Personally, I think it's great that Fry has been so forthcoming with his travails. It helps others tremendously to know that they are not alone.
I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification, independent of brain-chemistry. Hamlet is right for the wrong reasons. These are my beliefs:
The only real reason to continue is because you think that you can contribute, in at least a small way, to the long-term well-being of humanity. You, an individual, are a cell in a vast organism of humanity, and your duty is to find something useful to do. There are many ways to do this, as a (spiritual, physical) healer, as a (artistic, technical) creator, or as a player of (business, political) games (who, by the way, use the output of the first two types in the game).
The "long-term well-being of humanity" itself has many possible expressions. On the largest scale, it means making sure that humanity itself can survive any calamity. That means not only taking care of this planet, making sure that it can sustain life, but it also means reaching and colonizing other places in the solar system and galaxy. Given the incredible work required to build a self-sustaining colony orbiting the Earth (which is the only viable option given our level of technology) maintaining intellectual freedom is paramount. Constructing social/political/economic systems that reward power to those with self-restraint, and engender trust in those who could harm us is also important. On a smaller scale, raising children is crucially important, because the organism of humanity needs new cells to replace the cells that die.
Comedians like Stephen Fry are our philosophers. They perform a remarkable feat of alchemy, taking the banal horrors of political and social life and transmuting them in to something funny, something insightful, something that makes you think. Humor is an effective coping mechanism when we face our own prejudices, our own contradictions and, importantly, the same mistakes we see in others. Too often our leaders, and indeed we ourselves, don't laugh enough at the tragedies of our age - for laughter is more powerful than hate, because it criticizes injustice but mercifully leaves behind the terrible burning that anger creates.
> I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?
The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue. I have several problems with that:
1. The whole idea that you can actually with your belief systems decipher what is good for all and then actually do it. History is littered with people who have terribly damaged the world; everyone of them (from the African dictators who slaughtered for freedom) probably thought they were doing good.
2. Why does humanity need to continue? Why of all the species that have come and gone and will keep doing that are we so special? Are we particularly nice to each other? God, no. Are we particularly more brutal than other species out there? I think probably not; more inventive, yes; but about the same in terms of brutality.
3. Does the Universe particularly care about whether you the snowflake exists or not? Probably not. It is unfeeling, uncaring and simply is.
Ultimately, life is absurd and finite. The finiteness everyone is aware of; even those who are too wrapped to be aware of the absurdity. There are a few options then why people continue:
1. The promise of an afterlife; sadly not convincing any more.
2. Reasoning like that of Camus - he says that the only way to deal with the absurd is to revolt against it; live in the moment, enjoying the pleasure and the pain of the fleeting. That is one way to approach this problem, but is it enough?
> The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue.
Ah, but at least I'm trying. And as for those others who have tried, failed, or even done harm - I'm glad that they tried, too. The major pitfall that I see people falling into is not having any real, positive goal that is bigger then themselves. Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly.
Why is a life with purpose (a synonym to "with aim") better than one without? The simple answer applies to your selfishness: because you'll be more confident in your dealings with others, you'll be calmer, and you'll sleep better. Knowing who you are and what you're really playing for gives you a perspective that puts you above the fray. It lets you pick your battles. It helps you make hard decisions (particularly with relationships). Indeed, it lets you see your day-to-day struggles inside the context of a much greater goal.
The drawback to larger purpose, of course, is that it's easy to lose patience with it. It's easy to lose your way - to forget your purpose, and to get drawn into the petty, pointless status contests that dominate most peoples' lives (note that you may need to take part on such contests, but when you understand them for what they are, games, then you can get better at and win.)
The reasons living your life with purpose are better than without are much like working on a software project with purpose vs without. The latter is difficult, almost impossible, and extremely painful. Purpose in the context of software should be defined by leadership, and it can be very arbitrary. But it must be there or you will flail and fail.
Good points... I like point number 2, as I have often thought that there is nothing intrinsically "good" or "bad" about the existence of life in the universe, it is simply a beautifully complex arrangement of atoms, one that pleases us to contemplate and behold.
I do feel like some historical figures that damaged the world did so not out of a feeling of doing what was "good," but more like what they felt was right for them, based on their priorities and worldview (perhaps this is what you meant). Selfishness could fall under this category, if these people felt that certain levels of selfishness were acceptable to them. Indeed, all of us attempt to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness... some people just have balances that tip toward destruction. This is not to forgive them for their crimes, but I've become increasingly skeptical that everyone thinks they are doing "good" in the sense of "good for humanity."
Anyway, my personal goal is to try to live an enjoyable life while doing my best to avoid harming others in pursuit of that life. I feel like this is a pretty common stance.
The laws of physics, as we currently understand them, describe a universe where it is mind-bogglingly difficult to spread life between the stars. There are literally no science fiction movies (although a few stories) that capture the level of this difficulty. We move through life thinking that some physics break-through is going to give us hyperdrives.
I don't think we'll ever get hyperdrives. If any sentient species invents them, then it will be possible to destroy stars with them. Indeed, I suspect that life is fairly common in the universe, and that countless intelligent species have arisen and died off without leaving their home-planets. The difficulty of the endeavor is like a gigantic challenge, a gauntlet thrown down by the universe that asks, can you do it?
Some people want to climb Everest to see if they can do it. I want to see if humanity can build self-sustaining colonies on other worlds. It just so happens that my Everest ensures that all of the hard work we do on health, justice, technology, etc doesn't die out with us.
why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification
the two aren't really connected. we continue because it's hard to think of something that is more strongly selected against, in evolutionary terms, than not wanting to do so.
we are bred for survival. all our ancestors survived long enough to have offspring...
so we continue because, generation after generation, that is what is selected for. rationality isn't that relevant.
> Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.
Good heavens, is that what you heard? Sacrifice means giving something up; I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. You are clearly free to pick that purpose for yourself (I hope you do), or pick another purpose, or none at all.
And we are both free to advocate for our choices in the hopes of inspiring others who, at least in my case, may not have thought about it in quite these terms. You clearly don't like the sound of my purpose, so why don't you share yours?
> I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve.
What exactly is that?
> so why don't you share yours?
Just as the body has a pleasure/pain mechanism, so the mind has a joy/suffering mechanism.
The biological purpose of this mechanism is to give you joy when you experience physical pleasure, and pain when you experience physical pain; but moreover, to regulate the anticipation of physical pleasure/success and physical pain/failure. That anticipation is mediated by your rationally (or not) chosen values. There is more that can be said about this... for example, self-esteem comes from building a character that allows for the rational assumption that you can expect continued success as an organism, and the rewards thereof.
So, my purpose is to experience joy and happiness in my life by choosing and pursuing rational values, given the constraints I mentioned above.
Obviously, the amount of philosophy you can do in an online comment is pretty limited. What I've said is just a summary. After all, I started in ethics, whereas a full philosophical exposition would start with metaphysics or epistemology.
Since your post was mainly about other people, let me say: other people are valuable to me, because they can be friends, lovers, trading partners, etc. So, there are good arguments to be made for helping others. I think arguing it from "duty" is not doing it in a rational way and will lead to bad conclusions.
By the way, I want to make it clear that when I called what you said "disgusting hogwash," that wasn't a reflection on you at all. I just wanted to call out what I saw as a bad argument that I think could influence people to go in a very bad personal direction.
>> a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve.
> What exactly is that?
This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully, or perhaps at all, as answering that question was it's subject. I suggest you read it again, and perhaps this time more slowly and with an open mind.
> your post was mainly about other people
This also implies that you did not read my original comment well or at all.
As for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. But thanks for the clarification.
> very bad personal direction.
...and yet, you seem to have judged my view as bad without comprehending it. How can you do that if you don't know what it is? Perhaps you are goading me? Well, I'll write this one comment, in the hopes that you really will re-read what I wrote and understand it.
> This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully
No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that point.
I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it.
> for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive.
I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective. Pointing out that that is what it is, is a substantive criticism.
> I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful.
Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.
> I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it.
It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.
> when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective
I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.
> These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.
Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather pointless.
That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something is useful, it has to be useful for someone to do something worth doing.
Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and "to what end?"
> Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.
It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure.
> Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else.
That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand.
> Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market?
It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics.
> Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.
Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction.
I can assure you that Rand would not recoil at my (at least) approximately accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think, my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she wrote.
> It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused.
Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.
1. I'm still not seeing backup for your claim that I was asking anyone to sacrifice themselves for the good of others.
2. You should read Objectivist Epistemology, where she connects her ethical system to her metaphysics. It's fairly execrable as philosophy goes, but it does underscore my point that she's fundamentally driven by her idealism, particularly about the nature of truth. (BTW that's why it's called Objectivism and not Selfishism).
Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong. Emotions are not vestigial. Reason is one tool in the box among others. And when self-interest, rather than self-restraint, becomes widely accepted as the criteria for merit, we end up with a system like we have today, where a docile public unable to even articulate a criticism of abuse of power, since there is no such thing as "abuse of power" in a framework that rewards only self-interest.
I've tried to engage productively with you, even to the point of chiding you for being rude without retaliating myself, but now you're just being an asshole.
I've been studying philosophy as a hobby/passion for many years. I've read the work you're referring to, and a whole hell of a lot more. You have a very, very naive understanding of Objectivism.
> Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong.
Likewise, you really do sound like a young <X>, and in a few years, you'll realize how wrong you are about everything.
That is, literally, the sum of your argument. That is really pitiful.
And for all you know, I could be a 55 year old philosophy professor (though I'm not).
I only skimmed this exchange, and I have no dog in this fight, but you should be aware -- you seem to be the only one using obscenities, and you started this exchange with "Sorry, but this is a load of disgusting hogwash".
None of these comments are very friendly-feeling to me (on either side... you're both obviously feeling defensive), but if you start the exchange with that kind of comment, you're the first to deploy obscenities, you're more actively insulting, etc., you can't really claim the higher ground at the end.
I hope this is useful... it's hard to discuss these kinds of things, but if you can manage it (without getting tangled up in attack/counterattack) it can be rewarding.
It's been a personal goal of mine to get to the point where I never say something online that I wouldn't say in person, and so far I've made a lot of progress, but it looks like the next step is to never use obscenities.
So, you're right, thank you, and that is helpful.
I strongly disagree that I was more actively insulting. I think a detailed reading of the conversation speaks for itself on this.
I spend a lot of idle time thinking about death and how I feel in relation to it. I hope to be among the first generation of immortal humans, and yet I have no particular reason for wanting to live forever or even wanting to live until tomorrow. Life is good, but frankly, it's bad in equal measure.
In the end, though, it's all I have -- it's all I am. As feeble, uncomfortable, and tenuous as the single, lonesome life may be, that is the only thing I'll ever know. How could I throw it away -- throw myself away -- the only thing of me that might possibly have any value?
How can it possibly be, in an audience like HN has, that no one mentioned sheer curiosity until this post? I know we're not all intellectually dead here.
Especially once you get old enough to have the slightest spark of nostalgia? Or the smallest ability to pattern match/model, hypothesize, test, and conclude?
How can the HN audience, of all groups, not be interested in the future solely for the future's sake if nothing else?
Curiosity is my #1 driving force. That is why I ponder questions like "why do we continue?" There is nothing quite like the sensation of "clicking", figuring something out, attaining the ability to speak about a complex subject with ease. It's wonderful.
And I discovered that curiosity itself is absolutely a drug. By itself, it is merely another path to acquire certain sensations - the sensation of learning, the sensation of innovating, the sensation of connecting the dots. Indeed, this is the drug that most people here share. Curiosity is another form of pleasure-seeking, complete with it's own set of dark sides (the obsession, the depression, etc).
Curiosity, though, is the highest of the pleasures. It is the only pleasure that can reach beyond itself to the truly new. In my case, I was perplexed by the pointlessness of the world. All of the work in technology and science. All of the factories pumping out electronics and gadgets. And the question arose: what is all of that for? And even more simply, where does it all go? The second answer came first: entropy, war, consumerism. And it struck me: what a waste. Entropy cannot be avoided, but clearly mankind has excess productive capacity, and more clearly it's being channeled into destructive purposes. We aren't building monuments, we are building disposable goods to be burned up in the great bonfires of consumerist vanity and mostly pointless nationalism.
And the thought arose in me: we need, I need, something positive to work toward. We all need it. We need something positive, something lasting, something beyond ourselves, to channel our excess productive capacity into. We need to know that what we make won't get burned up in a war or thrown into a trash heap. And what better option than an attempt to colonize other worlds? Here was a worthy goal, extremely difficult and demanding of us intellectually and economically. And if successful, would ensure that Life would live on no matter what calamity struck us here at home.
> I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?
To add my own perspective, I'm not really driven by contributing to the betterment of humanity as a whole. Humanity in the small in the form of a community and/or a (potential) family, perhaps, but I'm not audacious or driven enough to consider that what I do has a rippling effect.
On the other hand, I continue because I'm so interested in what people can create. Music, indie games, a bit of programming, a new novels here and there discussing the tendencies of people and of nature, a modern philosophy for those unversed in its finer languages and arguments. I'm in a rather fortunate position that I can spend a non-trivial amount of time consuming and discovering the volumes of culture that a globally-connected people can make. When the barriers to creative expression have been lowered enough that all you need is an active imagination, the drive to set it to work, and the time to put it down - that's what I get out of life. I want to see what people can come up with.
You are taking as an assumption that the value of the future must be more than of the present. Our experience and concept of time cannot, necessarily, be extracted from the brain. Given, what we might call a tragic end for humanity, even if it is sometime in the near future, does not retroactively place a tragic value on the past.
Not all things have to have a reason for existing, in fact not all things can have such reason - the very concept of something having a reason is just a product of our utilitarian view of the world and one that can not be applied infinitely; at the end something has to exist for its own sake.
My goto metaphor for life is making a picture with a paint that evaporates from the canvas immediately after having made the last stroke - it will not produce a dent in the universe but nevertheless you can take pleasure in the process of painting it. Before I die I would like to have the feeling that I expressed everything I am capable of expressing, in terms of emotions, thoughts, writings, inventions, so that there is no reason any more for me to continue living anyway. My capabilities are definitely finite, so it should be attainable.
To be is rare, to not be is not. Rare things are precious for their novelty if nothing else. We are going to die in any event, so we might as well live while we can.
I can assure you that if the only reason I have to live is because I have a supposed duty, I will kill myself. I hope everybody else do to. Nobody should live like a slave.
Your reasons for continuing are optimistic and perhaps privileged. For a large amount of people, especially for minorities and other groups in the past, contribution to the long-term well-being of humanity was not the goal. Some people had to watch as their children or parents were taken from them by war or sometimes trade and slavery. Perhaps those people sought revenge and reunion. Others were born into extreme poverty and prejudice. Perhaps they seek equality. Others were born into abundant wealth and perhaps they seek to amass more wealth and take advantage of a money-driven world. Yet other were born into internment camps and reservations. Maybe they continue out of ancestral pride or out of a sense of justice and reality. Because of nature of humans (i.e., greediness and hatred), in my opinion, the long-term well-being of humanity is a feeble goal meant for Engineers and Scientists for the most part.
At the same time, as Stephen Fry points out here, some people continue because others won't allow them to quit. Or, in a lot of situations, they can't quit without throwing the lives of their families and friends into a gambit.
Personally, I'm more of an Absurdist or Nihlist, and I don't really see much of a point to life. I continue because I'm seeking some kind of meaningful death. In that journey, I've picked up many people as acquaintances, lovers, family, etc, and if I can at least make some of them happier or better off, then maybe it was worth it.
> Personally, I'm more of an Absurdist or Nihlist, and I don't really see much of a point to life. I continue because I'm seeking some kind of meaningful death. In that journey, I've picked up many people as acquaintances, lovers, family, etc, and if I can at least make some of them happier or better off, then maybe it was worth it.
What is a "meaningful death"?
People around you are happy because of stuff in their head; you are merely an external event. E.g. I have a friend who hates dogs, she gets unhappy at the sight of one. I like dogs. The external event is the same, only the belief system changes. Does that inherently render the object (the dog here) worthy or unworthy?
A meaningful death only makes sense in context of a meaningless death, which what we're sort of "destined" to have. In the scope of the majority, the planet, the universe, our lives are fairly unimportant. Similarly, our deaths are equally unimportant. They don't mean anything except for an external stimulus to those who have faint memories of you. A meaningful death would be the opposite of that. It's purposefully nebulous because if I could have meaningful death, it must have meant that my life was meaningful or that I somehow derived the meaning of life. Absurdists believe that there probably is some underlying meaning to life, but that it cannot be comprehended by humankind.
Anyways, I agree with you that I'm merely an external event. In your example, the dog is neither worthy or unworthy, since that's subjective and has no inherent meaning. Whether the dog is worthy or unworthy is also irrelevant to its life or death. That's to say that although I truly believe that there's no purpose to all of this, I cannot answer that question until I've died. In that case, my life is spent trying to find a meaning in death.
> In essence, there maybe meaning or maybe not; you probably won't find out till you are dead. By then, you are dead. This is a rabbit hole.
You've got what I'm trying to say perfectly.
> Why does it matter what you pick?
I don't think it does matter what you pick, honestly. I like to simplify it to a complex game of chess. No matter what, the game will end. If you wish to end the game early, you can choose poor moves or resign. But if you want to see the game out to the very end and possibly learn something in the process, you should choose what you feel to be the best move. It doesn't matter if you pick the best move or not, it only matters that you pick something you believe in. Similarly, in life, you do the best you can. You gather all of your facilities, your mind, your gut, your personality, etc, and you follow that path. No other path is inherently better than another and no other life is inherently worth more or less than yours. That's not to say we're all equal in life, but rather that we're indistinguishable in death.
> Your reasons for continuing are optimistic and perhaps privileged.
Without a doubt - and I would remove the "perhaps". I am incredibly lucky to have been born in the time and place that I was, with the mind and body that I have. Ensuring the long-term survival of humanity, I believe, is the most important but most difficult and demanding goal a person can have, and only the wealthiest in the world would even attempt it. And indeed: if there's any worthy cause for the wealthy, it's this.
Consider a world where poverty, cancer, child-abuse, government abuses are totally eliminated. Now a comet strikes Earth and wipes out all life larger than an insect from the surface of the planet. Would that not be a bitter irony?
I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?
I don't see death as innately undesirable (though the period immediately before it can be painful) but I think that karma is real (not the loopy, Westernized kind; it occurs over millennia and its only continuation is through the mind itself-- nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies) and that rebirth is true.
Choosing to die isn't necessary karmically negative-- and euthanasia goes into a different category-- but killing anyone (including oneself) in anger or out of a negative emotion probably is karmically negative, and the moment between lives is one of the most powerful/karmically charged points that one faces. So, for me, it just seems like a risk I don't want to take. Even when life seems horrible, I don't kid myself into believing for a second that I couldn't be born again much worse off, facing all the same karmic problems but with less in the way of resources.
(No, I'm not saying "suicides go to hell" because I'm not sure I believe in a hell; but I am saying that I think an afterlife is, although certainly not proven, more likely than not and I don't want to go there on bad terms.)
I will take another go at explaining what OP said. Things you do have consequences; if you beat your wife every day, it is likely that your son will solve his problems by beating people. You will be dead soon, he will live on to inflict this on the world.
> nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies
Evidence of reincarnation would be astounding! Interestingly, even if reincarnation were proven, scientifically, to happen, it wouldn't change my belief at all. My duty is to Earth life in general, and the human organism in particular, and that's true whether my mind is the same age, or very much older, than the body I'm currently wearing. :)
There's evidence, but not proof, for reincarnation. (It's probably impossible to prove or refute.) Researchers like Ian Stevenson have worked on it.
Personally, I prefer not to try to remember past-life memories. If there were a reason for it, I would.
Also, I tend to think (and I know this is an unpopular view in CS circles) that there probably are some paranormal interactions between consciousness and the world. Where I call bullshit is when people claim control of it-- that they can talk to dead people or predict the future or communicate telepathically. That stuff is all bunk.
I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification, independent of brain-chemistry. Hamlet is right for the wrong reasons. These are my beliefs:
The only real reason to continue is because you think that you can contribute, in at least a small way, to the long-term well-being of humanity. You, an individual, are a cell in a vast organism of humanity, and your duty is to find something useful to do. There are many ways to do this, as a (spiritual, physical) healer, as a (artistic, technical) creator, or as a player of (business, political) games (who, by the way, use the output of the first two types in the game).
The "long-term well-being of humanity" itself has many possible expressions. On the largest scale, it means making sure that humanity itself can survive any calamity. That means not only taking care of this planet, making sure that it can sustain life, but it also means reaching and colonizing other places in the solar system and galaxy. Given the incredible work required to build a self-sustaining colony orbiting the Earth (which is the only viable option given our level of technology) maintaining intellectual freedom is paramount. Constructing social/political/economic systems that reward power to those with self-restraint, and engender trust in those who could harm us is also important. On a smaller scale, raising children is crucially important, because the organism of humanity needs new cells to replace the cells that die.
Comedians like Stephen Fry are our philosophers. They perform a remarkable feat of alchemy, taking the banal horrors of political and social life and transmuting them in to something funny, something insightful, something that makes you think. Humor is an effective coping mechanism when we face our own prejudices, our own contradictions and, importantly, the same mistakes we see in others. Too often our leaders, and indeed we ourselves, don't laugh enough at the tragedies of our age - for laughter is more powerful than hate, because it criticizes injustice but mercifully leaves behind the terrible burning that anger creates.
Please, Stephen, continue.