ellauri066.html on line 484: Nemesis (Greek: νέμεσις) is a philosophical term first created by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. The term means one who feels pain caused by others' undeserved success. It is part of a trio of terms, with epikhairekakia (ἐπιχαιρεκακία ) meaning one who takes pleasure in others' pain, similar to Schadenfreude, and phthonos (φθόνος) meaning one who feels pain caused by any pleasure, deserved or not, similar to envy.[1][2]
ellauri066.html on line 486: It is the opposite of pity, as pity is pain at undeserved misfortune.
ellauri066.html on line 518: In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle used epikhairekakia (ἐπιχαιρεκακία in Greek) as part of a triad of terms, in which epikhairekakia stands as the opposite of phthonos (φθόνος), and nemesis (νέμεσις) occupies the mean. Nemesis is "a painful response to another's undeserved good fortune", while phthonos is a painful response to any good fortune of another, deserved or not. The epikhairekakos (ἐπιχαιρέκακος) person takes pleasure in another's ill fortune.[33][34]
ellauri066.html on line 530: Researchers expected that the brain's empathy center of subjects would show more stimulation when those seen as "good" got an electric shock, than would occur if the shock was given to someone the subject had reason to consider "bad". This was indeed the case, but for male subjects, the brain's pleasure centers also lit up when someone got a shock that the male thought was "well-deserved".
ellauri156.html on line 539: His One Sin: The rabbis agree that Abner deserved this violent death, though opinions differ concerning the exact nature of the sin that entailed so dire a punishment on one who was, on the whole, considered a "righteous man" (Gen. R. lxxxii. 4). Some reproach him that he did not use his influence with Saul to prevent him from murdering the priests of Nob (Yer. Peah, i. 16a; Lev. R. xxvi. 2; Sanh. 20a)—convinced as he was of the innocence of the priests and of the propriety of their conduct toward David, Abner holding that as leader of the army David was privileged to avail himself of the Urine and Thumbeline (I Sam. xxii. 9-19). Instead of contenting himself with passive resistance to Saul's command to murder the priests (Yalḳ., Sam. 131), Abner ought to have tried to restrain the king by the balls. Others maintain that Abner did make such an attempt, but in vain (Saul had not enough to get a proper hold of), and that his one sin consisted in that he delayed the beginning of David's reign over Israel by fighting him after Saul's death for two years and a half (Sanh. l.c.). Others, again, while excusing him for this—in view of a tradition founded on Gen. xlix. 27, according to which there were to be two kings of the house of Benjamin—blame Abner for having prevented a reconciliation between Saul and David on the occasion when the latter, in holding on to the skirt of Saul's robe (I Sam. xxiv. 11), showed how unfounded was the king's mistrust of him, seeing Saul had no balls to speak of. Old Saul was inclined to be happy with a pacifier; but Abner, representing to him that the naked David might have found a piece of garment anywhere — even just a piece of sackcloth caught on a thorn — prevented the reconciliation (Yer. Peah, l.c., Lev. R. l.c., and elsewhere). Moreover, it was wrong of Abner to permit Israelitish youths to kill one another for sport (II Sam. ii. 14-16). No reproach, however, attaches to him for the death of Asahel, since Abner killed him in self-defense (Sanh. 49a).
ellauri171.html on line 1151: Prince Amnon refused outright to marry her, the callous streak already evident in David now coming out in the son. David was angry, but did nothing to resolve the situation, or even to punish Amnon for what he had done. This was typical of David – he could never chastise his sons even when they deserved it. Instead he did what many people have done when confronted with rape or incest – he protected the abuser rather than the victim, and tried to hush things up.
ellauri192.html on line 261: There is no objective measure, no slide rule for magnitude in literature. Balzac was convinced that Mrs. Ann Radcliffe, the purveyor of Gothic terror, was a finer writer than Stendhal, whom he admired. Tolstoy, one of the two writers who have freely refused the Prize - Sartre in 1964 was the other (Bob Dylan meant to be the 3rd until the Swedes upped the ante) - found Shakespeare's ''King Lear'' to be a puerile mess ''beneath serious criticism.'' (mitä se kieltämättä onkin, tai oikeammin setämiehen keitos). The only major fiction to come out of the American experience of World War II, James Gould Cozzens' fiction ''Guard of Honor,'' has fallen into oblivion, deservedly.
ellauri247.html on line 347: Americans had no more right to govern themselves than the Cornish, and "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" The French and Indian War was a conflict between "two robbers" of Native American lands, and that neither deserved to live there.
ellauri264.html on line 424: Norm Pattis used to receive a well deserved hate letter once a year from an elderly woman in California. Incensed over a $2 million award the criminal defense lawyer had won for a convicted rapist and murderer injured by guards during a prison escape attempt. He helps people who have trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys. Pattis specializes in cases that make most people cringe. He’s defended everyone from child murderers to rapists — he admits to being particularly drawn to homicide cases. If the allegation is heinous and the defendant reviled, chances are pretty good Pattis is involved.
xxx/ellauri167.html on line 574: The Archie Bunkers of America, impassive to the hippies’ and yippies’ plight, saw them playing the newsmen like a fiddle, getting free publicity for their cause and, ultimately, getting what they deserved from the police. The protesters hurled profanities at the cops. They engaged in street theater, nominating a pig as the Democratic presidential candidate. They attempted to sleep in the parks (defying the curfew) and to hold marches even though marching permits had been denied by the city. Allen Ginsberg even led the kids in chanting “Om.”
xxx/ellauri200.html on line 180: In awarding Naipaul the 2001 Nobel Prize in Literature, the Swedish Academy praised his work "for having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories." Kukahan tonkin runoili, olikohan kulturpersonligheten. The Committee added: "Naipaul is a modern philosopher carrying on the tradition that started originally with Lettres persanes and Candide. In a vigilant style, which has been deservedly admired, he transforms rage into precision and allows events to speak with their own inherent irony." The Committee also noted Naipaul's affinity with the novelist Joseph Conrad (toinen kaappikolonialisti pyllypää):
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 558: The family moved to Mid-City, Los Angeles, in 1930. Bukowski's father was often unemployed. To while away his time, with his mother's acquiescence, his father was frequently abusive, both physically and mentally, beating his son for the smallest real or imagined offense. Heini later told an interviewer that his father beat him with a razor strop three times a week from the ages of six to 11 years. He says that it helped his writing, as he came to understand undeserved as well as well deserved pain.
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 604: Barfly, released in 1987, is a barfingly semi-autobiographical film written by Bukowski and starring Mickey Rourke as Henry Chinaski, who represents Bukowski, and Faye Dunaway as his lover Wanda Wilcox. Sean Penn offered to play Chinaski for one dollar as long as his friend Dennis Hopper would direct,[53] but the European director Barbet Schroeder had invested many years and thousands of dollars in the project and Bukowski felt Schroeder deserved to make it. Bukowski wrote the screenplay, was given script approval, and appears as a bar patron in a brief cameo.
xxx/ellauri387.html on line 486: "Who?" said Pococurante sharply; "that barbarian who writes a tedious commentary in ten books of rumbling verse, on the first chapter of Genesis? that slovenly imitator of the Greeks, who disfigures the creation, by making the Messiah take a pair of compasses from Heaven´s armory to plan the world; whereas Moses represented the Deity as producing the whole universe by his fiat? Can I think you have any esteem for a writer who has spoiled Tasso´s Hell and the Devil; who transforms Lucifer sometimes into a toad, and at others into a pygmy; who makes him say the same thing over again a hundred times; who metamorphoses him into a school-divine; and who, by an absurdly serious imitation of Ariosto´s comic invention of firearms, represents the devils and angels cannonading each other in Heaven? Neither I nor any other Italian can possibly take pleasure in such melancholy reveries; but the marriage of Sin and Death, and snakes issuing from the womb of the former, are enough to make any person sick that is not lost to all sense of delicacy. This obscene, whimsical, and disagreeable poem met with the neglect it deserved at its first publication; and I only treat the author now as he was treated in his own country by his contemporaries."
xxx/ellauri387.html on line 497: We are angry at the epic voice, not for fudging, but for being right, for insisting that we become our own critics. There is little in the human situation more humiliating, in both senses of the word, than the public acceptance of a deserved rebuke. Except maybe getting caught redhanded playing with the guilty thing surprised.
15