I haven’t done much but here are a few little things I did do that have had some effect. While at college at WSU in Pullman I also attended the Ethical Culture Society’sEncampment for Citizenship in New York where I got to talk briefly to Eleanor Roosevelt. A week later I spent an hour with J. Robert Oppenheimer at his home and invited him to speak at WSU. For that act, I was kicked out of AFROTC. They readmitted me because I had done extremely well on their other measures. I graduated at the top of my class in the Air Force flight school class 59H and became a pilot. Against my will, I ended up assigned to B-47 bombers and assigned to carry H-bombs. I resigned seven times insisting that the policy of dropping H-bombs on a city would be a foolish war crime. After some major threats, they sent me away with a General Discharge which reverted to Honorable in five years if I didn’t get into trouble.
I went to Berkeley, California, and lived there for fifty years and where I was in Sproul Hall for the Free Speech Movement. That had international effects that made it okay for students to have political events on US campuses, even to this day. Then Governor Ronald Reagan brought out the military to shut down free speech. I was instrumental in getting the Berkeley Barb newspaper started as the most progressive newspaper on the West Coast. In a separate event, I turned over the first shovelful of dirt in the People’s Park movement, which Reagan fought against, ordering a police response that resulted in one person being killed and many serious injuries. Reagan lost that conflict too, and People’s Park is still there. I might sound like a radical but I only struggle for reasonable things and a small proof of that is that the Berkeley Chief of Police Bruce Baker when he moved on to become the Chief of Police of Portland wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for me.
I’ve been here in Bend since buying a house seven years ago and have written a daily blog and I now have 3,740 posts and 1.7 million views. Probaway – Life Hacks ~ Many helpful hints on living your life more successfully. I may not have attended any esoteric groups other than the Spiritual Awareness Community of the Cascades, but I have thought and written a lot about becoming a better person in a better society.
As a speaker, I was asked to write a bio for the Spiritual Awareness Community
I didn’t know the Hate Man well, perhaps no one did, but in a strange way I had a big impact on his life. It began when I was having a conversation many years ago (1968), about what to do with the parking lot that became known as People’s Park. It was located in back of our coffee shop the Caffè Mediterraneum. This was an important event for the Hate Man because he later lived outdoors in that park for almost thirty years.
That early conversation was with Bill Miller and Michael Delacour about what to do with the vacant lot owned by the University of California. The UC had taken it legally by eminent domain and torn down the houses on the property but they ran out of money to rebuild it to their needs. Thus it lay empty for over a year and functioned as a free parking lot for the public. The UC authorities then tried to reclaim it for their use but the public resisted. Blood was shed, some of my friends were shot. George Pauly, the owner of the local art theater, was shot while standing on his theater’s balcony, and a man standing near him named James Rector, who was unknown to me, was shot and died.
My earlier participation consisted of suggesting to Bill and Michael that the way to get the public involved in defending that property was to get them physically involved in innocent things like planting a garden for food and flowers. Within minutes Michael had procured a shovel and we were out in the field digging. After a couple of shovelfuls of dirt, I went back and worked on drinking coffee and talking to brilliant people for the next forty years. I was around for many of the various Free Speech conflicts, Anti-War protests and the People’s Park conflicts with Ronald Reagan, but not conspicuously so, although I did escape from Sproul Hall down a rope from the high balcony with police in pursuit. To the cheers of thousands below.
My decades-long friend Ted Friedman got involved with our local underground newspaper and used a photo I took for his article about George Pauly. He put his byline on the photo. That didn’t bother me one bit but I am here returning the favor by posting this picture of the Hate Man in my blog without a byline.
The Hate Man does a hate-filled fist bump with a Berkeley cop.
A big-hearted piece of Berkeley died when the Hate Man died.
Prompt – It was a truth that was difficult to believe.
I am a seeker after truth and by that I mean to listen to anything that anyone asserts as their truth. Yes, anything! I will listen and make a sincere effort to put myself into their world view and their present point of view and for a moment or a few minutes get into their world. Their reality becomes my reality for those moments in time. Over the years it has taken me to some fantastic places and most of the time I have chosen to depart. Perhaps many of those departures turned out to be big mistakes, but some of those departures probably saved my life and others probably saved my sanity and others saved those things for my friends.
Here are some of my departures, and as I look back over them the primary motivating factor was a belief in the moment that to continue in doing what I was on course to do would be to violate a more fundamental truth than the one I was believing and following at the moment.
My biggest and most life-influencing moment for me was when I was a pilot in the United States Air Force. As a military pilot I refused to accept the H-bomb the United States Air Force was offering me to fly around in a B-47. It was a risk of going to jail for 10 years for refusing to obey direct orders, which I never did. After some contentious conversations with my superior officers about the ethics of killing millions of innocent people, and the obvious fact that doing so would surely bring similar destruction to the American people I was supposedly defending, finally after one of those conversations with the base commander, I was sent down the road to a new life. He decided I would be of more use to our country as a civilian. But my life was forever negatively influenced by that decision. Or perhaps not, as some of my friends got killed in Viet Nam. My truth was that the Mutually Assured Destruction policy of the time was MAD.
A couple of years later I was involved in the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, where in one event I slid down a rope from a high window on the front of Sproul Hall to the cheers of thousands. I had been in the administration taking photos of the students involved in the protest sit-in. The police would probably have let me depart from the front door, but it was said they were taking the film out of cameras, so I went out over the high balcony on a rope with my camera. My intention was to publish the truth of what a peaceful sit-in looked like. It looks like people sitting.
Another exploration into truth was my involvement in helping the radical newspaper the Berkeley Barb get going. I helped Max Shearer lay out the strategy, which he apparently valued, and I had a few articles in the first few editions. I was one who took the first bundle of papers and sold them on the soon to be famous Telegraph Avenue. Over the next few years, it became the most radical newspaper in the world. After the Barb was going Max published an article with my byline which I didn’t write, and he refused to put an erratum statement in a later issue. I never had another civil conversation with him. His extreme editorial spin on truth became far too radical for me. His truths were far too difficult for me to believe.
Another time I departed from People’s Park after getting the shovel and turning over some of the very first clods of dirt that set that event into motion. James Rector was shot and died, and some of those shot who lived, like George Pauly, became my close friends. Against California Governor Ronald Reagan’s best efforts the park came into existence and is still under the people of Berkeley’s control. It’s one of the few political battles Reagan ever lost. When people are getting killed by the government it is hard to believe the truth of the law on our side, but five decades later the People’s Park is still a park.
I helped Jefferson Poland set up the Sexual Freedom League, and did their first art work for them. That began in a very strange way when we and Ina Saslow ran on the San Francisco Beach under the Cliff House naked. There’s a video of that somewhere. The next week those two contacted the newspaper and got arrested for doing that same stunt. I realized in the week before I participated in that swim that the truth of their endeavors wasn’t that of personal freedom, but instead was one of libertine excess. That wasn’t the truth I sought, so I departed. In the long run that event was one of the major turning points of that movement and of the furtherance of women’s liberation. Most of that is unknown to the public but it did get some women’s rights things going that otherwise might not have happened.
My girlfriend for only a couple of dates was Joan Blades. I was teaching art at San Francisco Junior College at that time, and was telling her stories of what I was doing in my classroom. One idea I liked, and she immediately started doing, was trying to sell for money every idea she came up with. We didn’t seem to like each other very much so we each moved on, and she may not even remember me. I remember her because she made and sold the Flying Toaster as a screen saver for the first Apple computers. She then created MoveOn.org which became a major political media outlet. That is a major purveyor of truth to this day, but one which I walked away from, as I usually do.
Then there was the Society for Creative Anachronism where I was living in Toad Hall, a house on Alcatraz Avenue where their public by-laws were written. That was a tiny group at the time but now has something like 40,000 members. A commercial enterprise called the Renaissance Pleasure Faire came out of it, which is now a worldwide public event. Once again a spin on truth which I was part of at the creation, but walked away from.
I was a close friend of Kevin Langdon when he created an IQ test that was purported to be for people in the 4th standard deviation above average. It was published in a national magazine and soon led to a worldwide organization of brilliant people. I attended their first conference in San Francisco, but once again I walked away from another spin on truth and reality.
When I come to truth I am overly sensitive to people twisting it, for fun, for profit, for ego. I could come up with a dozen more examples of this truth that is difficult to believe but …
It hasn’t been since my fifty years back in Berkeley, that I have heard such an impassioned talk on psychedelics. I attended as a sober person the very first LSD party back in Berkeley, in 1962, before the Free Speech Movement, anti-Vietnam war demonstrations, the Berkeley Barb newspaper, and the People’s Park conflicts.
A close friend of mine, Charlie Brown Artman, had purchased a large bag of Heavenly Blue morning-glory seeds, and it was said that eating two rounded tablespoonfuls of these seeds would get the famous hallucinations. The party was attended by about twenty Cal Berkeley students at someone’s private home, after a folk-dance event on campus. I don’t know for sure if anyone got high, but they were acting strange for a couple of hours, and most of them got sick to the stomach and barfed the seeds about a half hour after eating them. Not long after this event real LSD in the form of blue sugar cubes came on the scene, and by about 1964 pot was becoming common. My dates may be a little soft, because I wasn’t really into drugs of any sort, even beer, but I was and still am addicted to cigarettes, although I quit for over a month many times. I finally admitted I was an addict and had to totally avoid smoking for thirty years, because after a single cigarette my experience was that I was back up to a pack a day in a month. I do drink alcohol, but only a single drink at an event, and never more than two per day. The science is in that one or two drinks a day of alcohol is associated with longer life expectancy than no drinks or more than three.
It is with that background experience that I listened to an hour lecture today about the virtues of psychedelics. Quite frankly I tried hard to be open-minded, but my mind automatically quibbled at many fine points. There were about thirty people at the lecture and most appeared to be receptive, and the after-lecture questions were reasonable and polite. There were two individuals who had had deadly events associated with psychedelics, when their high friends did incredibly stupid things and got killed. I spoke briefly to the speaker after the lecture and supported and encouraged her quest for higher truths.
I support people in their life quests, but personally I know that I am an outlier psychologically, so I do my best to keep my brain straight. One of my guiding principles in life is:
The last few days I have participated in several social projects even though I am not particularly radical, nor do I believe the Occupy Movement has much real traction for changing the fundamental problems in American society. All the same it is possible to challenge established power structures and be successful if one has a very specific thing which clearly needs to be done and pursues that with vigor and diligence.
That was my feeling when I introduced Michael Delacour to the Unitarian Universalist Social Justice committee luncheon held at the Common Table restaurant here in Bend, Oregon. Michael is one of the few people to ever challenge Ronald Reagan and win his personal political goals. Therefore he is a good person to present to the people who are seeking to make a meaningful change in our local and national political scene.
The luncheon had about fifteen people in attendance and Michael fielded their questions with a quiet grace and courtesy. Everyone respected his dedication and appreciated his lifetime of experience of struggle for a worthy goal which was in conflict with a very powerful organization. Michael was able to lead some people of Berkeley, California, in a struggle against the University of California’s plan to confiscate private property via the use of their powers of eminent domain. The local people wanted a park and the university wanted this particular parcel of land, located three blocks from campus, to build more dormitories. There are many sides to this political issue, but the point of this blog is to show how a person can win in a struggle against a very much bigger organization, if they do things right.
A dozen people at the UU Social Justice luncheon with Michael Delacour
About 15 people were at the weekly Occupy protest at Bend’s Bank of America
Occupy the Music at Bend, Oregon’s Tower theater had well over 200.
Today coffee and conversation were once again my morning priorities and after brushing my teeth it was time to dive into the Cafe Mediterraneum, on Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, California. People familiar to me were already there so after getting my coffee things started perking up right away. After a few minutes a very strange thing happened, a very first for me: Michael Delacour, Berkeley’s foremost radical, came into the café, sat down at the table with me and we continued our conversation from yesterday. But this time he had a better idea of what I was about because he had read some of my blog posts. It was a real treat being able to talk to someone whom I barely knew conversing with me about some of my published ideas. Usually, when these things get discussed, if they are ever discussed, it is in the format of open-ended coffeeshop-style conversation, and that makes it very chaotic to develop any complex idea.
The second astonishing thing was that Michael brought me a copy of People’s Park: Still Blooming, Berkeley, CA, by Terri Compost. He gave me this book and signed it for me, upon my request, and said it was the first time he had ever autographed a book. No one, almost unknown to me, has ever given me a book. He said he had purchased five of them, one for himself and the others for his friends.
As if that wasn’t strange enough, when I looked at the cover photograph I had an eerie memory of one of the most astonishing minutes of my life. The photo is of a group of gas masked soldiers, with bayonets fixed and pointing into the air just over the heads of three coeds sitting on the ground in protest of those soldiers being there. That confrontation lasted for a very short time, but what is personal for me was that I was standing alone about thirty yards directly behind those guys at that very minute. I had just been forced to leave a building and suddenly found myself in the middle of a square of soldiers on all sides of me with their backs to me and their guns and bayonets pointed outward. I stood there for a half a minute wondering what to do, and some guy in a gas mask came over and started yelling at me. It is surprisingly difficult to understand what someone in a gas mask is yelling, especially when they have a pistol on their hip and a bunch of bayonet pointing soldiers at their command. I asked what he wanted me to do, and the essence of it was probably to get the hell out of here. I rotated around in an effort to comply, but there was no place to go. He yelled at me again, and I rotated again and started feeling dizzy. He apparently understood my problem and pointed and shoved me in the direction, which turned out to be the backs of these very soldiers in the picture. So, I squeezed between these masked men, and on past these defiant girls, and having had enough of this nonsense, headed for, you guessed it – the Mediterraneum Cafe.
I hadn’t even started my coffee, when someone ran in and yelled that a helicopter had just flown over and gassed campus. We had heard helicopters before, but they were usually news helicopters, so no one even looked up after a while. It became apparent that the reason the soldiers had been told to wear their gas masks was because the officers knew the helicopter gassing was on its way and we were its targets. I was three blocks from the actual gas when it came, and because of the prevailing winds, never even got a whiff.
When the authorities tell you not to worry, start worrying, but when they tell you to worry, start running!
RIGHT TRIBE – Be surrounded by those who share Blue Zone values
To get moving in your Blue Zone, try some of my replacement comments on Dan Buettner’s tips.
Identify your inner circle.
Google search: “According to a 2021 survey, 12% of American adults have no close friends. This is up from 3% in the 1990s. The 2021 survey also found that 27% of millennials have no close friends, and 22% have no friends at all.”
That is an American tragedy! What is even worse is that younger people are not developing friendships. When walking downtown, I see some younger people actively try to ignore other people by listening to their earbuds.
People tend to meet others:
In high school (87%) or college (70%)
Through work (75%)
Through neighborhood (61%)
Through church or spiritual community (44%)
Informally (started talking at a park or café) (38%)
Through children (playgroup, children’s sports) (38%)
Through sports or fitness activity (33%)
The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on young people’s social isolation was one of the problems. Unfortunately, a new problem is coming this year in the form of fake information surrounding the elections from what was formerly coming from trusted media. That will make it difficult for anyone to tell the truth from falsehoods, and because friendship is based on truth, there will be a lack of trust. The fake information will probably cause waves of social chaos that will interfere with young adults’ perceptions of reality.
Be likable.
I ask ChatGPT
How does a person become likable?
Becoming likable involves a combination of behaviors, attitudes, and interpersonal skills that are generally appreciated and valued in social interactions. Here are some key factors that can contribute to being perceived as likable:
Empathy and Understanding: Show genuine interest in others and their experiences. Try to understand their feelings and perspectives. Empathy builds strong, relatable connections.
Positive Attitude: A positive and optimistic attitude is often contagious. People are generally drawn to individuals with a positive outlook on life and can uplift others.
Good Listening Skills: Active listening shows you value what the other person says. It involves hearing the words and understanding the underlying emotions and intentions.
Authenticity: Be yourself. Authenticity builds trust, and people are more likely to be drawn to someone who is genuine and sincere.
Respectfulness: Respecting others’ opinions, time, and boundaries is crucial. Respectful behavior demonstrates maturity and consideration.
Humor: Good humor can lighten conversations and make interactions more enjoyable. However, it’s essential to be mindful of the type of humor used and ensure it is appropriate for the situation.
Good Communication Skills: Clear and effective communication helps in expressing thoughts and ideas in a way that is easy to understand. This includes both verbal and non-verbal communication skills.
Kindness and Generosity: Acts of kindness and a generous attitude can significantly impact how likable you are. Small acts of kindness often leave lasting impressions.
Confidence: Confidence, without being arrogant, can be attractive. It shows that you are comfortable with yourself and your abilities.
Reliability and Integrity: Being someone others can count on and displaying integrity in your actions builds trust and admiration.
It’s important to remember that likability is subjective and can vary based on cultural, social, and personal preferences. What is likable to one person may not be to another. Additionally, these qualities should be cultivated genuinely rather than as a means to an end, as people often can sense when someone is being inauthentic or manipulative.
Create time together.
In the Blue Zones, people spent most of their time engaged in social situations like cooking, eating, and just having pleasant conversations. In modern America, this doesn’t seem to be happening with many people, and therefore, these people will probably not achieve the long and happy lives analyzed and described in this book.
My study of Buettner’s Blue Zones book didn’t go where I hoped and intended. It showed the path to a long and happy way of living, but it inadvertently exposed that modern civilization is moving away from that path. David Sinclair’s Age Reversal Community is extending the health span, and that research is resulting in an increased life span, but the current social trend is shortening it.
Yesterday’s list, seen immediately below, gives people’s opinions of what might destroy humanity. In the next few weeks, we will explore possible solutions for saving humanity.
What are the present existential threats to humanity and life on earth?
Existential threats refer to risks that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity’s potential. As of my last update in September 2021, the primary existential threats to humanity and life on Earth include:
Nuclear Warfare: The proliferation of nuclear weapons and potential for global conflict remain an ever-present threat. An all-out nuclear war could lead to a nuclear winter, severely impacting Earth’s ecosystems and making large parts of the planet uninhabitable.
Climate Change: Accelerated by human activities, climate change threatens to disrupt ecosystems, cause extreme weather events, and make parts of the world uninhabitable. Sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and reduced agricultural yields are among the many concerns.
Biodiversity Loss: Deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, and other factors are leading to mass extinctions at rates much higher than historical background levels. This loss can undermine ecosystem stability and resilience.
Pandemics: As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, a highly virulent and transmissible virus can have profound global consequences. There’s the potential for even more deadly diseases—whether naturally emerging or bioengineered—to pose existential threats.
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): While still theoretical, if AGI (machines with intelligence surpassing human levels across most tasks) becomes a reality, it could pose risks if not aligned with human values and interests. Misaligned superintelligent systems might take actions detrimental to humanity.
Asteroid Impacts: A large enough asteroid impact could have catastrophic effects on life, similar to the event that is believed to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Supervolcanic Eruptions: A supervolcanic eruption could significantly alter the Earth’s climate and lead to global crop failures and famines.
Cosmic Threats: Gamma-ray bursts or nearby supernova explosions can cause significant damage to Earth’s atmosphere and ecosystems, although these are considered less likely in the near term.
Misuse of Advanced Biotechnology: With advancements in fields like synthetic biology, there’s the potential to create harmful biological agents or unintended ecological disruptions.
Global Systemic Collapse: This refers to the potential for interconnected systems (financial, political, environmental, etc.) to fail in a cascading manner, leading to widespread societal or civilizational collapse.
Other Unknown Risks: It’s important to acknowledge that there might be existential risks we haven’t identified or understood yet.
Many researchers and organizations advocate for increased attention, global cooperation, and proactive strategies to mitigate these risks. The goal is to ensure a long-term sustainable future for humanity.
First, let’s ask Chat GPT-4 to answer the general question and in detailed new posts to answer the individual ones in depth in future posts.
What is being done to save humanity from existential threats?
Humanity faces a variety of existential threats, ranging from natural disasters to human-induced risks. In response to these threats, various measures are being taken at international, national, and local levels. Here are some of the most significant threats and the efforts being made to counteract them:
Nuclear Weapons:
Treaties and Agreements: International treaties like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) aim to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament.
Summits: International summits and bilateral talks often involve discussions about reducing nuclear stockpiles and avoiding nuclear conflicts.
Climate Change:
Paris Agreement: An international treaty where countries commit to limiting global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Research and Innovation: Investment in renewable energy, carbon capture technologies, and sustainable agriculture.
Conservation Efforts: Measures to conserve forests, wildlife, and other ecosystems to maintain ecological balance.
Biological Threats (Pandemics and Biowarfare):
World Health Organization (WHO): Monitors and responds to global health emergencies.
Vaccination Programs: Vaccines are developed and distributed to control and prevent outbreaks.
Biosecurity Measures: Labs and nations follow stringent protocols when working with deadly pathogens to prevent accidental releases.
Artificial Intelligence:
Ethical Guidelines: Organizations and governments are formulating ethical guidelines and regulations for AI development and deployment.
Research Institutions: Groups such as OpenAI have mission statements emphasizing the safe development of AI for the benefit of all.
Asteroid Impacts:
Space Surveillance: NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office and other international agencies track near-Earth objects.
Mission Concepts: Proposals for deflection missions, like the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), are being considered and tested.
Supervolcano Eruptions:
Monitoring: Geologists and researchers monitor known supervolcano sites, like Yellowstone, for signs of potential eruptions.
Evacuation Plans: Some regions have protocols in place for evacuations and emergency responses.
Nanotechnology:
Regulations: Some countries have started regulating the production and release of nanoparticles, given potential environmental and health impacts.
Research: Institutions investigate the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology.
Resource Scarcity and Overpopulation:
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The UN’s SDGs promote sustainable practices to ensure resource availability for future generations.
Urban Planning: Sustainable urban development to optimize resource usage and promote green spaces.
Nuclear or Toxic Waste:
Waste Management: Development of long-term storage solutions for nuclear waste, like deep geological repositories.
Research: Work on newer, safer nuclear technologies that produce less waste or use waste as fuel.
Biodiversity Loss:
Conservation Programs: Efforts to protect endangered species and habitats.
Protected Areas: Creation of national parks, marine protected areas, and wildlife sanctuaries.
While efforts are being made to address these threats, challenges remain. Global cooperation, public awareness, technological advancement, and proactive policy-making are essential components in ensuring humanity’s long-term survival and prosperity.
COMMENTS
When scanning through the above threats, the solutions presented feel like temporary patches on permanent existential threats.
CONCLUSIONS
What is desperately needed for the hundred-year survival of humanity, and even multicellular life on the surface of Earth, is much more profound solutions in place and being enforced. The many thousands of hydrogen bombs available since 1958 are anexistential threat, but any of the other factors could trigger their use.
The ultimate population must be sustainable without dependency on one-time-use resources. Malthus had it right, back in 1800, that food creation was then a limiting factor, but now the food needed to sustain seven billion more people depends on more than available cropland and labor. We are now dependent on one-time-use materials like fossil fuels used for powering equipment, and for creation of fertilizers. But there probably are other critical items among the so-called unknown unknowns. For example, a known problem is that in a hundred years, all copper needed for electricity will be in use, and reuse, with no more to be mined. Other unknown essential things will probably appear in the critically needed list and be difficult for humanity to survive without. Natural processes, like famine, will correct for these deficiencies, but with hydrogen bombs being available they will be used, and that will be THE END.
Slavoj Žižek (1949 ->) is a Yugoslavian philosopher of human fantasies. We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.
Slavoj Žižek, (1949 ->) is a Yugoslavian philosopher of human fantasies.
Probaway using GPT-4 maximizing on Slavoj Žižek’s ideas.
Slavoj Žižek
The first duty of philosophy is to make you understand what deep shit you are in! Slavoj Žižek, a prominent Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, is known for his provocative ideas that challenge conventional wisdom and complacency. In his assertion that “The first duty of philosophy is to make you understand what deep shit you are in!” Žižek aims to underscore the critical role of philosophy as a tool for diagnosing the crises, contradictions, and dilemmas of the human condition. Rather than offering immediate solutions or comforting illusions, philosophy, in Žižek’s view, confronts us with the harsh realities and complexities of our social, political, and individual lives. Understanding the “deep shit” we are in can awaken a critical consciousness, disrupt our complacency, and motivate transformative action. This is consistent with Žižek’s broader project of using philosophy and psychoanalysis to critique ideological systems and illuminate the structures of power, exploitation, and illusion that shape our world.
The task of philosophy is not to provide answers but to show how we perceive a problem can be part of a problem. Slavoj Žižek’s assertion reflects his conviction that philosophy’s most crucial role is critically examining our thought processes, assumptions, and frames of reference. Žižek argues that how we conceptualize and perceive a problem can inadvertently contribute to its persistence or exacerbate it. This perspective arises from his broader theoretical commitment to psychoanalysis and Marxist dialectics, which emphasize how unconscious biases, ideologies, and socio-economic structures influence our perception and understanding. Therefore, philosophy, in Žižek’s view, should not merely offer ready-made answers but challenge us to rethink our assumptions, deconstruct the familiar ways we represent and understand problems, and develop more profound and critical insights that can potentially lead to more effective solutions.
Ideology is strong precisely because it is no longer experienced as ideology… we feel free because we lack the language to articulate our unfreedom. This Slovenian philosopher posits that ideology is most potent when it is so deeply ingrained in our consciousness and societal structures that it becomes invisible, functioning as a default “common sense” that goes unquestioned. We “feel free,” Žižek argues, because we lack the language, conceptual tools, and perhaps the willingness to recognize and articulate how these underlying ideological frameworks conditioned our thoughts and actions. This underscores the insidious nature of ideological power: it binds us most effectively when we are unaware of its influence, thereby limiting our ability to perceive and challenge the social, political, and economic structures that constrain us.
The genuinely courageous stance is to admit that the light at the end of the tunnel is probably the headlight of an approaching train. In this metaphorical statement, Žižek suggests courage lies not in clinging to naive optimism or false hope but in facing harsh, uncomfortable truths head-on. The “light at the end of the tunnel” represents hope or a positive outcome following a difficult period. Still, he challenges this interpretation, positing that this light may signify an imminent threat or disaster—the “headlight of an approaching train.” Žižek’s wisdom aligns with his broader philosophical perspective, which underscores the importance of recognizing and confronting the crises, contradictions, and systemic problems inherent in our social and individual lives. In this view, facing unpleasant realities rather than denying them can lead to a more profound understanding of our predicament and potentially spark transformative action.
Like, love, ideology is blind, even if people caught up in it are not. Slavoj Žižek’s assertion emphasizes ideological frameworks’ powerful, often unconscious, influence on our thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors. Just as love can make us overlook flaws and discrepancies, so can ideological commitment obscure inconsistencies, contradictions, and harmful effects. Even if individuals within the ideological structure have moments of lucidity, the overarching ideology remains “blind” to its limitations and biases. This concept is a cornerstone of Žižek’s philosophy, which draws on psychoanalysis to explain how ideologies operate much like subconscious processes, shaping our worldviews and actions even as we believe ourselves to freely choose our beliefs and values. This highlights the importance of philosophical and critical inquiry in illuminating these blind spots and helping us understand how ideology shapes our world.
Words matter because they define the contours of what we can do. Žižek underscores language’s crucial role in shaping our perception, understanding, and interaction with the world. According to Žižek, language is not a neutral tool but a powerful instrument that frames our reality, delineates our possibilities, and governs our actions. This idea is rooted in his broader philosophy, which builds upon concepts from psychoanalysis and linguistic theory, emphasizing how words and narratives influence our subjectivity and social realities. Words implicitly limit or enable particular forms of understanding and action by defining what is speakable, thinkable, and doable. Therefore, it’s important to critically engage with language and narratives to understand their impact and potential for both constraint and transformation.
We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. Slavoj Žižek asserts that we are conditioned by ideological systems that shape our thoughts, values, and behaviors, often without conscious awareness. These systems can be so ingrained that we lack the critical perspective, or even the language, to recognize and express our unfreedom. Žižek draws on psychoanalytic theory to illustrate how these ideological forces, like unconscious desires or fears, shape our reality without our knowledge. In this sense, our perceived freedom is a kind of illusion maintained by our inability to discern and describe the constraints imposed upon us by societal structures and dominant ideologies.
We live in weird times in which we are compelled to behave as if we are free, so the unsayable is not our freedom but the very fact of our servitude. Žižek’s statement elucidates his critique of modern society and its dominant ideologies. According to him, societal norms and expectations often pressure us to present ourselves as free and autonomous individuals. However, this perceived freedom can mask deeper structures of control, manipulation, and “servitude” to socioeconomic systems, ideologies, and unconscious desires. The “unsayable” here refers to these unacknowledged forms of servitude that remain hidden or taboo because they challenge our comforting illusions of freedom. Žižek’s philosophy exposes these hidden forms of domination and challenges us to critically interrogate the ideological forces that shape our lives.
The more we act freely, the more we become enslaved by the system–we need to be ‘awakened’ from this ‘dogmatic slumber’ of fake freedom. Slavoj Žižek’s claims we slumber’ in fake freedom and reflects his critical view on the nature of individual freedom within societal systems. He posits that our actions, even those we perceive as freely chosen, often reinforce the systems that limit our freedom. This could be due to ideological influences, unconscious biases, or systemic structures that shape our desires and choices. The notion of a “dogmatic slumber” is borrowed from philosopher Immanuel Kant, signifying uncritical acceptance of prevailing beliefs. For Žižek, our contemporary “dogmatic slumber” is the illusion of freedom in a society where unseen forces dictate our actions. Awakening from this slumber requires a critical understanding of these forces, which can reveal the extent of our “enslavement” and potentially open new avenues for authentic freedom.
You cannot change people, but you can change the system so people are not pushed into doing evil things. According to Žižek, people are not inherently evil or good; instead, their actions are often driven by the incentives, constraints, and norms dictated by the systems they exist within. In other words, ‘evil’ actions might not necessarily arise from individual malevolence but from systemic factors that encourage or even necessitate such actions. Therefore, changing people’s behaviors necessitates changing these systemic conditions rather than attempting to change people’s inherent nature. This viewpoint reflects Žižek’s broader philosophical framework, rooted in dialectical materialism and psychoanalysis, that emphasizes the impact of external socio-political and ideological structures on individual psychology and actions.
It’s not that bad people do bad things — they always do. Sometimes good people do horrible things thinking they are doing something great. Slavoj Žižek confronts us with the unsettling reality of how ideology can manipulate our perceptions and actions. While it’s expected for ‘bad’ people to engage in negative behavior, Žižek highlights the potentially destructive actions of those we consider ‘good.’ Motivated by their perceived righteousness or noble intent, these people can commit terrible acts believing they are contributing positively to society or their cause. This is a testament to the power of ideology, which can distort our sense of morality and justice to the point that we commit harm while believing we are doing good. Žižek’s assertion invites introspection on how our own convictions might shape our actions and a recognition of the need for vigilance against the distortions of ideology.
The true ethical test is not only the readiness to save the victims but also – even more, perhaps – the ruthless dedication to annihilating those who made them victims. Slavoj Žižek offers a radical perspective on ethical responsibility. He argues that ethical action extends beyond aiding victims to address and dismantle the systems, ideologies, or individuals perpetuating victimhood. This does not advocate violence but rather suggests an unwavering commitment to eradicating the root causes of injustice, exploitation, and oppression. It challenges us to confront and transform the power structures and conditions that create victims rather than merely ameliorating the effects. For Žižek, such a commitment reflects a deeper ethical engagement, moving beyond surface-level sympathy to enact profound and lasting change.
What makes us happy is not to get what we want. But to dream about it. Žižek, influenced by psychoanalytic theory, posits that desiring—of dreaming and longing—can be more gratifying than fulfilling those desires. This is because the dreaming phase is filled with potential and imagination, often idealized and untainted by reality’s limitations or the potential disillusionment that can accompany achievement. On the other hand, the fulfillment of a desire can often lead to a sense of emptiness or anticlimax, revealing that the object of desire might not have been as fulfilling as imagined. Žižek’s insight challenges us to rethink our understanding of happiness and satisfaction and to consider the value and pleasure inherent in the process of desiring itself.
Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves. Slavoj Žižek challenges conventional notions of happiness and power. He posits that true masters, those who are critically aware and strive for deeper understanding or change, are often characterized by dissatisfaction or unrest. This unhappiness stems from their recognition of societal flaws, contradictions, and injustices or within themselves. On the other hand, ‘slaves’ in Žižek’s metaphor are those who uncritically accept the status quo or their prescribed roles, and in doing so, they may experience a form of happiness. However, this is a limited, unexamined happiness that does not acknowledge or challenge the larger structures of power and control. Žižek’s assertion underscores his belief in the necessity of critical consciousness and the willingness to confront discomfort for the sake of deeper understanding and potential transformation.
If you want to remain happy, just remain stupid. In Slavoj Žižek’s perspective, happiness in its uncritical, unexamined form is often associated with ignorance or a lack of critical understanding. This sentiment echoes the age-old adage, “Ignorance is bliss,” asserting that a deeper understanding of the world’s complexities, injustices, and uncertainties often brings discomfort, dissatisfaction, or unhappiness. It does not champion stupidity or ignorance but highlights the potential for discomfort in critical knowledge. This reinforces Žižek’s broader philosophical viewpoint that emphasizes the importance of critical thought and engagement with discomforting realities, even at the cost of simple, blissful ignorance.
The problem for us is not are our desires satisfied or not. The problem is how can we know what we desire. Slavoj Žižek illuminates the complex nature of human desire and our often unconscious motivations. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, Žižek posits that our true desires are often obscured, even from ourselves, shaped and influenced by societal norms, ideologies, and unconscious processes. The challenge, then, is not merely the fulfillment of these desires but, first and foremost, their elucidation. Knowing what we genuinely want, as opposed to what we are conditioned to want, requires self-reflection, critical thinking, and often a process of unlearning societal expectations and norms. This idea forms a cornerstone of Žižek’s philosophy, urging us to question and understand our desires as a crucial step towards self-awareness and potentially transformative action.
We’re not destroying anything. We’re watching the system destroy itself. Slavoj Žižek critiques societal structures and the inherent instability of current ideological systems. According to Žižek, the dominant systems of our era—political, economic, or social—are intrinsically flawed, leading to contradictions and tensions that inevitably precipitate their self-destruction. This viewpoint reflects Žižek’s Marxist influences and his belief in the dialectical unfolding of historical processes, where systems sow the seeds of their own negation and transformation. It also underscores his critique of passive spectatorship, challenging us to recognize our complicity in these systems and to actively engage in shaping a different, more equitable future. Instead of observing self-destruction, Žižek urges us to understand the forces at play and intervene in meaningful ways.
True power strangles you with silk ribbons, charm, and intelligence. Slavoj Žižek suggests that power is most effective not when overtly oppressive or violent but when subtle, seductive, and seemingly benign. The allure of charm, the attraction of intellectual superiority, and the deceptive comfort of societal norms (symbolized by the ‘silk ribbons’) keep us entangled and compliant. In Žižek’s view, power is most insidious and potent when it can control or direct behavior without the subject feeling coerced but rather charmed or intelligently engaged. This perspective invites us to critically examine the invisible or seductive forms of power that shape our lives and to recognize that oppression doesn’t always manifest in overtly brutal forms.
A beautiful word ‘quarters’ the thing and tears it out of the embedment of its context. Slavoj Žižek’s proposition explores the relationship between language, meaning, and reality. He asserts that when we use a beautiful, perhaps abstract or euphemistic, word to describe something, we risk severing it from its full context, thereby oversimplifying or distorting its true nature. This may cause us to perceive the thing in a detached or idealized manner, disregarding the complex reality it emerges from. Žižek’s insight underscores the power of language in shaping our perception and understanding of the world. It urges us to be mindful of language’s limitations and potential deceptions and to strive for a deeper engagement with the realities that words represent.
After failure, it is possible to keep going and fail better after failure. Slavoj Žižek’s assertion conveys an unconventional perspective on failure, resonating with Beckett’s famous line, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” For Žižek, failure isn’t merely a negative outcome to be avoided; instead, it can be a valuable learning experience, a catalyst for reflection, innovation, and self-improvement. This perspective celebrates the resilience to continue in the face of adversity and to ‘fail better’—to glean insights from each failure and to progressively refine one’s approach. It discourages fear of failure and encourages a continuous quest for improvement, regardless of the outcomes. By reframing failure as an integral part of growth, Žižek presents a profound wisdom that can apply to various aspects of life, including personal growth, creativity, and socio-political engagement.
This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be ‘harassed,’ that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others. Slavoj Žižek critiques the individualistic and isolationist tendencies in advanced capitalist societies. Žižek highlights how capitalist systems often prioritize individual rights and freedoms to the point where disengagement and social distance from others become a desired norm, a ‘right’ to be protected. This idea reflects Žižek’s critique of neoliberal ideologies that promote extreme individualism and a form of ‘freedom’ that may lead to social detachment and indifference towards communal or societal concerns. The ‘right’ to be unharassed and distanced from others can thus be seen as a symptom of a society that values individual comfort and convenience over collective well-being and interconnectivity.
Experts are, by definition, the servants of those in power: they don’t really THINK; they just apply their knowledge to problems defined by the powerful. Slavoj Žižek criticizes the role and function of experts in power structures. He challenges the notion that expertise is a neutral, objective domain, instead positing that experts, in applying their knowledge, often operate within parameters set by those in power. This perspective reflects Žižek’s broader critique of societal structures, where knowledge and power are intertwined and often serve to maintain existing power dynamics. By suggesting that experts “don’t really THINK,” he is highlighting the potential lack of critical examination or challenging of the underlying assumptions, values, or priorities dictated by the power structures. The statement underscores Žižek’s call for critical thought and questioning of established frameworks, even within specialized fields of expertise.
In America, “the pursuit of property” was replaced by “the pursuit of happiness.” Slavoj Žižek critiques the transformation of societal values under the influence of capitalism and consumer culture. He suggests that the more nebulous concept of seeking happiness has supplanted the tangible, concrete goal of acquiring property—an expression of wealth and stability. This shift reflects how the American dream, originally framed around material success and property ownership, has been redefined more psychologically, with happiness being the ultimate goal. However, Žižek often implies that this shift obscures the material conditions and social inequalities that underpin the capitalist system, making happiness an individual’s responsibility, independent of socio-economic conditions. The wisdom in this statement lies in its call to critically engage with how societal values evolve and to question how these transformations may serve broader ideological purposes.
Ultimately, we feel things because we cannot hear or see everything. Slavoj Žižek emphasizes the role of subjective experience and emotion in human understanding. This reflects Žižek’s engagement with psychoanalytic theory, where emotions are considered integral to our sense of reality, often compensating for the limitations of our perceptual abilities. Since we cannot perceive or know everything about the world, we rely on our feelings to navigate, interpret, and respond. Our feelings thus fill the gaps in our understanding and serve as a barometer for our subjective experiences. This perspective urges us to recognize and value the role of emotion in our engagement with the world, complementing and enriching our sensory perception and cognitive understanding.
An enemy is someone whose story you have not heard. Slavoj Žižek underscores the significance of empathy, understanding, and dialogue in mitigating conflicts and prejudices. Žižek suggests that the dehumanization or demonization of ‘the other’ often stems from a lack of understanding of their experiences, perspectives, or circumstances. By framing an ‘enemy’ as someone whose story we haven’t heard, he challenges us to engage empathetically and curiously with those we perceive as different or opposed to us. This approach can help break down barriers of misunderstanding or bias, humanize ‘the enemy,’ and open potential paths toward reconciliation or cooperation. This perspective echoes Žižek’s broader emphasis on the power of narrative, dialogue, and critical understanding in shaping socio-political realities.
Some ideas for creating a graphic for Slavoj Žižek.
Catbird_ai – Create a photorealistic man surrounded by many demons, devils, and scary things.
It’s not that bad people do bad things — they always do. Sometimes good people do horrible things thinking they are doing something great.
Alfred E. Newman (gestated 1876, born 1953, flourishing 2013). His history goes back to 1876 in a picture by Lewis Carroll in The Hunting of the Snark“ The Hunting of the Snark. He was named in 1953 by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman.
Alfred E. Newman The Hunting of the Snark – 1876Alfred E. Newman, philosopher of the sub-genius America. What, me worry?
Alfred E. Neuman’s catchphrase, “What, me worry?” encapsulates a brand of comic wisdom juxtaposing ignorance with bliss. The line is a satirical take on the human tendency to worry about things we have little or no control over. Alfred’s perpetual, unfazed grin suggests that ignoring one’s troubles, however misguided, can bring about a sense of peace and tranquility. This phrase reflects a philosophy of stoic acceptance or carefree denial, inviting us to reevaluate our worries. In essence, it prompts us to consider the comedic absurdity of our anxieties, pondering whether we’d be happier adopting a Neuman-like stance of not worrying, despite the chaos around us.
1. Yes, we can? No, we can’t! A lot depends on spacing and punctuation.
Alfred E. Neuman offers a witty commentary on the impact of communication nuances on interpretation. It emphasizes the power of syntax, punctuation, and timing in shaping meaning and influencing perspectives. Simply rearranging or inserting a question mark can dramatically alter the intended message. The phrase underscores the comic wisdom that communication is not just about words but also how they are presented. It humorously reminds us of our human propensity to misinterpret or misconstrue messages. It prompts us to pay more attention to the details in writing, speech, and life.
2. How can I worry? I’m a cartoon!
Alfred E. Neuman’s quip, a mere cartoon character, can’t worry about anything because his existence is inherently absurd and inconsequential, humorously highlights our worries’ transitory and often exaggerated nature. It subtly calls attention to the artificial constructs of human stress, reminding us that, in the grand scheme of things, many of our anxieties are as fleeting and insignificant as a cartoon’s storyline. The statement invites us to step back from our own dramas and apprehensions, encouraging us to view our lives with a little more levity and a little less unnecessary seriousness.
3. Where fools rush out, is where fools rushed in.
Alfred E. Neuman’s witticism humorously underscores the cyclical nature of folly, where one fool’s exit is simply the entry point for another. It suggests that foolishness is not just an individual trait but a societal pattern in which others often repeat one person’s mistakes. The humor lies in observing this seemingly endless cycle and the absurdity of repeated mistakes. At the same time, it delivers a comic but poignant message about the importance of learning from others’ blunders instead of blindly following the crowd.
4. Crime does not pay; it takes.
Alfred E. Neuman’s comment humorously reinterprets a common phrase in a literal and rather insightful way. The statement is based on the adage “crime does not pay,” which traditionally means that engaging in illegal activities doesn’t lead to long-term benefits. However, Alfred’s variant of the saying points out the more immediate and tangible aspect of crime – it takes away, whether it’s someone’s property, freedom, or even life. This sardonic twist humorously underscores the shortsightedness of criminal behavior while reminding us of its damaging consequences in a fresh, thoughtful manner.
5. It takes one to know one — and a two to know a two.
That is a comical take on the familiar saying, “It takes one to know one.” This phrase traditionally suggests that a person recognizes faults in others that they possess themselves. Alfred’s humorous addition, “and a two to know a two,” emphasizes the relativity and subjectivity of understanding. It proposes that comprehension isn’t just about shared experiences and perspectives. In other words, it’s not only our similarities that allow us to understand one another but also our shared flaws or idiosyncrasies. This witticism humorously encourages us to accept our individual quirks and understand others through the lens of our own experiences.
6. A good teacher is someone who keeps us awake.
The phrase not only alludes to the age-old joke of students dozing off in class but also carries a deeper meaning. It implies that a good teacher isn’t merely someone who disseminates knowledge but also someone who sparks curiosity, engagement, and active learning. In other words, it’s about keeping students physically, intellectually, and emotionally awake. By approaching the topic with humor, Alfred underscores a significant aspect of education: that the best learning occurs when students are fully engaged, stimulated, and “awake.”
7. Most people don’t act stupid; they prove it.
By differentiating between ‘acting’ and ‘proving,’ Neuman underlines the idea that stupidity is not just a temporary state or a performance but a trait that people demonstrate through consistent actions. In other words, it’s not just about doing something foolish in a moment; it’s about persisting in actions that continuously demonstrate a lack of wisdom or foresight. The humor stems from the blunt honesty of this statement, and it wittily reminds us to reflect on our actions, as they’re often more revealing of our character than we might like to admit.
8. Smoking helps you lose weight. The right lung, and then the one that’s left.
On the surface, it may appear as a play on words, making light of the harmful health effects of smoking. But beyond the humor, it provides a stark commentary on the devastating consequences of tobacco use. By joking about the severe health repercussions – in this case, implying that smokers’ lose weight’ by damaging their lungs – Alfred captures attention lightheartedly but leaves a sobering message. It’s a comic yet poignant reminder that risky behaviors can have severe, life-threatening consequences.
9. You can do everything perfectly right and still lose.
The statement challenges the commonly held belief that doing everything “perfectly right” guarantees success. The humor arises from the unexpectedness of the outcome – the idea that despite our best efforts, we might still fall short. However, beyond the laughter, it serves as a reminder that life doesn’t always adhere to our plans or expectations. It encourages us to detach from the obsession with perfection and to accept that loss and failure are part of the human experience, regardless of our meticulousness or diligence.
10. Politicians are lawyers who double down on being hated.
This implies that lawyers and politicians often must make tough decisions that won’t necessarily endear them to the public. Yet, in stepping into the political arena, politicians willingly increase their chances of public scrutiny and disapproval. The humor lies in the blunt honesty and cynical view of these professions. However, beyond the laughter, it reminds us of these roles’ complex and challenging nature, prompting us to consider the realities and sacrifices involved in public service.
11. Insurance costs more than it pays.
On the surface, it might seem like a cynical view, asserting that insurance is a losing deal for the insured. However, it subtly highlights the actual purpose of insurance: it’s not intended as an investment that will pay off, but rather as a safeguard against potential financial loss or damage. It’s a comic reminder that while we might grumble about insurance premiums’ costs, insurance’s real value lies in its ability to provide financial security and peace of mind when unexpected events occur. Thus, insurance’s true ‘payout’ is less about monetary returns and more about risk mitigation.
12. If people wanted your advice, they’d buy you a beer.
This quip suggests that people are often more receptive to advice when offered in a casual, relaxed, and friendly setting—like over a beer—rather than being imposed upon them. It’s a humorous reminder of the importance of rapport and shared experiences in communication. The jest also subtly cautions us about the unappreciated nature of unsolicited advice, hinting that people often prefer to seek counsel when they are ready to receive it rather than having it thrust upon them.
14. Blood is thicker than water until they’re frozen.
His version takes a literal turn, pointing out the physical reality that blood and water behave similarly when frozen. It’s a comic reminder of the relativity of traditional wisdom when faced with scientific facts. However, on a deeper level, it’s a witty commentary on the fluidity and variability of relationships. It suggests that even close bonds can become rigid and inflexible under certain circumstances, much like a frozen liquid.
15. Who says nothing is impossible; I’m doing it right now.
By humorously treating ‘nothing’ as a task he’s currently doing, he takes the phrase literally and flips its intended motivational message on its head. This comic inversion playfully highlights the irony and absurdity of language, reminding us that words can often be interpreted in multiple ways. Additionally, it subtly critiques the pressure of constant productivity, suggesting that sometimes doing ‘nothing’ is a valid and worthwhile endeavor, challenging the common notion that we must always be engaged in ‘doing something.’
16. If most people said what was on their minds, we would be bored too.
By suggesting that the contents of most people’s minds would be dull if verbalized, he playfully challenges the romanticized notion of the depth and intrigue of human thought. This jest humorously reminds us that not all unspoken thoughts are profound or interesting. On a deeper level, it also comments on the importance of communication quality over quantity, implying that the value of our words lies not in their volume but in their substance and relevance.
17. If opera is entertainment, falling off a roof is education.
His quote implies that just as some might find opera—a traditionally high-brow art form—difficult to appreciate as entertainment, one could absurdly argue that a painful, disastrous event like falling off a roof could be seen as an educational experience. It’s a humorous reminder of the subjectivity of personal taste and experience. Beyond the laughter, it also emphasizes the idea that lessons (and indeed, education) can come from unexpected, even unpleasant, experiences, albeit in a highly exaggerated and comical manner.
18. Most minds are like mixed water, sand, and cement and left to set.
By comparing minds to concrete—which starts as a flexible mixture but eventually hardens and becomes inflexible—he highlights the tendency for people to form fixed beliefs and opinions over time. The humor lies in the absurdity of likening the dynamic, evolving nature of the human mind to something as static and unchanging as concrete. Yet it serves as a comic reminder of the dangers of cognitive rigidity. It encourages us to keep our minds open and adaptable, resisting the urge to ‘set’ in our ways.
19. Most people are so lazy they refuse to exercise good judgment!
By cleverly likening ‘good judgment’ to a form of exercise, Alfred suggests that using sound judgment requires effort and diligence, much like physical exercise. He humorously implies that many people would rather take the easy way out or follow the crowd than put in the work to think critically and make wise choices. His remark serves as a playful yet pointed reminder to continually ‘exercise’ our judgment, despite the required effort.
20. Looking at precursors to events gives a 20/10 hindsight.
By suggesting that examining precursors gives even sharper hindsight—20/10, an indication of better than normal vision—he’s highlighting the paradox of foresight. While we often understand things perfectly in retrospect, recognizing precursors can help us predict or prepare for the future, but it’s rarely as clear or certain as hindsight. The humor lies in the ironic truth of this situation and serves as a wry reminder of the importance, yet difficulty, of learning from the past to inform our future actions.
21. Age emphasizes the results of good and bad traits of youthful habits.
The humor here lies in the blunt honesty of the statement – it’s an amusingly straightforward way to say that our youthful habits, both good and bad, will eventually catch up with us as we age. Beyond the comedic value, it’s a poignant reminder that the practices and habits we cultivate in our youth can significantly influence our health and character as we grow older. It prompts us to be mindful of our actions and choices today as they are investments in our future selves.
22. The usual projection of the world is stretched out on a long cylinder.
The humor comes from his literal interpretation of map projections, which distort Earth’s spherical shape onto a two-dimensional surface, often resulting in a ‘stretched’ appearance. The phrase, however, also humorously draws attention to any perspective’s inherent distortion and limitations. It subtly reminds us that our individual contexts and experiences shape our view of the world and that it’s important to be aware of these ‘projections’ and seek out multiple viewpoints to gain a more comprehensive understanding.
23. People prove the concept of conservation of energy by not thinking.
By humorously suggesting that people conserve energy by not thinking, he implies that thinking is an energy-consuming process that some people avoid to save effort. The comic wisdom here highlights a tendency in human behavior to take the path of least resistance and avoid strenuous mental activities. Beyond its humor, the statement serves as a satirical critique of intellectual laziness and a reminder to engage in active thinking and reasoning despite the effort involved.
24. A college jock keeps his brains well-supported in his shorts.
The humor comes from the absurdity of the metaphor, which humorously suggests that a jock’s intelligence is housed not in his head but in his athletic shorts. Beyond the joke, it’s a satirical critique of the cultural tendency to pigeonhole individuals based on their interests or abilities, reminding us to avoid simplistic categorizations and recognize the multidimensional nature of people.
25. When you’re out of your depth, keep your nose high and your mouth shut.
In its literal sense, it’s a humorous yet practical tip for staying afloat in deep water. Metaphorically, it advises us to maintain dignity and avoid speaking hastily when we find ourselves in unfamiliar or challenging circumstances. The comic wisdom here reminds us that it’s okay not to know everything and that sometimes the best course of action is to listen, observe, and learn rather than speaking out of turn or pretending to know more than we do.
26. Make sure the door is locked before an opportunity knocks.
The humor arises from the counterintuitive idea of deliberately ‘locking out’ opportunities. On a deeper level, it reminds us that not all opportunities suit or benefit us. It emphasizes the importance of discernment and the ability to say ‘no’ when an opportunity doesn’t align with our goals, values, or circumstances. In its comedic wisdom, this statement invites us to be selective and thoughtful in our choices rather than automatically embracing every opportunity that comes our way.
27. A balanced diet is equal parts of sugar, salt, butter, and booze.
Instead of promoting a mix of nutrients essential for health, he suggests a diet comprising ingredients typically consumed in moderation due to health concerns. The humor lies in the absurdity and blatant health contradiction of this diet. Beyond its immediate comic appeal, this quote serves as a satirical commentary on the often confusing and conflicting dietary advice that people encounter. In a roundabout way, it reminds us of the importance of balance and moderation in our diet.
28. An honest dentist’s chair has stainless steel hand grips.
He implies that a truly honest dentist would acknowledge the discomfort and fear many patients experience by equipping their chairs with sturdy hand grips for tense patients to hold onto. The humor arises from this absurd yet relatable imagery. Beyond the joke, it serves as a lighthearted reminder of the importance of empathy and understanding in healthcare settings. It suggests that acknowledging and accommodating patient fears can go a long way in providing better care.
29. For politicians, the bigger the pie his public creates, the bigger his slice.
By using the metaphor of a pie to represent public resources or wealth, he implies that politicians often stand to gain more personally when their constituents produce more wealth. The humor lies in the frankness of this cynical view of politics. Beyond the laugh, it’s a satirical reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability in politics to ensure that public resources are utilized for the benefit of all, not just a select few.
30. A lawyer is paid by the length of his briefs.
The humor emerges from the play on words with “briefs,” which in a legal context refers to a lawyer’s written arguments but also puns on the concept of brevity. The suggestion that a lawyer’s pay depends on the length rather than the quality or efficiency of their work satirizes perceptions of the legal profession. Beyond the chuckle, it serves as a humorous critique of any profession where billable hours might encourage inefficiency. It prompts reflection on the importance of value-based rather than time-based compensation.
31. Some presidents cry like babies when they don’t get their way.
His humor emerges from the incongruous image of a powerful figure like a president behaving like a petulant child. This jest points out the human tendency, irrespective of position or authority, to react poorly when thwarted. Beyond the laughter, it’s a critique of poor leadership characterized by a lack of emotional maturity and an inability to handle disagreement or defeat gracefully. It serves as a reminder of the importance of emotional intelligence, particularly in positions of power and influence.
32. The big advantage of living in the past is the arts were intelligible.
The humor arises from this somewhat grumpy, nostalgic perspective, implying that the evolution of art has led to a loss of clarity or comprehensibility. It’s a clever nod to the ongoing debate about the accessibility and interpretability of modern and postmodern art. Beyond its immediate humor, the statement serves as a reminder that art is subjective and its appreciation can vary widely among individuals based on personal taste, cultural background, and understanding of art history and theory.
33. The perfect crime is fame in getting it republished long after you’re gone.
The humor lies in the ironic labeling of this as a ‘crime’, which traditionally denotes unlawful activities. Instead, the ‘crime’ here is the delayed recognition, suggesting a misalignment between the artist’s lifetime and the audience’s appreciation. Beyond the initial laughter, this statement provides a satirical commentary on the often unpredictable and capricious nature of fame and success in the creative fields. It serves as a reminder that recognition may come late or even posthumously for many creators, underscoring the importance of pursuing creativity for its own sake.
34. An hour well spent is attending traffic court and observing justice.
The humor emerges from the irony of the situation – traffic court is often seen as a tedious and frustrating experience rather than an enlightening or rewarding one. By framing it as an opportunity to ‘observe justice,’ Neuman wittily highlights the minor infractions and everyday scenarios that make up much of our legal system’s work. Beyond the initial laugh, it serves as a satirical commentary on the nature of legal proceedings and a reminder that justice operates at all levels, from the mundane to the monumental.
35. At some restaurants, you need a credit card not to be washing dishes.
The joke derives from the classic scenario often seen in films or cartoons where someone unable to pay their restaurant bill is made to wash dishes as compensation. By suggesting that a credit card is a prerequisite to avoid this fate, he implies that some restaurants are so expensive that paying cash isn’t enough. Beyond the laugh, it’s a satirical commentary on the often exorbitant cost of dining out and a reminder of the importance of living within our means.
36. Money talks! That’s why they put rich people’s faces on the bills.
By suggesting that the faces on the bills are the ones doing the talking, he adds a humorous twist to the saying, implying that the wealthy individuals depicted on currency are the ones whose influence persists. The comic wisdom in this joke is a satirical critique of wealth’s enduring power and influence and the idea that financial success is often equated with importance or worthiness in society.
37. People offer sound advice to feel superior to other people’s problems.
The humor arises from the implication that the act of advising is not primarily about helping others but rather an ego-boosting exercise. This statement satirizes the sometimes self-serving nature of advice-giving, where the advice giver may derive a sense of superiority from their perceived wisdom or problem-solving skills. Beyond the initial laughter, it serves as a reminder of the importance of sincerity and empathy in offering advice and that the ultimate goal should always be to assist and support, not to elevate oneself.
38. Money inflates exponentially, so never have more cash than your immediate needs.
Generally, inflation erodes the purchasing power of money over time, but Neuman humorously suggests that the amount of money itself inflates, prompting the advice to keep minimal cash. The comedy comes from this absurd financial theory, which runs contrary to conventional wisdom about saving and financial management. Yet, underneath the humor, it playfully addresses a real concern about inflation and its effects on the value of money. The remark reminds us of the need for wise financial planning, including considering the impacts of inflation on savings and investments.
39. Farmers work from dawn to dusk; workers work till Friday night.
The humor arises from the oversimplified depiction of a farmer’s ceaseless toil contrasted with a more conventional worker eagerly awaiting the week’s end. This comment playfully suggests a romanticized, perhaps outdated view of the rural work ethic contrasted with the “9-5, Monday to Friday” urban routine. Beyond the chuckle, it subtly raises questions about our perceptions of hard work, the nature of different professions, and the balance between work and leisure in our lives.
40. A vacation is getting away from the problems in your house.
Rather than viewing it as a leisurely break for recreation or travel, he implies it’s a form of escape from domestic issues or chores. The humor lies in reducing something as exciting as a vacation to simply an evasion tactic. Beyond its immediate humor, the statement serves as a satirical commentary on the reality of home life, which can often include mundane or stressful tasks. It playfully reminds us of the need to balance work and relaxation, whether that ‘work’ is professional or domestic.
41. Gossip is a vanity that lets one feel superior to their superiors.
The jest lies in the paradox of using gossip, typically seen as a negative behavior, as a means to feel superior, particularly towards those who are actually in a superior position. By highlighting this ironic dynamic, Neuman cheekily unveils the sometimes petty yet human mechanisms used to cope with hierarchy and authority. Beyond the laugh, the statement serves as a commentary on the nature of gossip, reminding us of the potential pitfalls of engaging in such behavior and the importance of genuine self-esteem and respect for others.
42. Stealing a line from a book is plagiarism, but stealing ideas is being creative.
The humor lies in the fine line between plagiarism, which is legally and ethically wrong, and inspiration, which is often seen as a hallmark of creativity. While directly copying text is condemned, drawing from others’ ideas—though more abstract and harder to pin down—is often the norm in creative fields. This witticism serves as a satirical reminder of the nuanced and sometimes contentious nature of creative work, copyright, and the fine line between inspiration and imitation.
43. Politicians tell the truth when they call each other liars.
The irony and humor stem from the idea that politicians are only truthful when they’re accusing each other of deceit. By presenting this paradox, Neuman cleverly satirizes political discourse’s often contentious and manipulative nature. Beyond the humor, it serves as a commentary on the importance of integrity and honesty in public service, reminding us to critically evaluate political claims and hold our leaders accountable.
44. A therapist pokes into your mind where you hurt to discover if it hurts.
The humor stems from the redundancy of probing into an already acknowledged source of pain just to confirm its existence. While comical, the tongue-in-cheek portrayal of therapy also subtly highlights the difficult but necessary process of confronting and working through pain in therapeutic settings. Beyond the laugh, it serves as a lighthearted reminder of the value of emotional self-awareness and the complexities of mental health treatment.
45. The U.N. is where people who suppress free speech at home go to protest.
The joke is in the irony that leaders or representatives from countries where free speech is suppressed use platforms like the U.N. to express their views or objections. This contrast between domestic repression and international posturing highlights the sometimes hypocritical nature of international politics. Beyond the humor, it’s a reminder of the importance of political integrity and consistency and the ongoing struggle for universal human rights, including freedom of speech.
46. Good hospitality is helping your annoying guests feel comfortable.
The jest lies in the irony of going out of one’s way to make guests feel at ease, even when their behavior might be exasperating. While hospitality typically implies a joyful and welcoming attitude, Newman humorously extends it to the difficult task of accommodating less-liked guests. Beyond the immediate laughter, it playfully challenges our notions of hospitality and reminds us of the social grace required to manage difficult interactions with humor and patience.
47. A president must have a public majority, but Trump decided on Miss Universe.
Alfred E. Neuman’s quip offers a humorous take on political leadership, using the specific example of Donald Trump, who was a businessman and television personality before his presidency, notably owning the Miss Universe pageant. The humor lies in the play on the word “majority,” twisting its political connotation to a beauty pageant context. It’s a satirical way of juxtaposing Trump’s earlier career in entertainment with his later political career, suggesting a comedic incongruity. Beyond the immediate laughter, it’s a reminder of political leaders’ diverse and often unpredictable backgrounds.
48. Suburbs have alphabetized tree names for streets, but few have those trees.
The humor arises from the irony that streets in the suburbs are often named after various types of trees, suggesting a lush, natural environment. Yet, these very trees are frequently absent from the actual landscape. This comment wittily highlights the paradox of our desire for connection to nature, as reflected in street names, versus the reality of increasing urbanization. Beyond the jest, it serves as a reminder of the importance of integrating nature into our urban spaces for a healthier and more sustainable living environment.
49. Bosses aren’t paid for laboring but for making others labor.
The jest lies in the exaggerated simplification of a boss’s role as merely delegating work rather than doing the work themselves. This lighthearted jab at leadership underscores the disconnect between different tiers of an organization and how the value of management might be perceived. Beyond eliciting a chuckle, it serves as a reminder of the importance of effective leadership that balances delegation with direct involvement and the need for mutual understanding and respect across all levels in a workplace.
50. Random chance picks for jury duty, but never the lottery.
The jest is derived from the irony that while random selection might often lead to less-desired responsibilities like jury duty, it seldom seems to deliver the more desirable, like winning the lottery. Beyond the immediate laughter, the satirical observation underscores the unpredictable nature of luck and chance, offering a comic reminder to keep perspective and humor in the face of life’s various surprises.
51. Starting a war to get peace is like sticking a balloon with a pin.
The comparison to bursting a balloon with a pin emphasizes such a strategy’s self-defeating and destructive nature, as both actions lead to the opposite of their purported aims. Beyond its comic absurdity, the observation is a stark reminder of the disastrous consequences of armed conflicts, urging us to strive for peaceful resolutions to international disputes.
52. Why do banks have eight windows and three tellers?
The humor stems from the ironic incongruity of many service windows but insufficient staffing, a situation familiar to many who’ve waited in long bank queues. This humorous exaggeration not only lightens the frustration of such experiences but also prompts reflection on the importance of efficient customer service and resource allocation in businesses.
53. A faithful husband is one whose alimony checks are on time.
Instead of the traditional connotation of marital fidelity, “faithful” is satirically twisted to mean dependable in meeting financial commitments after a split. The jest lies in the ironic contrast between these differing expectations of faithfulness. Beyond the immediate laughter, it cleverly underscores the complexities and realities of relationships and the multifaceted nature of commitment, even when the relationship itself has ended.
54. Why does your dog bring your slippers and your wife bark at you?
The jest lies in the comic reversal of roles where the dog performs a subservient, pleasing action while the wife is depicted as ‘barking,’ a term usually associated with a dog’s behavior. This humorous exaggeration elicits laughter through its absurdity and serves as a lighthearted commentary on interpersonal relationships, reminding us of the importance of communication, understanding, and reciprocity within a relationship.
55. Why buy a new clunker when you can buy an older Lexus for less?
The joke arises from the ironic suggestion that a brand-new, low-quality car (a “clunker”) might be less desirable than an older, high-quality vehicle like a Lexus. Beyond the immediate amusement, this jest serves as a witty commentary on consumer culture and the often-misplaced emphasis on novelty over value and durability. It’s a reminder that ‘new’ doesn’t always mean ‘better’ and that wise consumer choices often involve looking beyond the allure of the fresh and the recent.
56. No one gets shocked in a plastic surgeon’s waiting room if your nose looks lousy.
The jest lies in the obvious yet unspoken acceptance that people visiting a plastic surgeon’s office are likely there to alter some part of their appearance they’re unhappy with. The statement comedically draws attention to the acceptance and non-judgment inherent in such a setting. Beyond the laughter, it subtly comments on society’s preoccupation with physical appearance and the lengths to which some go for perceived improvement, all while promoting an environment of acceptance and understanding.
57. Some wives are ventriloquists; their lips don’t move while the dummy talks.
The jest is in the witty comparison of a wife to a ventriloquist and the husband to a dummy, suggesting that she might be the true puppet master behind the scenes, controlling what he says. It highlights the often complex dynamics of relationships where one person may be seen to subtly influence or manipulate the other. Beyond its humorous surface, it can serve as a lighthearted reminder of the need for communication, authenticity, and mutual respect in any partnership.
58. An executive is a guy that exercises by riding a golf cart.
The humor comes from the ironic contradiction of considering riding in a golf cart as a form of exercise, a subtle jab at upper management’s perceived laziness or privilege. Beyond its comedic value, the quip satirically highlights societal observations about class, leisure, and the often blurred lines between work and play in high-level positions. It reminds us of the disparities between different roles within a corporate environment.
59. If we remembered our big mistakes, we would stay in bed and whimper.
The comedic element emerges from the exaggerated scenario of staying in bed and whimpering if we constantly dwell on our missteps. However, beneath its humor, the remark presents a profound truth about resilience and the power of forgetfulness as a coping mechanism. It reminds us that forgetting or moving past our errors is not necessarily a flaw but an essential part of human nature that allows us to progress, learn, and grow from our experiences.
60. A church bell calls for people to hurry, but it doesn’t go anywhere.
The witticism lies in personifying the bell as if it’s expecting people to rush, yet it itself remains stationary. On a deeper level, it provides a satirical commentary on religious customs or life’s rushed routines that often urge us to move hurriedly. At the same time, the supposed source of urgency remains unchanging or unmoved. It subtly invites us to ponder the contrast between the external demands placed on us and our own personal pace.
61. People in power always seek more power and more money.
The humor arises from the seemingly obvious but often ignored truth. The statement mocks the cyclical and unending desire for power and wealth that can pervade any hierarchical structure, whether political, social, or economic. Despite its comedic simplicity, the idea encourages critical thinking about societal structures, power dynamics, and the human propensity for greed, urging us to reflect on our own desires and motivations.
62. Speeches are like steer horns, a couple of points with much bull.
The joke lies in comparing speeches to the horns of a steer, suggesting they often consist of just a few significant points amidst a lot of “bull” – a colloquial term for nonsense or exaggeration. This witticism is a satirical take on how public addresses often contain more fluff than substance, cleverly critiquing a common practice in the world of politics, business, and beyond.
63. Some neighborhoods have more hoods than neighbors.
The humor comes from the pun on “hood,” a slang term for a neighborhood, but also for a criminal or a gangster. The phrase underscores the unfortunate reality that in some communities, criminal elements (the “hoods”) might overshadow the presence of peaceful residents (the “neighbors”). While the jest invites a chuckle due to its clever wordplay, it also nudges the listener to reflect on social issues such as crime, poverty, and inequality.
64. No one can figure out the tax form, so pay some reasonable tax and move on.
It exaggerates the baffling nature of tax paperwork and subtly criticizes the bureaucratic process. The jest lies in the casual, arguably reckless, suggestion to simply pay an arbitrary “reasonable tax” and move forward, which would likely lead to serious legal issues in real life. This seemingly absurd advice serves as a satirical comment on the need for more transparent and straightforward taxation procedures, underlining the comic wisdom within the statement.
65. Family reunions are great for hellos, goodbyes, and a little friendly suffering.
While these events are often associated with joy and bonding, they can also be a source of stress and discomfort due to interpersonal dynamics, old feuds, or simply the chaos of coordinating a large group. Neuman’s statement humorously acknowledges this duality, offering a wry commentary on the nature of family relationships. Comic wisdom lies in accepting the good with the bad and finding humor in the awkward or challenging moments that are part and parcel of any family gathering.
66. A sense of humor is based on close observation and irony in life.
The comic wisdom here underscores the importance of keenly observing life’s nuances and oddities and recognizing existence’s ironic and often absurd aspects. It’s about finding the humor in the discrepancies between what we expect and what actually happens, between ideals and realities, or between pretensions and actual capabilities. In essence, Neuman suggests that humor comes from a deep and often critical understanding of life and human nature, enabling us to see the world from a lighter and more playful perspective.
67. Elections are based on what people will believe politicians will do.
This satirical view draws attention to the fact that political campaigns often revolve around crafting narratives that voters want to hear, even if they might not align with the realities of governance or the politicians’ actual intentions. The comic wisdom underscores the often-unrealistic expectations placed on politicians and the electoral process, reminding us to maintain a healthy skepticism and to focus on track records and practicality rather than lofty promises.
68. Politicians seek to solve their unemployment problem.
The humorous wisdom here lies in the suggestion that politicians, in their quest for office, primarily focus on securing their own job rather than genuinely addressing unemployment issues among their constituents. This satirical view speaks to the perceived self-serving motives of some politicians and highlights the potential disconnect between political rhetoric and real-world impact, reminding us to question the true intentions behind campaign promises.
69. People believe in employment but feel it should be easier with more coffee breaks.
Neuman’s comic wisdom encapsulates the desire of many to enjoy more relaxation and breaks in their work schedule. It’s a lighthearted commentary on the human nature of wanting more ease and comfort, even in necessary and beneficial endeavors such as employment. It’s a subtle reminder that while work is essential, so too are rest and recreation, and there’s humor to be found in our constant grappling with finding the perfect balance.
70. Hmm? Lemonade is made from fake flavors, and furniture polish is made from real lemons.
This observation humorously exposes the ironic contradiction in our society, where artificial and synthetic substances are often used in products for human consumption, such as lemonade. At the same time, natural and organic ingredients are utilized in non-consumable items like furniture polish. Neuman’s comic wisdom here highlights the sometimes absurd decisions made in manufacturing, suggesting that we often undervalue the natural and overvalue the artificial lemons.
71. The new welfare question, paper or plastic, refers to sleeping arrangements.
Usually, the phrase “paper or plastic” refers to the choice of bags at a grocery store, but Newman uses it here to highlight the harsh realities of homelessness, where people may have to resort to using paper or plastic materials for shelter. It is a stark, darkly comic commentary on social issues, underscoring some people’s desperate conditions and the insufficient solutions welfare systems provide. His humor encourages us to question and consider how society could better address these problems.
72. Prison inmates get free T.V., hot meals, and college education, while outsiders live a life of crime to get the same things!
He’s suggesting that the benefits provided to prisoners—T.V., meals, education—are things that many law-abiding citizens struggle to access, thus highlighting the inequities and absurdities in society. It’s a comically exaggerated take on systemic flaws that prompt people to think about how societal structures can be improved to benefit all, not just those who break the law.
Ideas for creating a visual graphic for Alfred E. Newman.
Take Alfred E. Newman of 1954 and age him to an 83-year-old man in 2023. Created by labs_openai>com
What, Me worry? This was never about the little things, but for one issue in 1979, this was changed to “Yes, me worry!” after the Three Mile Island accident. But now, in 2023, the 6 reactors in Ukraine are said to have bombs set inside them, and it is clearly time to worry again.
A telephoto picture of the reactors.
A normal view of the 6 reactors from 14.2 kilometers across the Dnipro River from the city of Nikopol’ Hikonopb, a war monument.
Probaway - Life Hacks 