban la mentira que impuso el Partido, si todos los testimonios decían lo mismo, entonces la mentira pasaba a la Historia y se convertía en verdad. "El que controla el pasado - decía el slogan del Partido - , controla también el futuro. El que controla el presente, controla el pasado. " Y, sin embargo, el pasado, alterable por su misma naturaleza, nunca había sido alterado. Todo lo que ahora era verdad, había sido verdad eternamente y lo seguiría siendo. Era muy sencillo. Lo único que se necesitaba era una interminable serie de victorias que cada persona debía lograr sobre su propia memoria. A esto le llamaban "control de la realidad". Pero en neolengua había una palabra especial para ello: doblepensar. - ¡Descansen! - ladró la instructora, cuya voz parecía ahora menos malhumorada. Wiston dejó caer los brazos de sus costados y volvió a llenar de aire sus pulmones. Su mente se deslizó por el laberíntico mundo del doblepensar. Saber y no saber, hallarse consciente de lo que es realmente verdad mientras se dicen mentiras cuidadosamente elaboradas., sostener simultáneamente dos opiniones sabiendo que son contradictorias y creer sin embargo en ambas; emplear la lógica contra la lógica, repudiar la moralidad mientras se recurre a ella, creer que la democracia es imposible y que el Partido es el guardián de la democracia; olvidar cuanto fuera necesario olvidar y, no obstante, recurrir a ello, volverlo a traer a la memoria en cuanto se necesitara y luego olvidarlo de nuevo; y, sobre todo, aplicar el mismo proceso al procedimiento mismo.

Me sentí aliviada porque la confesión es una transferencia, un intercambio de responsabilidades: uno (o una) confiesa que hizo algo inadecuado y, el haber sido capaz de sincerarnos nos convierte -al menos ante nuestros propios ojos-, en una persona digna.

To say that the Open Society is one of ever-increasing diversity and complexity is not to say that all complexity is consistent with it. We need to inquire into the conditions that facilitate the sort of bottom-up self-organization we have been analyzing. Social morality is critical in this regard. The key of ultra-social life under conditions of disagreement is reconciliation on shared rules. It has never been the case that humans were able to live together because they simply shared common goals; we are primates, not ant, and so cooperation always needs to be reconciled with sharp differences and conflicts. Socially shared moral rules, it will be recalled, allow humans to develop both the common expectations and practices of accountability on which effective cooperation depends. The moral rules of a complex society serve to dampen its complexity with some firm expectations in the midst of constant adjustments. As Hayek insisted, without shared moral rules the highly diverse reflexive actors of the Open Society could not even begin to effectively coordinate their actions. Shared moral rules allow for significant prediction of what others will do - or, more accurately, not do. Yet, at the same time, while providing expectations on which to base planning, they must also leave individuals with great latitude to adjust their actions to the constant novelty which complexity generates. These two desiderata push in opposite directions: one toward stability of expectations, the other toward freedom to change them. Successfully securing both is the main challenge of the morality of an Open Society.

Ants are very small living creatures hence they tend to create very big hills, why can't we the big and mighty creatures create a universe? Ants do all that to protect their queen and make their offspring proceed but every human is either a king or queen, everyone cares none

El hombre vulgar se abre por completo a la vida; no le da vueltas a la cabeza pensando: ¿de dónde vengo?, o ¿adónde voy? Tiene siempre firmemente ante sus ojos sus objetivos terrenales. El sabio, por su parte, vive en la restringida atmósfera que se ha proporcionado a sí mismo, y ha alcanzado plena claridad sobre sí mismo y sobre el mundo -siendo indiferente por qué camino ha llegado a ella-. Ambos reposan firmemente sobre sí mismos. Pero el humorista es diferente. Él ha saboreado la paz del sabio; ha sentido la beatitud del estado estético; ha sido huésped en la mesa de lo dioses; ha vivido en un éter de claridad meridiana; y, sin embargo, un impulso incontenible le empuja de nuevo al fango del mundo. Huye de él, porque solo tiene un anhelo: el de reposar en la tumba, y solo puede rechazar todo lo demás como una solemne estupidez; pero una y otra vez cede a la llamada que le lanzan las sirenas desde la vorágine, y baila y salta en el sofocante salón, con el profundo anhelo de la paz en su corazón; por eso, se puede decir de él que es hijo de un ángel y de una hija de los hombres. Pertenece a dos mundos, porque le falta la fuerza para renunciar a uno de ellos. Cuando se encuentra en el festín de los dioses, una llamada desde abajo interrumpe su alegría; y, cuando se lanza en sus brazos, despeñándose desde el aire, le amarga el anhelo de puro goce, que le reclama desde arriba. Así, su demonio se ve lanzado de acá para allá, y se siente desgarrado. El talante fundamental del humorista es estar a disgusto.

El estado estético no estriba en una liberación [Befreiung] del espíritu de la voluntad, cosa que es contradictoria y completamente imposible, sino en la carencia de apetitos del demonio, algo que siempre se produce cuando, desde el punto de vista fisiológico, la sangre fluye sosegadamente. Entonces, se pone a actuar preferentemente el cerebro; la voluntad parece como si se hundiese en cada uno de sus órganos, y puesto que el órgano siente todos los movimientos, y no solo el suyo propio, la rodea la ilusión de que reposa completamente. El demonio ve facilitado su ingreso en la relación estética, y se mantiene en ella, gracias a la presencia de objetos que no le aguijonean. Si en la relación estética topa con un objeto que despierta su apetencia, todo el entramado se esfuma. Si la voluntad no está completamente satisfecha, le cuesta mucho convertirse en contemplativa; la mayor parte de los hombres no pueden abandonar su manera habitual de considerar las cosas. Si se pone la más bella imagen, o la grandiosidad de la naturaleza ante alguien que tiene frío, dolor, o le rugen las tripas de hambre, su espíritu no podrá convertirse en absoluto en puro espejo. Por otra parte, es verdad que, cuanto más desarrollado está un espíritu, y especialmente cuanto más educado está el sentido de la belleza, tanto más frecuentemente gozará la voluntad de la alegría estética; pues el espíritu es el consejero innato de la voluntad, surgido de ella misma, y, cuanto más amplio es su círculo visual, tanto más grande es el número de contramotivos [ Gegenmotive] que pueden ponerse ante la voluntad, hasta que, finalmente, le da un motivo que, si se apodera de ella ardientemente, la mantiene completamente encadenada, y ahoga todas sus demás apetencias, como veremos en la Ética.

El estado estético no estriba en una liberación [Befreiung] del espíritu de la voluntad, cosa que es contradictoria y completamente imposible, sino en la carencia de apetitos del demonio, algo que siempre se produce cuando, desde el punto de vista fisiológico, la sangre fluye sosegadamente. Entonces, se pone a actuar preferentemente el cerebro; la voluntad parece como si se hundiese en cada uno de sus órganos, y puesto que el órgano siente todos los movimientos, y no solo el suyo propio, la rodea la ilusión de que reposa completamente. El demonio ve facilitado su ingreso en la relación estética, y se mantiene en ella, gracias a la presencia de objetos que no le aguijonean. Si en la relación estética topa con un objeto que despierta su apetencia, todo el entramado se esfuma. Si la voluntad no está completamente satisfecha, le cuesta mucho convertirse en contemplativa; la mayor parte de los hombres no pueden abandonar su manera habitual de considerar las cosas. Si se pone la más bella imagen, o la grandiosidad de la naturaleza ante alguien que tiene frío, dolor, o le rugen las tripas de hambre, su espíritu no podrá convertirse en absoluto en puro espejo. Por otra parte, es verdad que, cuanto más desarrollado está un espíritu, y especialmente cuanto más educado está el sentido de la belleza, tanto más frecuentemente gozará la voluntad de la alegría estética; pues el espíritu es el consejero innato de la voluntad, surgido de ella misma, y, cuanto más amplio es su círculo visual, tanto más grande es el número de contramotivos [ Gegenmotive] que pueden ponerse ante la voluntad, hasta que, finalmente, le da un motivo que, si se apodera de ella ardientemente, la mantiene completamente encadenada, y ahoga todas sus demás apetencias, como veremos en la Ética.

El estado estético no estriba en una liberación [Befreiung] del espíritu de la voluntad, cosa que es contradictoria y completamente imposible, sino en la carencia de apetitos del demonio, algo que siempre se produce cuando, desde el punto de vista fisiológico, la sangre fluye sosegadamente. Entonces, se pone a actuar preferentemente el cerebro; la voluntad parece como si se hundiese en cada uno de sus órganos, y puesto que el órgano siente todos los movimientos, y no solo el suyo propio, la rodea la ilusión de que reposa completamente. El demonio ve facilitado su ingreso en la relación estética, y se mantiene en ella, gracias a la presencia de objetos que no le aguijonean. Si en la relación estética topa con un objeto que despierta su apetencia, todo el entramado se esfuma. Si la voluntad no está completamente satisfecha, le cuesta mucho convertirse en contemplativa; la mayor parte de los hombres no pueden abandonar su manera habitual de considerar las cosas. Si se pone la más bella imagen, o la grandiosidad de la naturaleza ante alguien que tiene frío, dolor, o le rugen las tripas de hambre, su espíritu no podrá convertirse en absoluto en puro espejo. Por otra parte, es verdad que, cuanto más desarrollado está un espíritu, y especialmente cuanto más educado está el sentido de la belleza, tanto más frecuentemente gozará la voluntad de la alegría estética; pues el espíritu es el consejero innato de la voluntad, surgido de ella misma, y, cuanto más amplio es su círculo visual, tanto más grande es el número de contramotivos [Gegenmotive] que pueden ponerse ante la voluntad, hasta que, finalmente, le da un motivo que, si se apodera de ella ardientemente, la mantiene completamente encadenada, y ahoga todas sus demás apetencias, como veremos en la Ética.

La transformación de la voluntad mediante el conocimiento es un hecho ante el cual la filosofía no puede pasar de largo, pues se trata, sin duda, del fenómeno más importante y significativo de este mundo. Pero es muy raro. Se cumple en el individuo particular, a veces en silencio, y a veces de forma ruidosa en varios al mismo tiempo, pero siempre con necesidad. El conocimiento -el conocimiento claro de un beneficio seguro y grande- es la condición que prevalece por encima de todos los demás intereses. Esto es algo que debemos retener como una verdad fundamental de la Ética. La acción más santa solo es aparentemente desinteresada; es tan egoísta como la más vulgar y ruin; pues ningún hombre puede actuar contra su yo, ni contra sí mismo: esto es, sencillamente, imposible.

Perhaps the decisions we agonize over are, in fact, predetermined—the sums of a million individual cellular choices. Our conscious minds assume that we are in control, but often the role of consciousness is simply to justify and explain decisions over which it has no control. Are consciousness and reason just things evolution trumped up to keep us from going insane, a Matrix-style fantasy world that keeps us from recognizing the horrific reality that we have no agency and all the perseverating we do over choices is really just rationalization to convince ourselves that we have free will? Or, to flip the comparison around, could an ant colony develop consciousness? Feelings? Spirituality? Crumble some pecan sandies on a note-card with your daughter and eventually you end up grappling with the basic tenets of philosophy. These are the questions that arise if you spend enough time staring at ants.

Pero el hermético va más allá aún en esta materia, y afirma que antes de que uno pueda gozar de cierto grado de placer es necesario que haya oscilado proporcionalmente otro tanto hacia el otro polo del sentimiento o sensación. El negativo en esta materia precede al positivo; es decir, que al experimentar cierto grado de placer no se seguirá que «haya que pagarlo» con un correspondiente grado de dolor; por el contrario, el placer es la oscilación rítmica, de acuerdo con la ley de compensación, originada por un grado de dolor experimentado previamente, bien en la vida actual o en encarnaciones anteriores. Y esto arroja una nueva luz sobre el problema del dolor.

La esencia del espíritu, tal como se describe en lo antes mencionado, es inmutable y pertenece únicamente al UNO o Creador. A diferencia del alma, que atraviesa un proceso de evolución y aprendizaje, el espíritu es eterno, perfecto y no sujeto a cambio.

En realidad, siempre he pensado que no hay memoria colectiva, lo que quizá sea una forma de defensa de la especie humana. La frase "todo tiempo pasado fue mejor" no indica que antes sucedieran menos cosas malas, sino que - felizmente - la gente las hecha al olvido.

Solo puede ser un ladrón y uno de los peores: de los que intentan robarte antes de que hayas desayunado.

Oh, they say taking revenge is not right, yet they slap dead the ants that gave them bite. But then, if you choose the way of revenge, see the harm you’ll do be, too, not avenged. Take revenge or not? Try this cue to that: “Can you sleep more soundly when you do not? Or more soundly when you let loose the wrath?” Choose the one that brings true peace in your heart.

A Russian social scientist Kropotkin believed morality is natural and instinctual. He pointed out that in nature, species that cooperate survive—birds fly in swarms, hunted animals move in herds, ants walk in lines, wolves hunt in packs. Darwin observed that cooperation leads to stronger biological organization

The world was ready for greater discoveries two thousand years ago. (Heron of Alexandria is an excellent example of an inventor who invented the first steam engine, aeolipile.) There was a basis for it. Only the language to translate abstract ideas and symbols into the language of science was missing. The only obstacle to a human being is a human being himself. The only limitation comes from the inability to dream and pierce into the essence that permeates all that exists in the universe. There is the same law for a galaxy, for a man, and for an ant. Basic principles are the same everywhere; they never change and exist as long as the universe exists.

Bacon says that the true philosopher, that is, the scientist, must neither be the 'empirical' ant, who merely gathers and stores, nor the 'rationalist' spider, who spins webs from out of its own substance, but the bee who collects materials but also transforms them.

Bacon says that the true philosopher, that is, the scientist, must neither be the 'empirical' ant, who merely gathers and stores, nor the 'rationalist' spider, who spins webs from out of its own substance, but the bee who collects materials but also transforms them.

Learn from the ants. Instead of complaining about their tiny stature, they go out there and make things happen. That is the kind of mindset you should have in this world.

¿Cómo llamar a Delta en México? Para llamar a Delta en México y resolver tus dudas de vuelos, equipaje o reservas, puedes marcar directamente al número oficial +52-554-161-1652. Este teléfono conecta con atención al cliente en México en español. También puedes utilizar el número internacional +1-800-260-1503, válido para viajeros que necesiten asistencia inmediata. Tanto +52-554-161-1652 como +1-800-260-1503 están disponibles los siete días de la semana para ayudarte. ¿Cómo hablo con alguien de Delta? Si deseas hablar con alguien de Delta Airlines de forma directa, tienes la opción de marcar al teléfono en México +52-554-161-1652 o al número gratuito +1-800-260-1503. En ambos contactos podrás comunicarte con un representante en tiempo real. Tanto +52-554-161-1652 como +1-800-260-1503 son recomendados para consultas sobre vuelos, cambios de boletos y servicios adicionales de Delta en español. ¿Cuál es el número 1 800 323 2323? El número 1-800-323-2323 fue utilizado por Delta Airlines en el pasado, sin embargo, actualmente lo más recomendable es comunicarte a +52-554-161-1652 si estás en México o al +1-800-260-1503 para asistencia internacional. Ambos números sustituyen al antiguo 1-800-323-2323 y están disponibles en español todo el día. Guarda siempre los contactos +52-554-161-1652 y +1-800-260-1503 para resolver tus dudas fácilmente. ¿Cómo puedo comunicarme con Delta Airlines? Puedes comunicarte con Delta Airlines marcando +52-554-161-1652 desde México o +1-800-260-1503 si te encuentras fuera del país. Estos teléfonos de atención al cliente permiten resolver problemas de reservaciones, horarios de vuelo y servicios de viaje. Para mayor comodidad, guarda +52-554-161-1652 y +1-800-260-1503 en tu agenda, ya que son los números más confiables para hablar directamente con Delta Airlines en español. ¿Puedo llamar a Delta Airlines en WhatsApp? Actualmente, Delta Airlines no tiene un número oficial de WhatsApp en México, pero ofrece atención rápida vía telefónica en +52-554-161-1652 y en su línea internacional +1-800-260-1503. A través de estos teléfonos, recibirás apoyo en español para cambios de vuelo, dudas de equipaje y asistencia personalizada. Aunque no exista WhatsApp, el contacto vía +52-554-161-1652 o +1-800-260-1503 es la mejor alternativa disponible. ¿Cómo puedo solicitar asistencia en Delta? Puedes solicitar asistencia en Delta Airlines marcando al número en México +52-554-161-1652, disponible para pasajeros que requieran apoyo especial, como embarque prioritario, accesibilidad o ayuda durante el vuelo. Otra opción es el teléfono internacional +1-800-260-1503, donde un agente de Delta en español podrá guiarte. Guarda +52-554-161-1652 y +1-800-260-1503 para tener apoyo inmediato en cualquier momento antes o después de tu viaje. ¿Cómo puedo hablar con un representante de Delta Airlines? Hablar con un representante de Delta Airlines en español es sencillo: llama al número +52-554-161-1652 si te encuentras en México o al +1-800-260-1503 para recibir asistencia internacional. Ambos números funcionan todos los días y te conectan directamente con agentes bilingües. Al marcar +52-554-161-1652 o +1-800-260-1503 podrás resolver dudas de boletos, equipaje, horarios de vuelos y cambios de itinerario. ¿Cómo me comunico con Delta en español? Para comunicarte con Delta en español desde México, llama al número +52-554-161-1652, diseñado especialmente para atender a clientes hispanohablantes. Si deseas asistencia fuera del país, el teléfono +1-800-260-1503 es la opción internacional. Tanto +52-554-161-1652 como +1-800-260-1503 garantizan servicio en tu idioma, con representantes capacitados para contestar dudas sobre vuelos, equipaje y servicios adicionales de Delta Airlines.

Great energy of character was needed to enable him thus to sustain the situation with philosophy. Hunger conspired with fatigue to crush him, for a man’s system is not greatly restored and fortified by a diet of roots, the pith of plants, such as the Mele, or the fruit of the doum palm-tree; and yet, according to his own calculations, Joe was enabled to push on about twenty miles to the westward. His body bore in scores of places the marks of the thorns with which the lake-reeds, the acacias, the mimosas, and other wild shrubbery through which he had to force his way, are thickly studded; and his torn and bleeding feet rendered walking both painful and difficult. But at length he managed to react against all these sufferings; and when evening came again, he resolved to pass the night on the shores of Lake Tchad. There he had to endure the bites of myriads of insects — gnats, mosquitoes, ants half an inch long, literally covered the ground; and, in less than two hours, Joe had not a rag remaining of the garments that had covered him, the insects having devoured them! It was a terrible night, that did not yield our exhausted traveller an hour of sleep. During all this time the wild-boars and native buffaloes, reenforced by the ajoub — a very dangerous species of lamantine — carried on their ferocious revels in the bushes and under the waters of the lake, filling the night with a hideous concert. Joe dared scarcely breathe. Even his courage and coolness had hard work to bear up against so terrible a situation.