« When Donald Trump Didn't Need Proof | Main | Facilitated Communication »

Saturday, April 30, 2011


I should clarify my take on brilliance. First, it's a description I use sparingly. Ed may be using the word brilliance to describe an aesthetic quality of expression. That's certainly an acceptable use of the word, but in the realm of big ideas, my strong tendency is to reserve the word for non-trivial, novel observations and syntheses of ideas that create a novel whole greater than the parts. Maybe my standards are excessively stringent, but I find myself in need of a word that distinguishes such novel creativity from merely very smart, sharp and clever (as opposed to sublimely wise).

I cringe upon hearing the word awesome. I hear it far too often and it has lost much of the depth it once possessed. I know little of Hitchens and his views and have not gone out of my way to find out about him.

Popular culture tends to confer extremist attributes---and it minimizes those things that were once important by emphasizing those that are trivial. But, I have said these things before. Some folks are beginning to get it. Others never will.

I think that I would really hate to put off looking into "the larger questions of life" until I was near death. What would be the use then?

For far too many of us (myself included) it would be so depressing to discover then that you'd been wrong about what was important and essentially wasted a life.

Along the lines of "funerals are for the living", contemplation of life's larger questions are for the living... quite often happening at celebrations of births, marriages, and anniversaries. And funerals.

The comments to this entry are closed.