标记档案: 生活


The temporal aspect of punishment extends beyond the span between the crime and its punishment. The severity of the punishment is also measured in terms of its duration. And death puts a definitive end to all man-made durations. This interference of death in our temporal horizons messes up what we mean by proportional punishment, which is the reason behind the general lack of gratification on Madoff’s long sentence. If a heinous crime like a senseless murder brings about only a life-sentence, and if you know that “生活” means only a couple of months or so, then the punishment in and of itself is incapable of deterring the crime. And when the crime is not as senseless, but prompted by careful material considerations, it is a deliberate risk-reward analysis that determines its commission. A comprehensive risk-reward analysis would involve, I imagine, a consideration of the probability of detection, the intensity and duration of the potential punishment, and the time one has to enjoy the spoils and/or suffer the punishment. There may be other factors to consider, 当然. I wouldn’t know because I haven’t actually done such analyses. Not yet.

The smallpox story I mentioned earlier brings these considerations to the foreground, along with how the relatively high probability of death from the disease affects them. Knowing that there isn’t much time to enjoy life (or face the music), two older gentlemen of the story decide to go and feast themselves on a local prostitute of the village whom they have been eying for a while. It is not that the consequences (spousal anger, bad diseases etc.) of their action have changed. Just that their potential duration has decreased drastically because of the outbreak of smallpox. Knowledge of our death has a dramatic effect on our moral inhibitions born out of risk-reward analyses.

It is in this light that we have to examine clichéd statements like, “Live in the present moment,” 或 “Live everyday as though it is your last.” What do these statements really mean? The second one is especially interesting because it makes a direct reference to death. Is it asking us to shed our inhibitions vis-à-vis all our actions? 如果是这样的, it may not be such a positive invitation (哪, 当然, is a statement of value-judgment emanating form a sense of a morality of unknown origins). Or it could be a simple exhortation not to procrastinate — a positive thing by the same uncertain morality.

“Living in the present” is even more puzzling. I guess it comes from the Zen notion of “这里” 和 “now.” I can kind of understand the Zen notion in terms of cognitive neuroscience, although that is the sort of thing that Zen would ask us not to do — understanding one thing in terms of something else. According to the Zen school, an experience has to be assimilated before the intellect has a chance to color it in terms of preconceived notions and filters. In the absolute stillness of a mind, presumably brought about by years of introspection and intense mediation, experiences take on perceptually accurate and intellectually uncolored forms, which they say is a good thing. If the statement “Live in the present moment” refers to this mode of experiencing life, fine, I can go with that, even though I cannot fully understand it because I am not a Zen master. And if I was, I probably wouldn’t worry too much about logically understanding stuff. Understanding is merely a misguided intellectual exercise in futility.

As a moral statement, 然而,, this invitation to live in the present moment leaves much to be desired. Is it an invitation to ignore the consequences of your actions? You compartmentalize your timeline into a large past, a large future and tiny present. You ignore the past and the future, and live in the present. No regrets. No anxieties. What else could this slogan “Live in the present moment” 意思?


Knowledge of death is a sad thing. Not as a general piece of information, but in as applied to a particular individual. I remember only too vividly my own sense of helplessness and sadness towards the end of my father’s life, when it became clear to me that he had only a few weeks left. Until then, I could never really understand the grief associated with death of a loved one, given the absolute certainty and naturalness of death. 事实上, I couldn’t understand my own grief and often wondered if I was romanticizing it, or feeling it because it was expected of me.

It is very difficult to know people, even ourselves. There are multiple obscuring levels of consciousness and existence in our inner selves. And we can penetrate only a limited number of them to see within ourselves. Therefore I find myself doubting my grief, despite its directly perceived realness and existence. Perhaps the grief arising from the loss of a loved one is so primal that we do not need to doubt it; but I cannot help doubting even the most obvious of feelings and sensations. 毕竟, I am the dude who goes around insisting that reality is unreal!

该 “loss” of a hated one, by virtue of its mathematical symmetry, should generate something like the opposite of grief. The opposite of grief is perhaps glee, although one is too civilized to let oneself feel it. 但严重的是, I once heard a stress reduction expert mention it. 他说,, “What if your boss stresses you out? Imagine, end of the day, he also will be dead!”

是的, the fact that we will all die is a serious social and moral problem. How much of a problem it is is not fully appreciated due to the taboo nature of the subject. I once read a novel in Malayalam describing a village in the sixties ravaged by smallpox. Some parts of this novel illustrated the connection between death and morality. 你看, morality is such a holy cow that we cannot examine it, much less question it, without being called all sorts of bad names. Being “良好” is considered a “良好” 事, and is taken to be beyond rationalization. 我的意思是, we may ask questions like, “What is good?”, “What makes something good, something else bad?” 等. But we cannot realistically ask the question, “Why should I be good?” Being good is just good, and we are expected to ignore the circularity in this statement.

For a minute, let’s not assume that being good is good. I think the knowledge of imminent death would make us shed this assumption, 但我们会得到它后. For now, let’s think of morality as a logical risk-reward calculation, rather than a god-given axiom. If somebody proposes to you, “Why don’t you shoot to be a drug dealer? [Pun attempted] Good money there…,” your natural reaction would be, “Drugs kill people, killing people is bad, no way I am getting into it.” 现在, that is a moral stance. If you were amoral, you may think, “Drug dealing involves violence. There is a good chance that I will get shot or caught. Thirty to life in a federal penitentiary is no walk in the park. No way I am getting into it.” This is a risk-reward analysis, but with the same end result.

I put it to you that the origin of most of our morality is this risk-reward analysis. If it wasn’t, why would we need the police and the criminal justice system? It is this risk-reward analysis that can get skewed because of an impending death, if we let ourselves notice it. 你看, the concept of crime and punishment (or action and consequence, to be value-neutral) is not so simple, like most things in real life. To be a deterrent, the severity of punishment has to be proportional, not only to the foulness of the crime, but also to the probability of its detection. 例如, if you know that you will get caught every single time you speed, speeding tickets need not cost you thousands of dollars — a couple of dollars will do the trick of discouraging you from speeding. Such minuscule punishments do exist for little “crimes.” In public toilets, leaving the shower or sink faucet running would be a small crime because it wastes water, and the landlord’s funds. To fight this crime came spring-loaded faucets that shut themselves down after ten or 15 seconds. So you get “caught” every time you try to leave the water running, but the “punishment” is merely that you have to push the release button again. Now we have faucets with electronic sensors with even shorter temporal horizons for crime and punishment.

The severity of a pain is not merely its intensity, but its duration as well. Given that death puts a definitive end to our worldly durations, how does it affect our notion of punishment commensurate with crime? My third post on the philosophy of death will examine that aspect.


死亡是一个禁忌的话题. 我们不应该再说吧, 甚至想想. 这是,如果我们这样做几乎像, 死亡可能把我们的通知, 我们可以不那样的关注做. 如果我们想不显眼,在任何地方都, 它是在死亡的面前.

我一直在看 六英尺下 最近, 这可能是对这些死亡背后的沉思. 我很好奇,虽然 — 为什么会死这么忌讳的话题, 尽管它的自然必然性? 我指的不是那种迷信禁忌 (“别, 别, 别, 你不会很快死去任何时间, TOUCHWOOD!”), 但那种智力. 那种寒意自带一下,如果你抱着试试看的一个关于它的谈话在啤酒或在餐桌上. 为什么死这样的禁忌?

如果说我们只是害怕死亡是有点过于简单化了. 当然,我们害怕死亡, 但我们担心公众演讲更多, 但我们仍然可以谈论后者. 我们必须找到死亡的特殊tabooness其他原因.

唯一特别的是死亡,这是一个伟大的均衡器 — 事实上,几乎太明显升值. 每个人都死了 — 不管什么东西,他们做他们的生活. 也许是现场的这种终极练级可能有点令人痛心的竞争力在我们中间. 但是我们高飙升, 不过还是低,我们沉沦, 在我们的日子结束, 比分是全部复位,板岩擦拭干净.

这石板擦业务也很麻烦的另一个原因. 它是如此该死的永久. 它的持久性有一个从来没有出现在任何其他种类的痛苦和苦难,我们经历方面 (包括公开演讲). 我的一个个人的技术来处理轻微疼痛 (如根管, 甚至更深的伤口像一个爱人的损失) 就是利用眼前这个缺乏持久性的. 我提醒自己,这是要通过, 及时. (出于某种奇怪的原因, 我这样做法语, “CA VA PAS下午,” 虽然, 是正确的, 我想我应该告诉自己, “它不会持久。”) 我甚至分享这个技巧的儿子时,他摔断了胳膊,在难以忍受的疼痛. 我告诉他,痛苦会很快消退. 好, 我说用不同的词语, 我看中了小家伙​​的理解, 虽然他不停地尖叫着他的头.

我们可以处理任何 “正常” 疼痛由只等它出来, 死亡但不痛, 它持续不断. CA丢勒. 背后是我们害怕它这个永恒? 也许. 凭借绝对的持久性来绝对不透水性, 任何蜘蛛侠迷会喜欢. 是什么样的超越卒年不详. 和不可知. 尽管世界上所有的宗教告诉我们,各种神秘的事情是什么谎言超越 (你知道, 就像天堂和地狱, 因果报应和轮回等。), 没有人真的相信它. 我知道, 我知道, 有些人可能会坚持诚实,他们真的真的, 但是,当推来推, 在一种本能, 肠道级, 没有人做. 甚至那些谁是一定的,他们最终会在天上. 否则为什么圣洁的人有安全细节? 在 人性的枷锁, 毛姆漫画这种奇怪的缺乏 (或不可能) 真正的信仰VIS-à-VIS死在他的Blackstable的教区牧师的最后几天的写照.

生活的目的任何意义, 我认为我们必须忽略死亡. 存在一个有限范围仅仅是荒谬的,多层次的. 它使我们所有的崇高目标和理想荒谬. 它使我们的意识善恶荒谬. 它使任何我们认为是荒唐的生活的目的. 它甚至使生命的目的,适度的基于DNA的进化解释建议 (我们只是想一点更长寿) 荒谬, 相比时的时间的无限远为任何有限增量中的寿命基本上是零, 作为书呆子的人在我们中间会很容易理解. 简而言之, 仅存在一个与生活实际问题, 这是死亡. 既然我们无法避免死亡,缴税, 可能是我们能够避免思考和谈论它 — 死亡背后的话题的禁忌性质的一个似是而非的理由.


After my musings on God and atheism, which some may have found useless, let’s look at a supremely practical problem — how to make money. 它的负载. 似乎, 这是谷歌最经常搜索的短语之一, 其结果往往试图从你的现金分开,而不是帮你做多了吧.

说句公道话, this post won’t give you any get-rich-quick, 神火计划或战略. 它会告诉你的是,为什么有的人怎么赚钱, 并希望发现一些新的见解. 你可以把其中的一些见解工作,使自己富有 — 如果这就是你觉得你的幸福的谎言.

现在, 很显然大多数人认为他们不能工作了别人变得非常富有. 事实上, that statement is not quite true. CEO和高层管理人员的所有工作雇用他们的公司的股东, 但财大气粗. 至少, 有的则是. 但, 大体, 这是事实,你不能让严重的钱在一家公司工作, 统计学上讲.

为自己工作 — 如果你是非常幸运,非常有天赋 — 你可以做一个捆绑. 当我们听到这个词 “丰富,” 浮现在脑海的人往往会 (á) 企业家/工业/软​​件巨头 — 像比尔·盖茨, 理查德·布兰森等。, (B) 名人 — 演员, 作家等。, (Ç) 投资专家 — 沃伦·巴菲特, 例如, 和 (ð) 麦道夫学校的骗子.

还有的是,在所有这些类别富人运行的共同点, 并让他们自己的钱的努力. 它是可扩展的概念. 要理解得很好, 让我们来看看为什么有一个限制,你能赚多少钱作为一个专业. 比方说,你是一个很成功的, 高技能的专业 — 说一个脑外科医生. 你收$ 10K手术, and perform one a day. 所以你做出 $2.5 每年百万. 严重的钱, 毫无疑问. 你怎么尽管它的规模起来? 通过工作的两倍长,充电更, 可能是你可以做 $5 万元 $10 百万. 但有一个限度,你就无法超越.

极限来约,因为基本的经济交易涉及出售你的时间. 虽然你的时间可能是高技能和昂贵, 你只有 24 hours in a day to sell. 这是你的极限.

现在采取的例子, 说, 约翰·格里沙姆. 他花了一些时间研究和写他的畅销书. 在这个意义上, 他出卖了自己的时间,以及. But the big difference is that he sells it to many 人.

我们可以看到在软件产品的一个类似的模式,如Windows XP的, 表演艺术家, 体育赛事, 电影等. 一个业绩或成就出售无数次. 有轻微的拉伸想象​​力, 我们可以说,企业家也卖得时间 (他们花在建立自己的业务) 多次 (客户, 客户, 乘客等。) 这是为了解决随附关于可扩展性问题的唯一办法,由于时间的缺乏.

投资专家 (银行家) 做到这一点. 他们开发新产品和新的想法,他们可以出售给大众. 此外, they make use of a different angle that we discussed in the 理财哲学. They focus on the investment value of money to make oodles of it. 它没有这么多,他们拿你的钱作为存款, 借它作为贷款, 并赚取价差. 这些简单的时代已经一去不复返了. 银行利用的事实,投资者要求尽可能高的回报,最低的风险. 任何一个机会来推动这方面的风险与回报的信封是一个盈利潜力. 当他们为你赚钱 , 他们要求他们赔偿,你是乐意支付它.

这样说的话, 投资听起来像一个积极的概念, 它是, 在我们目前的思维方式. 我们可以通过刻画需求的金钱贪婪的投资价值很容易使它成为一个消极的东西. 那么它遵循我们所有的人都是贪婪, 那是我们的贪婪燃料的高层管理人员的疯狂补偿方案. 贪婪也助长欺诈 – 庞氏骗局和传销.

There is a thin blurry line between the schemes that thrive on other people’s greed and confidence jobs. 如果你能拿出一个方案,让钱为别人, 并保持法律 (如果没有道德), then you will make money. You can see that even education, 传统上认为更高的追求, 的确是对未来收益的投资. 从这个角度观察, 你会明白在各类学校的学费和工资毕业生命令之间的相关性.