OleEinar

..."And what if, at a certain point, human interest could, or rather should, consist precisely in pursuing what is harmful for oneself and not what is advantageous? It would take just one case to shatter the entire rule. What do you think, can such a case exist? You laugh; go ahead and laugh, gentlemen, but answer me: is it really true that all of humanity's benefits have been calculated? Are there none that do not fit, and cannot possibly fit, into any classification? Because you, gentlemen, as far as I can tell, have taken your entire list of human advantages from an average of statistics and scientific-economic formulas. Indeed, your advantages are: prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace, etc.; so, for example, a man who clearly and consciously contradicted this list would, in your opinion, and also in mine, be a madman or a perfect fool, wouldn't he? But this is surprising: how is it that these geniuses of statistics, these wise men and lovers of humanity, constantly neglect one advantage when calculating benefits for man? They don't even take it into account in that aspect of investigation from which all calculation depends. Wouldn't it be beneficial to grasp this advantage and finally include it in the list? But here lies the problem, as this bizarre advantage does not fit into any classification and has no place in any list. [...] Apparently, there is something, gentlemen, that is more precious than the most enticing advantages, or (to avoid undermining logic) there is one advantage so advantageous that it is more important and more convenient than all the advantages, and for which man is willing, if necessary, to contravene all laws: the laws of reason, honor, peace, prosperity, in short, to renounce all these beautiful things in order to attain that preeminent advantage, more advantageous than all other advantages, more precious than all. [...] I want to boldly declare that all these systems, all these theories to inform humanity of its authentic normal interests so that it strives to realize them and thereby automatically becomes good and noble are mental convolutions. Indeed, they are quibbles. Because to uphold a theory of the renewal of all humankind based on a system of personal advantages is, for me, like claiming, for example, that with civilization man is humanized and consequently becomes less bloodthirsty and less inclined to wars."...

"But these are golden fantasies. Who was the first to declare that man commits mischief only because he does not know his true interests? But if only we could enlighten him, open his eyes to his authentic, normal interests, then man would cease to do mischief and immediately become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his true advantages, he would quickly realize that they lie in goodness; and since it is well known that no one can consciously act against their own interests, it follows, so to speak, that it is essential to start doing good. Oh, innocence, holy, pure innocence! But when has it ever happened, in the first place, that throughout all these millennia man has acted for his personal advantage? Do not the millions of cases where people, fully aware, that is, perfectly understanding what their advantages were, neglect them in order to throw themselves in a completely different direction, facing risk, haphazardly, without anything or anyone forcing them to do so, rather testify to the opposite? As if they had no desire at all to follow the indicated path, and stubbornly, arbitrarily, they beat a different one, difficult, blind, senseless, almost groping in the dark? Thus this stubbornness and this arbitrariness are more alluring than any advantage... The advantage! What is advantage? But do you feel capable of defining with absolute certainty what human interest consists of exactly?"

My God, count, my veins tremble at the thought of the world we should live in according to you. In any case, human nature would rebel against this state of affairs, which is, in fact, unachievable.

But what do you want from me? It seems to me that lately it has become quite trendy to read reviews solely for the purpose of finding some phrase (perhaps twisted or exaggerated) to latch onto to generate controversies that are utterly absurd.

Well, I, who will know at most a cent of English rock, could name at least twenty or thirty bands that have nothing to do with crap (and none of these are britpop). Of course, this is just my personal opinion. But I don’t understand why someone who has always admitted to being interested in only a very specific branch of rock (which is, by the way, more than legitimate) then insists on coming and passing judgments even on the entire English rock scene.

Here, the only thing dull and mediocre is the thought of the group in question.

But luckily it’s a utopia, it would be a nightmare, the end of Life.

Really a nice page, even though it's not my genre. Hi meta :-)

Just made mien (and before reading your post :DD).

Of Pordenone, Jimmy.