天才在愚人中间不是无节制的，而是像老师一样有耐心的。毕加索是一个呆子，一个有才华的技术人员，但缺乏灵感，只是在展示自己和他的作品是革命性的方面有天赋，而唯一的革命性是他对它的炒作。但问题是，作为人类、有才华或有能力的品质是一种确定的状态还是一个需要给每一个机会来展示自己的戏剧性问题?机会和结果之间真的必须有如此清晰的区别吗?事实上，世界上大多数成功的人其实只是运气好。他们可能会带来一些效果，但其他人没有机会做同样的事情。我们是否有责任纠正我们对成功或质量的判断?相信“救赎”的人有一个问题，他们必须解释那些“得救”和“未得救”的人之间的区别。我们可以说这是宿命，或者个人的努力甚至可以战胜一个可疑的开始。但这将使工作变得过于困难或过于简单，并且欺骗了那些相信有权利分裂世界的人，同时还保留了对更好结果的承诺。 The solution, of course, is an extrinsic factor such as the divine intercession believers call "grace". But what of those left out? The real issue is that there cannot be allowed to develop a system of judgment that cheats the unlucky of their deserved life. And, invariably, that is what any such system becomes. America is rife with such injustice, the very question raised here is part of it.

劳拉，在你去衡量别人之前，我建议你试着衡量一下自己。一旦你找到了自我的衡量标准你就会发现这个衡量标准是对所有事物的，而不是对其他人的。隧道尽头的光，苏格拉底对真理的追求，东方大师们不可言说的真理，亚当和夏娃在吃了知识树的果子之前，金博士的应许之地，爱因斯坦死都在寻找的统一方程，人类为什么而战，为什么而死，公民(?)战争是为之而战，我们的任务是寻找你问题的答案。自己是你所寻找的问题的答案，是一切问题的答案。科学已经证明自然充其量只是量子力学概率。超越他们和你的不确定性的是绝对的，真理!
Be One,
PS:劳拉的证据就在这里。=

好的文章,劳拉!这里有很多东西值得思考。
First off, how do you define a good person? The metric's completely subjective, but I think a good one to use, generally, is this: how much suffering one either caused and allowed or alleviated and prevented in their lifetime for others. It's not original by any stretch of the imagination (paging Dr. Mill), but it's both qualitative and quantitative in terms of its measurement of impact. How much (directly or indirectly) did they cause someone to suffer, and how many people did they cause to suffer? Obversely, how much did their contributions alleviate or prevent suffering, and how many people did they help?
It's here we get into the swampy moral quandary of arbitrarily declaring someone to be "better" than others. In Picasso's case, yes, he absolutely treated the women in his life poorly. There's no excuse to be had in that realm for him, as he caused them to suffer and suffer deeply through his actions. But through his art, any number of lives could arguably have been improved in some small way by his work and the feeling it embodied and continues to exhibit.

问题是有些人没有得到他们应得的认可，还是得到认可的人值得得到认可?关键是，你不需要特别，甚至不想被拒绝，恰恰是因为有些人得到了他们不应该得到的，而其他人没有得到他们应该得到的。这难道不意味着真正的问题是如何让不应得的人摆脱应得的人吗?任何试图避开有偏见的系统的人都完全明白我的意思。你不必是一个天才或一个精力充沛的人来否认你所获得的。有些知识分子会问，有些人是不是就是更好一些，而有些保守主义者则会谴责“心肠软的自由主义者”“给‘他们’想要的东西。”这只是硬币的另一面。这一主题自文字出现前的国王们将他们的形象刻在巨大的石碑上以来就一直存在。通常是那些被公认为“更好”的人，或那些从不公正和不诚实中获益的人，使主题突出。为偏见辩护的隐蔽主题是一件丑陋的事情。 Let's talk instead about a more comprehensive idea of merit. How about Rawls's contrast between the 'maximin' and 'minimax'?

Or, Jude the Obscure?

The Charmides of Plato expresses the question as a kind of headache that needs a charm to complete the cure. But what is the charm? It is not in the possession of the one we suppose is so charmed us we make him the exception to the ordinary state we all suffer. But does he take the charm with the cure? Or just give us all headaches?

Indeed, Mr. Sherman, I couldn't agree more. It is just this kind of thinking that led to the birth and subsequent dominance of the Nazi Party in Europe, and which was used to justify its many heinous crimes against untold innocent millions prior to and during World War II.

Here, here! This particular episode of Philosophy Talk was not just insulting to anyone capable of seeing beyond their nose, it was stupid and pointless. There is no absolute by which an objective decision can be made about the inherent worth of any individual human being. Once we postulate that there is, we are headed down a very short path to an elitist society in which any act can be justified by any arbitrarily chosen set of values which are convenient at that moment to the purposes of the elite. That Mr. Hurka can't seem to recognize this simple fact, proven over and over again by the history of human civilization, says a great deal to me about the nature of his intelligence. This was a pointless conversation, in that Mr Hurka's ideas can only be defended by tautological reasoning. Ultimately, it becomes a conversation about whether or not Mr Hurka gets to be King of the World. Surely we all could have found a better way to spend the hour?

我建议(以尊重或不尊重的方式)Hurka先生挂出他的纳粹旗帜，结束这一切。一个为每个人服务的伦理(注意，我没有说“道德”)社会不可能通过这种思维建立起来。没有客观的标准可以用来判断一个人的价值是否比另一个人的价值“更好”。然而，很明显，根据我在这个节目中听到的Hurka先生的谈话，Hurka先生并没有过分关注诸如道德价值观和一个为所有人工作的世界这样的琐事。相反，他通过理智地灌输这样一种观点，即痛苦可以通过高级存在的高尚行为得到证明，从而假装客观。真是浪费时间。

一些关于个人美德的主张一直被精英们用来为不公正辩护。亚里士多德主要强调了上层阶级的“高贵”和那些只能为奴的人的耻辱。在基督教时代，这很快成为解释得救者和被诅咒者之间的区别的一个关键的摩擦点。诺斯替主义者相信，如果基督能创造奇迹，他的追随者也应该如此。阿里乌派坚持认为，作为人类的基督必须更像我们而不是神。马内斯声称，神圣和世俗之间的屏障必须如此封闭，以致拯救和诅咒必须预先确定。伯拉修斯声称，我们可以通过那些倾向于让我们变得更接近神性的活动来渴望神性。这一切都归结为一个问题:人是什么，我们是如何认识这个与自然或神的秩序如此反常的实体的。奥古斯丁发明了恩典的概念，作为一种神圣的分配，加强了上帝和人类之间的密封，但允许偶尔的渗透，总是单方面的。教堂就这么做了。 But it got so caught-up in straggles over who would run the world that the vexatious tensions implicit in the idea went neglected, and it became a commercial and very profitable product to sell "grace". Many unprisings against this marketing of divine favor came and went before Luther finally occasioned a breach in the church, but even he cannot really lay claim to the Reformation. It was Anne Boleyn who insisted upon that break with Rome that drove the Reformation forward. But her motive was a feudal concept of what person is. That concept bases all human intercourse upon the idea of a personal covenant. This was the basis of all feudal law, a relationship of "honor" between a titled lord and his knight to share in lands in return for fighting at his side. It was a relation of equals and of intimacy, not of abstract law. The institution of scripture in the vernacular made it possible to suppose such a relationship with the god itself. This became the paradigm of Protestantism. A feudal covenant directly with the divine. But theorists like Luther had a problem, how do you distinguish the saved from the damned? His solution was to note that some people are just always positive, facing the vicissitudes of life with good cheer, while most grumbled. And so, we distinguish the saved because "we just know". It's a kind of mania, the Greeks called it "thumos", a pathological condition from which we derive the world "enthusiasm". And so we divide the world between the manic and the depressed. It is certainly the American disease that you are not permitted to succeed in life unless you display "enthusiasm". The rest get the short end. And so who is "better"? The question rather highlights the mania that inspires it.

I like your article, as it investigates the exact issue I should write my school paper on: Do achievements excuse any kind of generally unacceptable behavior? and it helps me find out where to start from. Basically it feels like being written by one of the professional writers from academic centers (more info here).

我们人类有不完美的地方。始终保持积极的态度和略带滑稽的人生观是至关重要的。我们并不是生来完美的，问题只是我们选择如何走出这片荒野，无论行为是好是坏。
Might as well we can help you guide to become a better person, feel free to connect with us.
Blessings!
https://www.zenethculture.com/life-and-your-numbers/

我喜欢你的问题和文章。今天早上我还在问自己这个问题……所以我找到了这个。我喜欢引人入胜的对话、沉思和真理。在我看来，你是非常正确的:我们在天赋、技能等方面并非都一样。从最真实的意义上说，这样想就是无知。你可以观察我们的身体和行为，就会发现我们是不同的。大自然并不关心你是否希望出生时四肢健全，是否能够提出改变人生的理论。自然就是现在和将来。但这是否剥夺了我们同等的价值? No. Love, consideration, kindness, unity, systemic need, and nature dictates... that we are all of equal value. The most revered leaders can see this with clarity, I theorize, as it is mandatory for wellness for all. We all have our place and purpose. I don't find that to be spiritual or religious - that is just nature. That is just us. I want to challenge your notion that we can't both support the good, beauty and wonder of Picasso... while simultaneously not approving of his mistreatment of the people in his life. In fact, we (as a collective) have *already* uplifted his art... and condemned some of his other personal, life choices. The book of public opinion has already been written on this (which you appear in agreement with) and influenced the perspective of all of us here. The collective of humanity is consistently expressing how we define ourselves and others - not just how we have or how we are going to, but how we DO and always will. We may draw back and return, like the tides, but what is, is.

我们必须克服最初对杰弗逊的"人人生而平等"一派胡言的反对。显然，他不是一个白痴，他和我们大家一样知道，“所有的男人在几乎每个可以想象的方面都是绝对不平等的。”

So the question is, what was he trying to say, and why didn't he just "spit it out"?

In my opinion, he meant that all men should be (should have the right to be) treated equally by the law, and by the state (which is almost, but not quite, the same thing.) By the way, maybe an historical linguist could help me out here, but did he mean "all males" or "all people?" Given the day and age, it is not inconceivable that he meant the former.

The trouble with these flowery pronouncements is that people hang on to them like drowning "men" will clutch at straws ("freedom to bear arms" is another one) without really thinking about them. Maybe it's time to re-write the constitution, or at least translate it into modern English.

And if I may take the liberty of adding what I am sure most people (at least most liberals) would agree on, "and be afforded equal opportunities by all societal institutions."

因此，我建议重新定义杰斐逊的措辞:“所有人都有权受到法律和国家的平等对待，每个社会机构和组织都必须为所有人提供平等的机会。”

There! Now why didn't he think of that? lol

祝你今天愉快。(反正现在没人读这个博客了!)

A good percentage of people in the world aren't very nice and they go right up to hideous. They create nothing. They just die in the end.

Then I hear of those with a gift where it goes to their head and they start hurting people. This makes them a special case. They don't get off hurting people no matter what they create. So we MUST punish them. But we must make the punishment so it doesn't stop them from making MORE of whatever they are doing because we as a species NEED more good ideas, art and all the rich harvest of the creative mind.