what happens not to wake up and not go to school Arthur Bloch is indeed the greatest of all time emo. Leopardi, Yorke and other pseudo-emo, get by.
More than all the others, he had the scientific method to calculate quantitatively and qualitatively the flow of pessimism governing our world. I am surprised its rationality in describing what was catastrophic the real, and believe me when I tell you that his Murphy's Law, with its infinite applications, can seriously bring to destroy all faith and hope in a science optimistic. Mostly because describes situations that happen every day and really all .
and yet he professes himself a humorist. This is worrying.
Murphy's Law is basically summed up in one sentence: if something can go wrong, it will . At first this pseudo law may well seem a trivial determination made by a born pessimist, but hides a lot more to say in his apparent everything and nothing.
Take a
David Hume. This 18th century Scottish philosopher claimed the logical impossibility of building links between certain random events. To give you an example, he said that it is scientifically impossible to maintain that tomorrow the sun will rise, as this provision is expected to occur only in that we used to see it rise every day, but nothing can give us security we can not predict a logically certain future events.
you you're probably wondering: what does all this with the law cited above? And surely you have already given a response
. In fact, to think of it the two are well connected.
Both theories are based on subjectivity and the force of habit. Depending on our attitude, our emotions and our way of putting personal connections between things, but it really logical for us to totally illogical and scientifically unprovable, we are more or less likely to believe in the existence of luck or fortune, ie the two extreme and highly personal connotations of the case.
Fortune and misfortune
exist? Bloch says yes, and Hume says no, because the first describes the flow of events as a frame of situations related to each other a most disastrous of the other, the second as something not understood by the limited human mind, as between us and the real is an insurmountable barrier under the
.
I argue that the truth lies somewhere in between.
Let me explain.
Fortune and misfortune are subjective connotations, as mentioned above.
But is the subjective way of seeing the world.
If one makes up her mind that something should go wrong, no matter what happens we will go, because you will always find something negative in an event, the difference lies in the degree of negativity (how many times they say:
yes, it went well, but could be better, in fact, I could take 10 instead of nine and a half, bad luck to say that was wrong Keurxerliasticosdijekcoekjdosiejkdl the name of the famous 20th century German biologist ).
The speech, of course, is also valid in the opposite case (
Well, I have amputee arms and legs, cut a nipple and burnt hair, but I can still have sex, what luck! ).
Scientifically, however, is not provable, the description of a stream of negative events, and I think because we have no observation instruments capable of measuring microscopic so real, so as to enable us to understand the difference between two actions apparently similar but really give two different outcomes, though invisible eyes.
But above all, because there is subjectivity, and is unavoidable, a small and seemingly innocuous actions can lead, over time, a series of disastrous consequences, even at infinite distances of time and space.
Bloch and I think Hume would have gone very well.
ps: one of the best applications of Murphy's Law, for those not familiar, is that of the buttered cat paradox
. I recommend you read because it's really beautiful.
