Michael Higgins (sui66iy) wrote in beers_not_doers,
Michael Higgins

  • Mood:


I'm not sure I get why there's a dichotomy here. As far as I can tell, everything is in a constant state of change. The universe has few absolutes. "Being" seems to me to be a process, not a single state.

Moreover, humans are fairly unique in that we possess the capacity to imagine: we can play out the future in our minds, and guess the consequences of different actions. In this sense we can (sometimes) do more than simply react; we can act. To fail to act, to simply react or just to be, seems to deny what we are.

Wouldn't someone who is fully human Do?

Anyway, it's not possible to simply Be. (Well, it is for a while, maybe, but you'll dehydrate in less than a week, and then you will, er, Cease to Be.) You've got to do a minimum just to survive. So what's the Beer philosophy, really?

Maybe what you're really worried about is an over-dependance on recognition or valuation. There are two reasons to be a doctor: one is to heal the sick, the other is to make a lot of money. Without casting aspersions on capitalism, the former is more "pure" because it is less contingent. The point of being a doctor is to heal the sick. The fact that doctors make a lot of money is just a consequence of the way our society is set up (and it may well be right and proper that doctors make a lot of money, but that's another discussion).

So, here's a formulation: To Be is to do for the sake of that which is done. Am I getting the point?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment