Question about mankind.

[slobake]

Also, why is it so dang important for a person to know everything if they don't ascribe certain things to supernatural causes? Just wondering.

My 14-year-old niece knows everything and it is important to her that she does.

 

[Bloodhammer]

If I know women, she will probably continue to know everything for quite some time.

 

[aborgman]

But the more important characterization of our civilization's encroachment into hostile environments is not just our ability to survive there, but as I said, to actually thrive. My main point was that our technology "isolates" us from the negative affects of hostile environments and allows us to live in comfort where our ancestors died in droves and barely scraped by, the result of which is 7 billion humans where a few million existed before.

I agree that humans can now thrive in areas where pre-civilization existence was marginal. I disagree that humans currently inhabit any areas that pre-civilization humans couldn't survive.

 

[ChrisB2]

I think he meant the term "getting it" philosophically, rather than pedantically.

Either way, if he has the answer to the ultimate question, he oughtta share it with us...

As for the ape comment, I think he means that abstract thought is a luxury of ours that can be a curse if we use it to agonize over what can't be helped.

Yeah I got that too but I just don't see it as agonizing over what can't be helped but rather using our unique intellect to contemplate what is. But I guess the idea is to live blindly without this agonizing burden of thinking, just satisfy Maslow's Hierarchy? Eat drink and be merry?? Don't worry be happy? I get that; don't worry, be happy. I guess I just need more clarification on exactly which mental agonies I'm subjecting myself to that I should be avoiding.....?

Also, why is it so dang important for a person to know everything if they don't ascribe certain things to supernatural causes? Just wondering.

If you mean that I'm expecting hbarcat to "know everything because he doesn't ascribe certain things to supernatural causes," that's not it at all.

Hbarcat said Douglas Adams "understood the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" and said "many people 'get it,'" and I assume he meant himself included.

I'm not asking rhetorically just to be a smart ass, I'm genuine curious what this "answer" is....

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

If you mean that I'm expecting hbarcat to "know everything because he doesn't ascribe certain things to supernatural causes," that's not it at all.

Hbarcat said Douglas Adams "understood the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" and said "many people 'get it,'" and I assume he meant himself included.

I'm not asking rhetorically just to be a smart ass, I'm genuine curious what this "answer" is....

That's simple.

42.




I'm not sure if you have read Douglas Adams, by saying he "understood the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" he is playing on a famous line from his works.

 

[ChrisB2]

That's simple.

42.




I'm not sure if you have read Douglas Adams, by saying he "understood the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" he is playing on a famous line from his works.

Okaaaayyy.... No I haven't read him and I'm starting to think this is some sort of game and this so-called "answer" is no more intelligent nor meaningful than the one you provided above...

Link Removed

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Okaaaayyy.... No I haven't read him and I'm starting to think this is some sort of game and this so-called "answer" is no more intelligent nor meaningful than the one you provided above...

Link Removed

I'll cut you some slack but I'm surprised that you didn't get the '42' reference even though you haven't read the book.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Okaaaayyy.... No I haven't read him and I'm starting to think this is some sort of game and this so-called "answer" is no more intelligent nor meaningful than the one you provided above...

It isn't a game, well, no more than anything in life is, but the parts quoted were very much taken from his works (possibly paraphrased, it's been a while).

To claim it is lacking intelligence or meaning, from a self declared ignorance of his work, is doing yourself a disservice.

If you read his works, you might "get" the answer which I provided.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Anybody accusing Douglas Adams of lacking intelligence through his writing is really on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Bloodhammer]

Yeah I got that too but I just don't see it as agonizing over what can't be helped but rather using our unique intellect to contemplate what is. But I guess the idea is to live blindly without this agonizing burden of thinking, just satisfy Maslow's Hierarchy? Eat drink and be merry?? Don't worry be happy? I get that; don't worry, be happy. I guess I just need more clarification on exactly which mental agonies I'm subjecting myself to that I should be avoiding.....?

If you find solutions to problems rather than asking "why me" or any other questions that start with "why", you aren't agonizing. The question in the OP is a "why" question, which is pointless. Usually because the only "answers" that can eventually be "concluded" to those type of questions are philosophically nihilistic. Or even worse, you may develop pigeon superstitions from them if analyzed too deeply.

As for Adams, you really should read his Hitchhiker's Guide books if nothing else. That way you don't come off like a child who stumbles into the middle of a movie and wants to know what's going on.

10 points if you get the reference there. It's not Adams.

 

[ChrisB2]

Yeah, well, I'm not interested in reading a book to try to decipher your posts and it strikes me as quite arrogant to reply to mine with dribs and drabs from some author, and then refer to someone who is ignorant of the work as needing "slack."

Listen, either you all have the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and EVERYTHING, or you DON'T, and if you don't just let the guy who claims to answer me.






And I accused no person of lacking intelligence, I questioned the intelligence only of this elusive "answer" and of the non-responsive "responses" to my request for clarification of this "answer," which so far have no support and cannot be viewed as intelligent or meaningful without some explanation.

 

[ChrisB2]

That way you don't come off like a child who stumbles into the middle of a movie and wants to know what's going on.

No I feel like a normal adult who walked not a room full of giggling nerds.

10 points if you get the reference there. It's not Adams.

Yeah, I knew it was a game.

 

[DerHoggz]

No I feel like a normal adult who walked not a room full of giggling nerds.



Yeah, I knew it was a game.

Ooohhh a tough guy on the internet!

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Yeah, well, I'm not interested in reading a book to try to decipher your posts and it strikes me as quite arrogant to reply to mine with dribs and drabs from some author, and then refer to someone who is ignorant of the work as needing "slack."

Listen, either you all have the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and EVERYTHING, or you DON'T, and if you don't just let the guy who claims to answer me.






And I accused no person of lacking intelligence, I questioned the intelligence only of this elusive "answer" and of the non-responsive "responses" to my request for clarification of this "answer," which so far have no support and cannot be viewed as intelligent or meaningful without some explanation.

Maybe you should read the book we're talking about rather than throwing insults around, mate.

Actually, my suggestion is perhaps a little close to home for Chris.

For the sake of clarification:

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a computer is set the task of determining the answer to 'Life, the Universe and Everything'. After 10 million years, it replies with the answer '42'.

If you want to be part of this discussion, try not to get so angry about a group of people that enjoy quoting a series of books.

I think Chris is a candidate for the Golgafrincham 'B' Ark. Anyone?

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Just to add:

I love the fact that Douglas Adams changed the story around with each iteration. It's a lovely mess.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

HHGTTG is mostly about 1970s and other petty bureacracy, with some extra silliness thrown in. But then a lot of things that might be considered science fiction are about the time they were written in.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

HHGTTG is mostly about 1970s and other petty bureacracy, with some extra silliness thrown in. But then a lot of things that might be considered science fiction are about the time they were written in.

I would extend that to almost anything ever written, explicitly or implicitly.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Yeah, well, I'm not interested in reading a book to try to decipher your posts and it strikes me as quite arrogant to reply to mine with dribs and drabs from some author, and then refer to someone who is ignorant of the work as needing "slack."

Listen, either you all have the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and EVERYTHING, or you DON'T, and if you don't just let the guy who claims to answer me.

And I accused no person of lacking intelligence, I questioned the intelligence only of this elusive "answer" and of the non-responsive "responses" to my request for clarification of this "answer," which so far have no support and cannot be viewed as intelligent or meaningful without some explanation.

You were questioning comments others had made about the author, it's a pretty justifiable response to have people suggest reading his work to understand the points that were being made.

The guy who we were claiming to have gotten it - is no longer with us.

You've had some explanation and been invited to read his work in an attempt to understand why he and his work were (are) so highly regarded.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

HHGTTG is mostly about 1970s and other petty bureacracy, with some extra silliness thrown in. But then a lot of things that might be considered science fiction are about the time they were written in.

On the most basic level, I found it a clever way of getting people to question systems.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Douglas Adams was a humorist. Saying he was truly "on to something" would be the same as saying "monty pythons flying circus" was the key to the universe, which of course it is! (No it isnt! Yes it is!

Albatross!