Are Evidentalists Cowards?

Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Are Evidentalists Cowards?

Evidentalism is the epistemological parallel to empiricism.  It's basically the belief that a belief is sufficed only if there is past proof of its existence.

The key word to this is "past".  Evidentalists are not willing to take initiative unless a past track record exists.  In the case of breaking new frontiers, evidentalists have no reason to press forward.

Evidentalists also don't have a problem with forcing others to assume the risk of pressing forward instead.  That is because of a lack of evidence of danger, evidentalists say it's OK to force others to do things.

In sum, evidentalists are cowards because they are not willing to explore that which is yet to be proven, and they expect others to do the exploring.

 

 


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
To be clear, I see this

To be clear, I see this behavior among conservatives and liberals, and I mean those words in both the political and analytical senses of the words.

Conservatives are stuck on tradition in doing things the way they've always been done.  Modifying tradition is looked down upon because there's no evidence of modifications working.  They expect you to prove that a modification works independently in advance of considering it.

Likewise, liberals are stuck on history in that they believe it's OK to centrally plan an economy according to historicism.  They don't understand how past performance doesn't guarantee future results, and that private equity is necessary to ensure due diligence in order to adjust for real business cycles.

The same thing can be said about social policy.  When it comes to duty of care and burden of proof, neither side has a problem with forcing people to assume the risk of falling through the cracks.  Conservatives expect rugged individualism when nobody's watching and there's no evidence that something bad has happened.  Liberals expect feminism, multiculturalism, and egalitarianism to substitute analytic jurisprudence as if the history of civil rights movements completely explains the problems of society.

I don't see how either side really addresses justice while being so obsessed with evidence.  They don't understand the necessity of existing in a reliable environment.

 

 


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to

Welcome to conformism.

Argotitan wrote:

To be clear, I see this behavior among conservatives and liberals, and I mean those words in both the political and analytical senses of the words.

95% of Americans 

Argotitan wrote:
The same thing can be said about social policy.  When it comes to duty of care and burden of proof, neither side has a problem with forcing people to assume the risk of falling through the cracks.  Conservatives expect rugged individualism when nobody's watching and there's no evidence that something bad has happened.  Liberals expect feminism, multiculturalism, and egalitarianism to substitute analytic jurisprudence as if the history of civil rights movements completely explains the problems of society.

I don't see how either side really addresses justice while being so obsessed with evidence.  They don't understand the necessity of existing in a reliable environment.

And you have an alternative??

I might had that in my opinion the best form of government ever tried is the Scandinavian model.

Moreover I believe the best form of democracy in a big country (bigger than Liechtenstein) the best form is a delegative democracy which to my knowledge has never been tried.


 

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Welcome to

Teralek wrote:

Welcome to conformism.

Argotitan wrote:

To be clear, I see this behavior among conservatives and liberals, and I mean those words in both the political and analytical senses of the words.

95% of Americans 

Argotitan wrote:
The same thing can be said about social policy.  When it comes to duty of care and burden of proof, neither side has a problem with forcing people to assume the risk of falling through the cracks.  Conservatives expect rugged individualism when nobody's watching and there's no evidence that something bad has happened.  Liberals expect feminism, multiculturalism, and egalitarianism to substitute analytic jurisprudence as if the history of civil rights movements completely explains the problems of society.

I don't see how either side really addresses justice while being so obsessed with evidence.  They don't understand the necessity of existing in a reliable environment.

And you have an alternative??

I might had that in my opinion the best form of government ever tried is the Scandinavian model.

Moreover I believe the best form of democracy in a big country (bigger than Liechtenstein) the best form is a delegative democracy which to my knowledge has never been tried.


 

 

I have a form of government called psyocracy.

You have three groups: voters, nominees, and candidates.

Instead of voting for office candidates, a test council is nominated to reflect voters' beliefs. Anyone can be a test council nominee, but they have to get 50% of voters to nominate them. No test council nominees run against each other. They just need a vote of confidence like getting a petition. There's no fixed number of spots, but voters will take size into consideration in making sure only the best nominees become councilmen.

Each nominated councilmen tests every candidate who runs for political office. The test can be written, verbal, kinetic, artistic, scientific, athletic, or whathaveyou. It doesn't matter how popular, wealthy, or anything else you are. You can take the test like an audition.

Each nominated councilmen has 100 percent points to administer to every candidate. Whichever candidate gets the most percent points among all nominated councilmen gets the office.

The best thing about this form of government is it actually requires voters to think before coming to a decision on who they nominate, and it's not just results oriented thinking either. They have to mull over what they really believe is the right way for nominees to qualify competent candidates.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Basically, it's outsourced

Basically, it's outsourced democracy that accounts for how people have lives to live.  Think tanks would go on grassroots campaigns and share their beliefs.  If voters shared those beliefs and believed the think tanks could test for them, they would nominate the think tanks.

After that, anyone could take the tests that think tanks come up with.  Whichever candidate scores the best on all the tests gets the office.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, Just Wow...

I Have to admit, I am impressed.  You see, I didn't think it was possible for someone to come up with a More Needlessly Complicated, Blatantly Bloated, Hopelessly Opaque, and Endemically Corruptible system of Government than I did for the Sci-Fi story I'm writing, and when I make a System of Government I intentionally set out to do all of those things so the System of Government itself can serve as the antagonist.

Seriously, your "Psyocracy" would not do any of the things you think it would.  It wouldn't encourage voters to think more carefully, in fact it would do the opposite since it needlessly adds another layer of elections between the voter and the actual candidate.  I mean, Voters don't seriously pay attention to the principles of the candidates they're actually electing when those candidates have actual power to make actual policy, what makes you think that would change in your system?

Plus your system is extremely open to abuse.  I mean what's stopping these Think Tanks from just making their 'Test' be about giving them money or other favors?  In Practice, they would just become Political Parties in all but name as their 'Tests' become magically easier for candidates with their political goals, and impossibly hard for rivals.

Plus, on what scale are the Think Tanks' elections carried out?  You say they need at least 50% of the vote, 50% of what?  The Nation?  Because then the only way someone can become a Think Tank is if at least 50% of the Nation both Knows of them and Likes them, ensuring that only the Rich or Large Corporations have the funds to actually commit to a National Campaign, even with the Internet.  The Think Tanks would become an Old Moneyed Gentleman's Club overnight, like even more so than the existing Political Party structure of the modern USA.

Then there's the problem of how you guarantee the Tests have any political Relevance.  You openly state that "Artistic" tests are fine, so Popularity Tests will by extension also be possible.  Now maybe you have different goals, but I would like to keep the contestants of American Idol as far from the Oval Office as is physically Possible.

Ideally I would deport them.

To Mars.*

Whether you want to believe it or not, the current Political Systems of the Earth weren't just written up one day after a Drunken Bender.  They have been growing and evolving over the past, oh, forever or so.  Before you actually try to take your hopelessly misguided and woefully uneducated mind through the process of Designing an entire Bloody Government, you might want to actually take a look at the Governmental Systems we've tried.  I mean seriously, the only way your System could get more unworkable is if you included the Librium Veto in there somewhere.

Also, Psyocracy is a stupid name for any system of government that doesn't involve Psychics.  Actually, I take that back, you could probably get a more workable System out of just putting Miss Cleo in charge.

With regards to the Title Question: No.

*I Apologize to any Martians reading this, I understand you don't want them any more than We do.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
 Yes I generally agree with

 Yes I generally agree with Sinphanius.

You see I agree we have a problem. The world has changed since mainly the fall of the Iron Curtain. The globalization has become relentless, idealism is dying in favour of a single capitalism ideal and goverments are all falling under "bubble gum" of propaganda. There is no ideas anymore, there is only naive propaganda. Politicians say whatever they have to to convince a wide range of people to vote on them. After they are in charge they do whatever they have to to secure their funds and try to balance the interest of business thycoons with their re election.

You see I don't trust the large majority of people when it's time to vote. Hell! I don't even trust me!!! Because I live surrounded by false information, propaganda, filters, and I cannot possibly know everything about a country (social problems, economic challenges, resource managment, etc) to make the best decision on who to vote. Most people don't care about politics and don't have the information. Most rely of the box of lies (TV) to make their voting decision. We already delegate our voting opinion on the TV or family or friends.

The world has become too complicated for people to vote knowingly.

This is why we hear on campaings only populist speaches.

The every day man is not a rational responder poster. Only on a very few countries you see people with a vested interest on politics and are able to have a reasonable conversation about it. I've been in Sweden, I've talked to them...

Moreover I believe that more important than knowledge moral character is the most important characteristic for electing someone to a power position.

And thankfully I believe that humans are very good judges of character without a lot of effort if they have close contact with the person in question. Thus you should vote for someone you know or can talk to easely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

"In theory, citizens selected the candidates for election to local soviets. In practice, at least before the June 1987 elections, these candidates had been selected by the local Communist party, Komsomol, and trade union officials under the direction of the district (raion) party organization. Voting took place after six weeks of campaigning. Though voters formally had the right to vote for or against the unopposed candidate, until 1987 all candidates usually received about 99 percent of the vote."

The problem is often finding a way to put theory into practice...

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I Have to

Sinphanius wrote:

I Have to admit, I am impressed.  You see, I didn't think it was possible for someone to come up with a More Needlessly Complicated, Blatantly Bloated, Hopelessly Opaque, and Endemically Corruptible system of Government than I did for the Sci-Fi story I'm writing, and when I make a System of Government I intentionally set out to do all of those things so the System of Government itself can serve as the antagonist.

Seriously, your "Psyocracy" would not do any of the things you think it would.  It wouldn't encourage voters to think more carefully, in fact it would do the opposite since it needlessly adds another layer of elections between the voter and the actual candidate.  I mean, Voters don't seriously pay attention to the principles of the candidates they're actually electing when those candidates have actual power to make actual policy, what makes you think that would change in your system?

Plus your system is extremely open to abuse.  I mean what's stopping these Think Tanks from just making their 'Test' be about giving them money or other favors?  In Practice, they would just become Political Parties in all but name as their 'Tests' become magically easier for candidates with their political goals, and impossibly hard for rivals.

Plus, on what scale are the Think Tanks' elections carried out?  You say they need at least 50% of the vote, 50% of what?  The Nation?  Because then the only way someone can become a Think Tank is if at least 50% of the Nation both Knows of them and Likes them, ensuring that only the Rich or Large Corporations have the funds to actually commit to a National Campaign, even with the Internet.  The Think Tanks would become an Old Moneyed Gentleman's Club overnight, like even more so than the existing Political Party structure of the modern USA.

Then there's the problem of how you guarantee the Tests have any political Relevance.  You openly state that "Artistic" tests are fine, so Popularity Tests will by extension also be possible.  Now maybe you have different goals, but I would like to keep the contestants of American Idol as far from the Oval Office as is physically Possible.

Ideally I would deport them.

To Mars.*

Whether you want to believe it or not, the current Political Systems of the Earth weren't just written up one day after a Drunken Bender.  They have been growing and evolving over the past, oh, forever or so.  Before you actually try to take your hopelessly misguided and woefully uneducated mind through the process of Designing an entire Bloody Government, you might want to actually take a look at the Governmental Systems we've tried.  I mean seriously, the only way your System could get more unworkable is if you included the Librium Veto in there somewhere.

Also, Psyocracy is a stupid name for any system of government that doesn't involve Psychics.  Actually, I take that back, you could probably get a more workable System out of just putting Miss Cleo in charge.

With regards to the Title Question: No.

*I Apologize to any Martians reading this, I understand you don't want them any more than We do.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion at all.

If a think tank gave a corrupt test, it would no longer be trusted in future elections.  Presumably, think tanks want prolonged influence, so screwing around like that is just plain stupid.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Evidentialists are not

Evidentialists are not cowards, but you apparently are- having run away from every thread where you are refuted by a good argument. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
well, allow me to go seek

well, allow me to go seek out the ten or twenty people in the world who would ever bother to self-identify as something so obscure as "evidentialist" and tell them they're fucking chicken-shits.

when it comes to epistemology, the pramana theories of the six hindu darshanas, particularly those of jaimini, gautama, kanada, and their commentators, make anything in the west appear downright naive.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Evidentialists are not cowards, 

 

Wow... personal attack?

How about you engage the argument instead of the arguer?  We can talk about evidentalists in general without talking about particular ones.

Beyond Saving wrote:
but you apparently are- having run away from every thread where you are refuted by a good argument.

The only running away happening is by those who refer to appearances without considering the ontology underneath.  A good argument must be reliable.  Otherwise, it's just based on getting lucky.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: The only

Argotitan wrote:

 

The only running away happening is by those who refer to appearances without considering the ontology underneath.  A good argument must be reliable.  

i'm not running.  i dismiss ontology out of hand and i haven't run from you once.

and there is no such thing as a reliable argument, because everything can potentially be negated.  that which cannot be negated is a matter of faith, not logic, so there's no reason to bring up "argument" at all.  any ontology is just as nonfalsifiable as any religion.  the only reason we don't call ontologies religions per se is because ontologies are not meant to be therapeutic.

that's precisely why the main currents of philopsophy have moved on to the sole domain of intellectual clarification and figuring out what we can and cannot do with language.  good philosophy should be falsifiable, and ontology just isn't.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Beyond

Argotitan wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Evidentialists are not cowards, 

Wow... personal attack?

 

How about you engage the argument instead of the arguer?  We can talk about evidentalists in general without talking about particular ones.

I already tried and you completely ignored all of my points and rambled on about completely unrelated topics. Obviously, you have no interest in a serious conversation, so I will no longer attempt to have one with you until you display an ability to do so.

 

Argotitan wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
but you apparently are- having run away from every thread where you are refuted by a good argument.

The only running away happening is by those who refer to appearances without considering the ontology underneath.  A good argument must be reliable.  Otherwise, it's just based on getting lucky.

Oh? Did I miss the post where you explained how illegal immigration caused the housing collapse and obesity? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Arg

Arg,

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All empiricists by definition are evidentialists. They start with zero, and then according to their experience and senses go from there to attempt to know according to their perspectives in which the interpretation appears.

Evidentialists then meet empiricists at that zero, and stack the perspectives up for analysis. If 51% of the empiricial data supports their position and only 49% your position, they win you lose.

MOST EVIDENTIALISTS ARE EMPIRICISTS (INCLUDING CHRISTIANS).

This method is mentally retarded and is not Biblical.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: All

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

All empiricists by definition are evidentialists.

says the guy who thinks sartre (whose name he can't spell properly) predates nietzsche.

evidentialists take the objective existence of the empirical universe for granted.  empiricists don't necessarily.  perhaps you can go so far as to say all evidentialists are empricists, but not vice versa.

you'll get there, sport.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hellow Commie

Hello Commie,

I never thought that Sartre predated Nietzsche. Regarding spelling errors, that's what happens when your eyes are tired and is nickles noise and nonsense lol.

However, Nietzche did indeed bring Existialism to its logical conclusion with Sartre indeed systemized the conclusion.

Yes, all empiricists by definition of empiricism in relation to the particulars are evidentialists. For an empiricist to be a presuppositionalist he would by definition need to approach a-priori which is logically a contradiction with empiricists a-posterori essential element.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Yes,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

Yes, all empiricists by definition of empiricism in relation to the particulars are evidentialists.

yup, in a world where we completely change the meaning of "evidentialist."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Evidentalism

Argotitan wrote:

Evidentalism is the epistemological parallel to empiricism.  It's basically the belief that a belief is sufficed only if there is past proof of its existence.

The key word to this is "past".  Evidentalists are not willing to take initiative unless a past track record exists.  In the case of breaking new frontiers, evidentalists have no reason to press forward.

Evidentalists also don't have a problem with forcing others to assume the risk of pressing forward instead.  That is because of a lack of evidence of danger, evidentalists say it's OK to force others to do things.

In sum, evidentalists are cowards because they are not willing to explore that which is yet to be proven, and they expect others to do the exploring.

 

 

Is there an actual point to these naked assertions ? Or any hard core evidence ? Or any real reason for this ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Ick

Ick,

I see my communist friend has run out of intellectual fuel.

Check Mate!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Ick,I see

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Ick,

I see my communist friend has run out of intellectual fuel.

Check Mate!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

no, merely my patience.  your delusion knows no bounds.  still, that doesn't make you "rare" either.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson