Transcribe
Translate
Sparx, v. 1, issue 6, February 1948
Page 5
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
PEOPLE ARE NO DAMN GOOD BY JACK SPEER ANALESTOS: People are no damn good. PROTELAMNES: Oh? What's eating you now? A: I've just lately begun to see them as they really are. They-- P: But old boy, "no damn good" can't be part of things as they are. It's par of things as someone judges them. A: All right then, as I judge them, and as any clear-thinking person should judge them, human beings are a pretty sorry bunch. They fight a terrific war, and then due to their indifference, selfishness, lack of faith, and plain stupidity lose all the advantages they fought for-- P: Is it the Atomic Bomb which has gotten you into this mood? A: No, it's not. If it were certain that humanity is going to blow itself to kingdom come, there'd be a streak of unconscious decency in its foul nature. It's on the individual level that I'm really thinking about, and I don't just mean the letdown since the war--that only proves the depravity. Look at them in the large, any time and any place except a few rare bright spots, and you've got to admit that they're the most filthy, perverted, hypocritical, mean species in the whole animal kingdom. They show colossal ingenuity in finding ways to degrade themselves. P: Slow down, friend. Is it right to judge them by the standards of the animal kingdom? You wouldn't judge a helicopter by the criteria for a buggy, or a compometer by a typewriter. Should you apply the standards of dumb beasts to the marvelous mechanism man, whose functions are of an entirely different sort from animals'? I'll gran that so far as human and animal conduct is parable, men might come out morally bad (whatever that means) according to many tests. But is that so important compared to the other things that man has to do? A: Man things ot's important. That why he continually denies or tries to cover up his shortcomings in such things. P: Well, I have to admit that. My point was that man himself is the only generator of values, and is the measure of all things. How can you compare something to itself, or make any radical contrasts between itself and a large part of itself? Like the other day a lady of my aquaintance said that men were all alike, just children. I couldn't point out to her, but I can to you, that if childishness is imputed to half of humanity, the adult portion of the other half might better be considered the peculiar ones. Now, if you admit that the animal comparisons are rather irrelevant, and most-- A (breaking in): I don't have to use the animals for comparison. A fraction of one percent of mankind does approach our ideals, and most people, to their greater discredit, realize that they themselves are doing wrong and the fraction is right. Though the brilliant and virtuous minority--people like Jefferson, Emerson, ((Turn page, please)) 5
Saving...
prev
next
PEOPLE ARE NO DAMN GOOD BY JACK SPEER ANALESTOS: People are no damn good. PROTELAMNES: Oh? What's eating you now? A: I've just lately begun to see them as they really are. They-- P: But old boy, "no damn good" can't be part of things as they are. It's par of things as someone judges them. A: All right then, as I judge them, and as any clear-thinking person should judge them, human beings are a pretty sorry bunch. They fight a terrific war, and then due to their indifference, selfishness, lack of faith, and plain stupidity lose all the advantages they fought for-- P: Is it the Atomic Bomb which has gotten you into this mood? A: No, it's not. If it were certain that humanity is going to blow itself to kingdom come, there'd be a streak of unconscious decency in its foul nature. It's on the individual level that I'm really thinking about, and I don't just mean the letdown since the war--that only proves the depravity. Look at them in the large, any time and any place except a few rare bright spots, and you've got to admit that they're the most filthy, perverted, hypocritical, mean species in the whole animal kingdom. They show colossal ingenuity in finding ways to degrade themselves. P: Slow down, friend. Is it right to judge them by the standards of the animal kingdom? You wouldn't judge a helicopter by the criteria for a buggy, or a compometer by a typewriter. Should you apply the standards of dumb beasts to the marvelous mechanism man, whose functions are of an entirely different sort from animals'? I'll gran that so far as human and animal conduct is parable, men might come out morally bad (whatever that means) according to many tests. But is that so important compared to the other things that man has to do? A: Man things ot's important. That why he continually denies or tries to cover up his shortcomings in such things. P: Well, I have to admit that. My point was that man himself is the only generator of values, and is the measure of all things. How can you compare something to itself, or make any radical contrasts between itself and a large part of itself? Like the other day a lady of my aquaintance said that men were all alike, just children. I couldn't point out to her, but I can to you, that if childishness is imputed to half of humanity, the adult portion of the other half might better be considered the peculiar ones. Now, if you admit that the animal comparisons are rather irrelevant, and most-- A (breaking in): I don't have to use the animals for comparison. A fraction of one percent of mankind does approach our ideals, and most people, to their greater discredit, realize that they themselves are doing wrong and the fraction is right. Though the brilliant and virtuous minority--people like Jefferson, Emerson, ((Turn page, please)) 5
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
