I can’t give an opinion on the surrounding context of that phrase. However, I really liked the phrase because it is eloquent.
I am having a hard time seeing how the premise of that phrase is bogus; the phrase, on its own, is a description of the process of society reproducing itself through generations. The phrase, on its own, has nothing to say about the device, or “protection,” that does this.
It’s fascinating that nations can stay around with the same name and substance even though the original founders have long died. Now, isn’t “a mere protection for society with no other object but the reproducing of that same society” a good phrase for boxing up that fascination and making it wonderfully palpable?
Of course, the phrase would have to be modified to exist on its own. But for now, I am happy that I have it under my belt.
*E: Reading the phrase again, I can see that there may be cause for objection saying that the “protection” has only a single use. Is this what you find bogus?
Reading the phrase again, I can see that there may be cause for objection saying that the “protection” has only a single use. Is this what you find bogus?
Yes, the ‘no other object’ part I find most bogus. I would still disagree if the claim was ‘the main object’ or even ‘a significant object’ although such relative judgements require more reasoning and background to evaluate than the banal absolute.
Now, isn’t “a mere protection for society with no other object but the reproducing of that same society” a good phrase for boxing up that fascination and making it wonderfully palpable?
I find it abhorrent. It has enough ‘wonderfully palpability’ that many people will hesitate to actually parse the meaning and realise that, trying to describe it without an expletive, what little content it contains lacks factual merit.
Marriage is not merely, primarily or even credibly understood to be a protection for society with the object of reproducing of that same society.
I would much prefer Octavio put his ability to turn phrase into something harmless like, say, and ‘Ode to Blue’. If he wants to keep up the airs of intellectual sophistication he can perhaps work some qualia into the mix. That would tie in nicely with the whole poignant solitude, sublime experience of the human condition vibe. Then if he wants to raise the intellectual bar another notch he can include “da ba dee dah be daa” as a refrain.
Marriage is not merely, primarily or even credibly understood to be a protection for society with the object of reproducing of that same society.
This pertains to the part of the quote that I don’t care too much about and don’t have much of an opinion on.
The thing that I found most valuable in the phrase was this: “reproducing itself through generations,” in the discussion of a nation. It’s something that I’ve tried to say before, but it came out very clumsy. So, seeing something similar to what I’ve been trying to say, written, was great. I’m sure you’ve had the experience before.
Anyway, now I feel really silly putting that quote up. Please understand that I’m likely much younger than you and am just now getting my feet wet with rationality. Thank you for the discourse and I’ll see you around.
Don’t feel silly for putting the quote up. It is a quote that has the form of wisdom and brushes past potential insight. In fact, the reason I object is not because it silly to identify with these quotes from Octavio but the reverse. It is the sort of thing that appeals to our intuition and we are naturally pulled into agreeing with when we may otherwise see flaws. It’s a trap and, speaking here particularly of the poignant angsty existential quote, one that I carefully train myself to avoid.
The italicized premise seems bogus to me.
I can’t give an opinion on the surrounding context of that phrase. However, I really liked the phrase because it is eloquent.
I am having a hard time seeing how the premise of that phrase is bogus; the phrase, on its own, is a description of the process of society reproducing itself through generations. The phrase, on its own, has nothing to say about the device, or “protection,” that does this.
It’s fascinating that nations can stay around with the same name and substance even though the original founders have long died. Now, isn’t “a mere protection for society with no other object but the reproducing of that same society” a good phrase for boxing up that fascination and making it wonderfully palpable?
Of course, the phrase would have to be modified to exist on its own. But for now, I am happy that I have it under my belt.
*E: Reading the phrase again, I can see that there may be cause for objection saying that the “protection” has only a single use. Is this what you find bogus?
Yes, the ‘no other object’ part I find most bogus. I would still disagree if the claim was ‘the main object’ or even ‘a significant object’ although such relative judgements require more reasoning and background to evaluate than the banal absolute.
I find it abhorrent. It has enough ‘wonderfully palpability’ that many people will hesitate to actually parse the meaning and realise that, trying to describe it without an expletive, what little content it contains lacks factual merit.
Marriage is not merely, primarily or even credibly understood to be a protection for society with the object of reproducing of that same society.
I would much prefer Octavio put his ability to turn phrase into something harmless like, say, and ‘Ode to Blue’. If he wants to keep up the airs of intellectual sophistication he can perhaps work some qualia into the mix. That would tie in nicely with the whole poignant solitude, sublime experience of the human condition vibe. Then if he wants to raise the intellectual bar another notch he can include “da ba dee dah be daa” as a refrain.
I concede that the quote was inappropriate.
This pertains to the part of the quote that I don’t care too much about and don’t have much of an opinion on.
The thing that I found most valuable in the phrase was this: “reproducing itself through generations,” in the discussion of a nation. It’s something that I’ve tried to say before, but it came out very clumsy. So, seeing something similar to what I’ve been trying to say, written, was great. I’m sure you’ve had the experience before.
Anyway, now I feel really silly putting that quote up. Please understand that I’m likely much younger than you and am just now getting my feet wet with rationality. Thank you for the discourse and I’ll see you around.
Don’t feel silly for putting the quote up. It is a quote that has the form of wisdom and brushes past potential insight. In fact, the reason I object is not because it silly to identify with these quotes from Octavio but the reverse. It is the sort of thing that appeals to our intuition and we are naturally pulled into agreeing with when we may otherwise see flaws. It’s a trap and, speaking here particularly of the poignant angsty existential quote, one that I carefully train myself to avoid.