Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Follow the obligation

  1. Jul 31, 2004 #1
    Politicians like to start with a bit of humor, I thought I would try it. Accountants A and B worked at desks side by side for thirty years. Accountant A dies. B had observed for thirty years that every morning A would go to his desk open the drawer and meditate a few seconds then close the drawer and start work. B decided to check this out and went to A’s desk opened the drawer and saw taped to the bottom of the drawer this message: Debit on the Left—an expense. Credit on the Right—owed me.

    George Simmel (1858-1918). A pioneer in the field of sociology wrote “The Philosophy of Money”. I have been reading a small selection from this book entitled “Individual Freedom”.

    “The development of each human fate can be represented as an uninterrupted alternation between bondage and release, obligation and freedom.” “Each obligation that does not exist with regard to a mere idea corresponds to the right of someone else to make demands. For this reason, moral philosophy always identifies ethical freedom with those obligations imposed by an ideal or social imperative or by one’s own

    When reading I often record an idea that resonates for me. The following is just such a beautiful paragraph: “All men, like all nations, are tested twice in the moral realm: first by what they do, then by what they make of what they do. The condition of guilt, a sense of one’s own guilt, denotes a kind of second chance; men are, as if by a kind of grace, given a chance to repay to the living what it is they find themselves owing the dead.”

    “Follow the money”. For our purpose we might change this adage to “Follow the obligation”. Perhaps a good way to analyze ‘freedom’ is to analyze ‘obligation’.

    We might say that, at birth our ‘pie chart’ shows full freedom and zero obligation. Since this might be considered as a zero sum game: our parent’s ‘pie chart’ might debit freedom and credit obligation. Maybe this is not a zero sum game. Maybe debits do not have to equal credits.

    Do the dead still have a balance sheet in this game? Does the creditor or the debtor determine obligation? If they disagree what is the court of last resort?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2004 #2
    Ok. Sound like you want a nice answer. Not just a grunt answer. So. Here you go.

    A plane in Geometry consists of Points, Lines, and planes. Ke ?

    Now a plane is determined by three non-colinear(not in a line) points, that are planar(on a plane).

    Now. These three points may form a triangle. Ke ?

    A triangle has the Triangle inequality theorem.
    The Triangle inequality theorem = The Triangle inequality theorem.
    It can mean.
    Angle A = Question (< Less) Angle B = Question + Angle C = Answer

    We people may never know lifes answers. Ke ?

    Now. If. If I said. A song of heartfelt joy, was made of two parts.
    The sounds you sing are, "OOMPA", and, "BOOMPA".
    Now. Play your favourite song, and sing "OOMPA", in harmony with it.
    And when the song has a motivational, inspirational part sing, "BOOMPA", Just once is needed.

    So. The song has a flat part with no motivation, and a part that isn't flat.
    Ke ?

    Now then. My reasoning about your question.

    If a person is sad or flat when alive. They surely heard the energetic parts that gave life joy too. So. Being in debt to give joy to that person is debt to give them the full song or sound of life.

    When a person dies. They are flat. There is no joy in there ears, or words of joy. A Plane is flat too.

    Now the plane has the two parts greater than the flat part. Like music, the plane has two parts greater than the flat part. So when a person dies, and be flat. They like a plane have the ability to have not just flat sound, but harmony, and energetic sound. Beauty.

    So. The ability you have to give life to them in voice or song or energy. Is the experience thet are capable of in the shape they be in.

    So. let them worry about their joy. And you worry about your life's joy.
    In time of life. You'll be able to energize them again with energetic, beautiful energy.

    If you see a break in my reasoning. Please point to the exact line and part in that sentence that is flawed.

    I have followed deductiove reasoning to make my elaborate points.

    Here's the funny face. :yuck:
  4. Aug 1, 2004 #3

    I think you have illuminated the problem we have when thinking about these concepts. I think that the author is dealing with the concept of moral or ethical freedom and not physical freedom. It seems that they are two separate categories.

    One can be free in a physical sense but have moral obligations. A good example of something like this is when we think of the Enron scandal. In a moral sense these executives have an obligation to society but society only calls them to task for their legal obligation.

    I suspect the great achievement we make when we discuss this type of concept is that often, for the first time, we become fully conscious of such considerations.

    I think we have to keep two sets of books. One set is for ethical considerations and the other for physical or mundane considerations.
  5. Aug 1, 2004 #4
    Free in that we live, and free in that we are moral.

    We can be alive and well, but not morally free. Or morally free but not alive.

    Is this your reasoning ?

    An eye for an eye, but love/have faith in, the law more than your eye.
    Is my advice.

    Enron included.

  6. Aug 2, 2004 #5

    You display a firm grasp on inspirational rhetoric.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook