3 ms·
> Just the fact that they lived so much longer. That's not a reason, you're just repeating the question. "Having lived long" is a value neutral statement of fa
by bmicraft 1y ago
> Just the fact that they lived so much longer.
That's not a reason, you're just repeating the question. "Having lived long" is a value neutral statement of fact. How do you derive value from that?
> And are usually more wise in life experience.
So is that your true/only reason, a statistical probability of "knowing more"?
- lukan 1y ago"That's not a reason, you're just repeating the question. "Having lived long" is a value neutral statement of fact. How do you derive value from that?" It is a reason in itself. I don't know if I manage to live 10 years more, not speaking of 50 years more. Living long is a achievent on its own, not be brought down early by life. Because there is a lot that life has to offer to bring you down. That requires a minimum of wisdom.
- bmicraft 1y ago~99% of people manage that, it's like the worst possible indicator for the wisdom or quality of a person. All while at the same time putting everybody who didn't get the chance yet below them. It feels very arbitrary - there are a lot of better indicators than age for that.
- lukan 1y agoMaybe lets have a talk in 50 years about it?