- Registrado
- 14 de Nov, 2022
You're right that residue can exist in the jar, but that was never the point. The point is that existence doesn't guarantee usefulness. To call a jar "never empty" just because molecules remain is not profound, it's wordplay. Peanut butter molecules clinging to glass may be real, but that doesn't mean they can be eaten in a way that matters.Where many see an ‘empty’ jar, others see a jar which still contains some peanut butter. Some might argue from a functionalist standpoint, that the peanut butter is too difficult to obtain; but cutting back to the core of my argument, the superior man sees the truth, acknowledges it and works towards attaining his goal of extracting every last skerrick of peanut butter from the jar. This is an exercise of will.
To dress up scraping as the triumph of "will" adds nothing. Every deliberate action is already an act of will, be it scraping, buying new peanut butter, or throwing the jar in the trash. If everything is "will", then the concept of will explains nothing. What actually matters is whether the action produces more than it consumes, and whether other people's actions collide with it. Those are the limits set by reality, and not by some mystical resolve.
You can call it "man versus nature" if you like, but nature's limits are exactly what force men to economize and respect boundaries. A jar ends, goods are scarce. Pretending that jars are "never empty" is not some elevation of you, it's just a denial of the very constraints that make human action meaningful in the first place.Ah, you posit two people in conflict over the jar. There may have been a misunderstanding. This would be a ‘man versus man’ situation and not, as I wrote earlier: