Discussion The Fitzgerald vs. Hemingway Schools of Thought

[DenHaag]

F. Scott Fitzgerald is supposed to have said once to Ernest Hemingway, “You know, the rich are different from you and me.”

Hemingway replied, “Yes. They've got more money.”

There seems to be a school of thought that says, “Sex havers are different from you and me.”

Another says, “Yes. They have sex.”

Which are you?

 

[wereq]

Which are you?

Fitzgerald

 

[unsettling]

fitzgerald but also hemingway

 

[Fallenleaves]

Mostly Hemingway

 

[DenHaag]

Mostly Hemingway

fitzgerald but also hemingway

Fitzgerald

Hard for me to decide . . .

I guess the question is are they fundamentally different -- or are they living just as pathetic and hilarious lives as we are, just with that other experience that we lack. And is it so different? Or is it more banal . . . like I know the joy of being able to play a musical instrument -- many will have gone through live never having experienced that joy. And so on. Shrug.

 

[wereq]

are they fundamentally different

Yes

 

[Ahnfeltia]

This almost sounds like a question about predestination. If the rich where predestined to be rich, then Fitzgerald would be right in that they're fundamentally different -- the Norns had a different fate in store for them. If there's no such thing as predestination -- if humans must carve out their own fate -- then Hemingway would be right in that everyone could've been rich. Mutatis mutandis for sex-havers and having sex.

Since I think I do believe in predestination (or something to that effect anyway) I suppose I side with Fitzgerald.

What say ye of my reinterpretation?

 

[DenHaag]

This almost sounds like a question about predestination. If the rich where predestined to be rich, then Fitzgerald would be right in that they're fundamentally different -- the Norns had a different fate in store for them. If there's no such thing as predestination -- if humans must carve out their own fate -- then Hemingway would be right in that everyone could've been rich. Mutatis mutandis for sex-havers and having sex.

Since I think I do believe in predestination (or something to that effect anyway) I suppose I side with Fitzgerald.

What say ye of my reinterpretation?

Technically I can't argue with predestination. If causes and effects follow in logical succession and according to certain laws, well, there you have it. "God does not play dice" as Einstein said.

Yet practically there is no predestination, in the sense that while things may be ontologically determinate, they are so overwhelmingly and ineluctably epistemologically indeterminate.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Technically I can't argue with predestination.

Since it's a metaphysical concept, we cannot ever hope to (dis)prove it.

"God does not play dice" as Einstein said.

I can't say I agree with Einstein (which probably means it's a solid take). After all, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference even if God were to play dice.

Yet practically there is no predestination, in the sense that while things may be ontologically determinate, they are so overwhelmingly and ineluctably epistemologically indeterminate.

Human intuition at its best.