confessions
Let me go on the record now: if I ever do something that provokes someone to say that I'm not thinking clearly, and I reply that "for the first time in my life, I am thinking clearly," then I'm probably not thinking clearly. I just cannot envision a situation where my thinking would actually be more clear leading up to such an exchange.
Also, I hope that after my (eventual) death, no one says that I was "full of life," or that I "loved life." Such remarks are made of people about whom nothing more substantial can be declared, and about those whose uniqueness was dubious. I would hope for more.
working well
Vocations are not about what you're good at, or what you enjoy doing. Neither are they about earning potential, or social status. Rather, a lifetime career is a way to pass the time, an anesthesia of all senses that brings you closer to your inevitable end.
Some say that mathematician is the best job, largely because of the working conditions. However, the argument could be made that, since math is theoretical, thinking hurts, and numbers aren't real, it really is a pretty poor profession after all. Overlooking its shortcomings, a career in math could be fulfilling, if there is nothing else you can physically do.
The same people would say that while philosopher is one of the best jobs, roustabout is one of the worst. One can see how this is impossible. Recalling that income is not pivotal to such roles, both the thinker and the rover have few obligations and offer similar contributions to society. Still, it is indisputable that all would be philosophers if the opportunity were available.
Also, painter should not be on the same list as nuclear decontamination tech. One creates beauty, while the other hoses down mutants. It is clear which is superior.
on woodchucks
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? The argument could be made that woodchucks are perfectly capable of, yet averse to, chucking wood. In the event of a woodchuck's woodchucking, the wood would be chucked by the woodchuck in moderation, since woodchucks undoubtedly adhere to the guidelines in Plato's The Republic. The wood chucked by the woodchuck would not exceed the amount of wood that would be chucked by any creature commonly known for its slight adeptness at chucking wood. If a woodchuck would chuck wood, would the woodchuck chuck enough wood to equal the amount of wood chucked by a small woodchucking device? The answer, of course, is no.
Woodchucks choose not to chuck wood, not merely because of their lack of opposable thumbs and overall bulk, but also because of their design, suggesting that, even if a woodchuck could chuck wood, it would not. Woodchucks would much rather wander aimlessly through the woods, watching other creatures that are designed to chuck wood chuck wood. Just because woodchucks do not choose to chuck wood does not mean that the woodchucks' wood chucking would not be a large amount of wood chucked by woodchucks. A woodchuck chucking wood is similar to an outstretched hand revealing many fingers; the woodchuck has chosen one finger (or path, if you will) that runs parallel to many other paths. Though the woodchucking woodchuck is confused, he can always stop chucking wood to achieve his true purpose.
modified from a philosophy class journal entry, 9-18-03