fire on earth

 

september's 1st's astronomy picture of the day!

cheating

a female friend and i were talking about cheating in relationships and both of us agree that if our significant others were to do it, we might be able to forgive them and continue the relationship. but apptly our boyfriends disagree; if either my friend or i were to cheat, the boyfriends would likely just end the relationship. i realize that two people of each sex is not a huge sample group (i don't even know if you can call it a sample group. i think any group is three people or more?). but i did think the differences were interesting. i asked rip about it and he came up with a pretty good explanation:

women get hit on more than men. generally, a lot more. so they also have more opportunity to cheat (tho i think that depends on how you define opportunity. rip travels a lot more than me, with his friends who don't know me, for non-work related reasons, to places he's familiar with. which i think is the best opportunity right there. but anyway). so if a woman cheats, it shows that she's susceptible to doing it again, since it comes up much more often for her anyway. which is why a man don't trust a woman who's had a one-time indiscretion.

my friend and i think that people mess up. and sometimes that's all it is. you get stupid, or you get clumsy. that's not to say that a significant other should get a free pass to fuck up every once in a while, or even once at all. but i'd certainly be more interested in finding out why it happened than he would be.

retreating thunderstorm at sunset

august 28th's astronomy picture of the day!

gambling on ethics

last excerpt from julian baggini - the pig that wants to be eaten

Mette looked into the eyes of the her estranged husband, but could find no flicker of remorse.
"you tell me you want us back," she said to him, "but how can we do that when you won't even admit that you did the wrong thing when you left me and the children?"
"because in my heart i don't think i did wrong, and i don't want to lie to you," explained Paul. "i left because i needed to get away to follow my muse. i went in the name of art. don't you remember when we used to talk about Gauguin and how he had to do the same? you always said he had done a  hard thing, but not a wrong one."
"but you are no Gauguin," signed Mette. "that's why you're back. you admit you failed."
"did Gauguin know he would succeed when he left his wife? no one can know such a thing. if he was in the right, then so was i."
"no," said Mette. "his gamble paid off, and so he turned out to be right. yours didn't, and so you turned out to be wrong."
"his gamble?" replied Paul. "are you saying luck can make the difference between right and wrong?"
Mette thought for a few moments. "yes, i suppose i am."

paul is right here. just cause gauguin became an artistic success doesn't mean that he wasn't a bad husband too. that's not to say that you shouldn't follow your dreams, because one isn't necessarily more important than the other. that's part of the trade off with public figures. most political elite and revolutionaries aren't the best spouses and parents; you only have so much time, after all. which is fine. it just depends on what your priorities are. being a success certainly makes the bitter pill of abandonment easier for your discarded family to swallow. but in no way does that make what you did right.

clouds, birds, moon, venus

may 12th's astronomy picture of the day!

morally superior

i read this article and the comments and it reminded me of this story from julian baggini - the pig that wants to be eaten.

Schuyler and Tryne both sheltered Jews from the Nazis during the occupation of the Netherlands. they did so, however, for quite difference reasons.
Tryne was a woman whose acts of kindness were purely spontaneous. suffering and need spoke to her heart and she responded without thinking. friends admired her generosity of spirit, but sometimes reminded her that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. "you may feel moved to give money to a beggar," they would say, "but what if he then spends it all on drugs?" Tryne was unmoved by such worries. in the face of human need, all you can do is offer a hand, surely?
Schuyler, in contrast, was known a as a cold woman. the truth was that she didn't really like many people, even though she didn't hate them either. when she helped others, she did so because she had thought about their plight and her duties, and concluded that helping was the right thing to do. she felt no warm glow from her good deeds, only a sense that she had chosen correctly.
who of Schuyler and Tryne lived the more moral life?

it's hard to say, no? in either case, good is being done. but for some reason we rate motive so highly. i volunteer a lot. mostly because i think it's fun, i have the time, someone has to do good so why not me, and i think it's the right thing to do. but does that make me better than someone who only volunteers to get credit somehow: from school or from god? no. it probably doesn't.