你们中的一个人在今天的节目中说了一些大意是说你们不担心吃肉，因为其他物种会自相残杀。虽然这是事实，但我觉得这种理性化在某些方面存在不足。

First, other meat-eating species presumably are not aware of the suffering they cause in the way that perceptive/aware human beings are. Doesn't greater responsibility come with greater awareness, in the same way that we would hold an adult responsible for pushing someone out a window to their death, but we would not hold an infant responsible for doing the same?

Second, I think we should aspire to someday create a reality in which species can co-exist without causing each other to suffer. Plants are able to get their nutrients from the sun. Developing some kind of morally equivalent means for other animals to derive sustenance without causing suffering (help them evolve beyond it?) seems like an important long-term goal, even if we are not close to being able to implement it at present. In the meantime, human scientists are working on lab-created meat that is meat but did not come from any living animal. Hopefully in the future this will replace factory farming, fishing, and so on, for those who still find the taste of meat and dairy products enjoyable and are not already vegans.

P.S. – Having to create an account in order to post here is hassle enough. I already had to waste time with a "Captcha" thing in order to do that; having to do another "Captcha" in order to post – and then another, when the first one apparently "expired" while I was typing my comment – seems more than excessive. Makes me not want to bother participating here at all. A better approach to combating spam in my view is empowering community members flag and remove it.

就像你说的，有许多种变革性的经历。在另一个国家的七年对我来说是改变的。并不是每一个方面都很好变革性的。(显然，拼写检查不喜欢变革性的——它每次都亮起来。)好吧，不管怎样，我对变革性的概念更接近于迈克尔·墨菲几年前在《身体的未来》中所写的。至少可以说，他对“普通人”所取得的成就的逸闻趣事很吸引人。他和乔治·伦纳德教会了我很多。而且，我很确定他们的大部分课程在今天仍然有效。当然，我们吃什么就是什么，但也许更重要的是，我们吃了多少。现在对块头大的人的重视，以及对曾经被认为是肥胖的东西的接受，让我感到震惊。 But, then again, meaning changes with trendy regularity. I am thin and have, except for my forties, always been. I felt physically dreadful then, and upon retiring from an equally dreadful career, I dropped thirty-five pounds! Now that (for me) was a transformation.

Augustine or Pelagius?

到起点，起点就是终点。任何延伸都会减弱它的力矩。失去是一种无法承受的责任，因为它的价值不在于它自己。“持续时间、永久、信念”的语言延长了解除这种负担和责任的过程。它会让时间变得有价值。所以世界上所有语言的意义和结构都是"富足的征服"时间的价值介于失去的负担和承认其价值的责任之间。那丰盈是全体会议的时间是在瞬间突然完全改变，即使只是在最小的期限。从这个意义上说，最细微的时间才是一切不同之处。费耶阿本德警告过我们的虚空就是延伸。

I suspect that we're drawn toward transformative experiences through an inkling of some kind. We have not only rational intentions but inarticulate yearnings and associations. Something may remind us dimly of something we have long wanted. Or there may be something about it that draws us in--and while we could explain part of this, we could never explain the whole.
或者，用马丁·布伯的话来说，我们渴望与“我-你”相遇，渴望比日常交易更伟大的东西，但无法仅通过努力和意图找到它。但我们可以走自己的路，向它敞开心扉。
我不确定一段经历是否必须在任何外在方面具有重大意义才能具有变革性;表面上看，它可能是日常(或普通)发生的事情，但出于某种原因，我们接受它的方式可能会把它从日常生活中移除。它与看见和被看见有关。
昨天，在讨论布伯的《我与你》时，我的学生读了里尔克的《阿波罗的古代躯干》，这似乎与此相关。

I think we are drawn to such experiences. But what if they aren't anything like what we expect them to be? How can we rationally choose to have them? Do you think the inkling gives us insight into their true character?

~~...."for here there is no place
那看不到你。你必须改变你的生活。"

奥根布里克是一个比我们敢于承认的更为普遍的事件，因为它的构成方式妨碍了我们的信念，即时间是持续时间而不是瞬间。与它的前提到结果的连续性不同的是，这两者都是反常的。但是这样的理性是致命的不完整的，因此这样的反常可能是一个更完整的时间期限，比封闭的时代，以其名义上的进展。但是，如果理性是如此致命地不完整，以致于它的结局被最严格地完善为失去的信念，而不是它的紧缩。我们突然意识到我们的倾向和期望的不同，这并不是一个弱点或失误。但是，如果这种差异确实与我们的信念——时间是连续而不是变化，是持久而不是消逝，是保留我们的信念而不是失去这些信念——的简单术语不一致，那么，它就可能使我们在他人中产生更广泛的理解。如果理性的严谨性的最后一个术语是矛盾，不完全是它的前提对它的结果的要求，也不完全是它的前提对它的结果的要求，而不是它的前提对它的前提的结果的要求，而不是一个封闭的排除了那个"中间的术语"——时间作为变化(矛盾)，人的性格作为变化的最严格的术语(时间的最小的术语是人)，那么这种差异就提供了理性为了完成它的伪装所需要的所有词汇生命。时间的完备性不是排斥矛盾，而是包容矛盾。布伯并不中肯，因为他的主旨是让自己和他人保持一致，而不是承认分歧的价值。

Understanding time as differing and contrariety to what extends before and after it (if time were extension) is a difficult enough problem without the massive commitment of the literature to expunging it. Every term in developing that understanding stands as despairing adversary to an overwhelming predisposition of our literary and intellectual institutions. It requires and epic effort, not an aphoristic one. You know, 'philosophy' in itself is a bad enough impediment to serious investigation of ideas, balkanizing the effort to resist its straitjacketing terms, but the internet is a veritable fragmentation bomb aimed straight at the human mind.

Regarding Rilke's sonnet, "You must change your life" has an ambiguity that pertains directly to the question here.
It could be taken as a statement of necessity--"like it or not, you will change your life"--in which case the transformation is underway, or even complete, insofar as the insight has encompassed it.
或者，它也可以被视为一种责任的声明——“你还没有改变你的生活，但任何改变都是一种妥协”——在这种情况下，转变可能是一种渴望，甚至是不可能的。
But in the second case, there may still be a transformation in the imagination.
As for Buber, I don't think it's quite correct that "his whole thrust is bringing self and other into alignment." He states emphatically that neither the self nor the other stop being anything other than what they are. He also recognizes that we must lead most of our lives in divergence. The You is not "aligned" with us but rather released of the limits we have given it. The encounter is fleeting--it can't be anything but fleeting, according to Buber--but it informs the rest of our lives. (I am relying primarily on I and Thou here--but I could bring up many supporting quotes.)
至于对时间的理解，把它看成是瞬间而不是持续时间的想法似乎与布伯相一致。“你遇到”缺乏实质和持续时间;这就是真相。然而，为了生存，我们需要时间和物质。如果你只是打了一会儿卡，你是拿不到工资的;你必须记录你一天的工作时间。

We must be drawn to certain unknowns--or, more precisely, we are drawn to certain combinations of the known, apprehended, and unknown.
A situation intrigues us because of what we already know about it, what we sense or wonder about it, and what we do not know at all. That last part is as important as the rest, yet we don't seek out unknowns randomly. They have a shape.
Similarly, our internal unknowns have a shape. I doubt that we are conscious of these shapes, but maybe a match occurs, now and then, between the internal and external ones, or else we think it might.

我的《我与你》在35年前的一场大火中丢失了，我的预算还没有扩大到可以买一本新的。你说的话并不使我感到惊讶，但它表明，要用在“哲学”中根深蒂固的静态术语来解释时世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区间的变化是多么困难。不同是可以预料到的，因为一个人与他人的关系是大关系的一个小规模版本。如果我们把我们的差异看作是与"上帝"或"善的法则"的关系的一种模式，我们就可以在我们彼此之间较小的关系中找到这种关系的完整版本。但这让我们分享的时间的最重要意义变得空洞，它很难庆祝，甚至暗示它。

作为延伸的时间空洞了它的时刻。不同的时刻是作为其意义和价值的延伸或持续时间被计时或测量的离开。时钟是残忍的工具，而不是价值的衡量标准。与这些仪器测量的结果相比，偏差是反常的。离别的意义并不在于血缘关系，一个我-你和一个我-它都没有什么关系。只有坚韧不拔的人们才会认识到它的价值。如果这种责任和离开一样难以忍受，那么失去也是一种离开。因此，这是一个关于损失和责任的辩证问题。不断变化的思想的特征要求改变，因为它坚信性格和信念的恒久不变就是严格。如果我们会面的那一刻是通过那失去的信念而得以实现的，那我们为那一刻带来的先决信念是分歧，是的，但我们在最亲密的意义上共有的分歧，尽管分歧和差异(或差异?)是彼此完全不同的。 No god or sacred law (nor bloodless logic) can bring such moment about, and though the vicissitudes of life may militate against our enabling it, all the meaning and worth we share nevertheless comes of it.

Brit Shalom!

这是一个有趣的想法，就像Ken在这篇文章的结尾所传达的那样，这似乎真的阻碍了我们如何去做事情!对我个人来说，这是一个特别有趣的观点，因为作为一名哲学学生，我喜欢认为我所有的决定都是(并且可以)理性的。
Some of Diana?s comments touch on this idea?but I wonder how our micro-decisions fit into this view. Contrast, for example, my choice as to which side to pass a bollard on with my choice to attend my present university over some other one. The former I can make rationally, perhaps by considering how much space is on the left side of the bollard versus on the right, if there are any puddles, rocks, or peoples that I need to be aware of, and the like; the latter seems to fall into the case of a transformative experience, namely going to one college over another?or at all.
It seems like the only reason I think that my choice, both to attend college and of which one to attend, is transformative is that I have heard that this is the case for most people in a similar situation; that, or I reason out that I will be meeting many new people, in a new city, etc., and that this might change me. Now consider the other situation: what if when I choose to bike to the left of the bollard I end up catching my tire on a root, crashing my bike, and running into a pedestrian who, as a result of the whole encounter, will one day end up marrying me. Isn?t this micro-decision just as transformative? Yet we don?t think of it as such, perhaps because we assume that stories like the above don?t really happen (often). Is our choice in the case of the bollard still rational? Are our choices rational only in degrees? How do we even assess what might be a transformative experience?

Bollard? You're either a sailor or a Brit. What if the extremity of conviction in a continuity of reason is a complete revision of all terms prior current and future? And there is no way around it? That is, there is no binary reduction possible? Is reason worth it? Is reason worthy of it? Do we choose to change our mind?

一次变革性的体验可以是任何将一个人带到与他或她之前不同的地方的事情。对我来说，任何经历都可以被定性为变革，如果我们正在谈论的是一条没有选择的道路，不能回到以前的状态。但所有的经历都应该被认为是变革性的——即使是像第二次生产这样的事情，通常不被认为是变革性的，也需要被认为是这样，因为它与第一次有多么不同，因为它可以带你到一个不同的地方/精神状态。也可能是我们并非总是百分百地选择经历这些变革性的跳跃，实际上我们受到了一些来自外界的推动，比如荷尔蒙在改变女性方面发挥的作用?因此，从这个意义上说，我不确定是否总是一个自我意识的决定，理性地决定去经历一次变革性的体验。