|
The title still remains the same as of this viewing (which helps me none at all to comprehend the premise; whose story is this?).
And I would have liked to respond, but the entire outline of the original post is more akin to a creative diatribe of pulled-contextual historical figures and locations to issue a point, one in which I cannot readily understand right now. Reads more like a journal entry, it has no real entry point to discussion, or a query for us to ponder on; I wonder if this is supposed to be like a dream interpretation or something else.
Is it an analogy? Yes, I can see it, though anyone is free to make their own, and may not particularly understand this one, and would be quick to dismiss it because of that missed connection.
Here's my try: bow35, to put it succinctly, are we, as philosophical human beings, supposed to simply accept the nature of our world as a "real not nice place", and though we are free to interject if we'd like, would it be just best to lend a shoulder, and just understand that whatever we accomplish ourselves cannot alter our eventual course? Is this what you stated above, abridged?
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi
|