Jonny Gibson

Excuse the critique, but ...I've always thought there's a bit of logic problem  in this. If the last become first and the first last, then are the newly appointed last, going to be first again in an endless loop.  If not, it seems harsh on the 'first'. In fact how are we defining 'firsts'? If I save money and not buy fancy cars and instead invest in my kids education and well-being giving then the best start in life (or if they have the misfortune to be talented or beautiful)... Then they become 'first' are they doomed to be 'last'?    Obviously it's a nice thought that 'it will all be alright in the end for people who have it tough', but just believing it doesn't make it so.      I'd say the 'lasts' tend to have their lot in life improved through politics, medical and other scientific research and practical help from others. 

I think you are over selling the revolutionary nature of it as well,  isn't it really just a bit like socialism



i think your question on how we define "firsts" cuts to the heart of our problem (and it is a problem). That we tend to do so, individually and as society, in a rather arbitrary fashion underlines the absurdity of regarding the intrinsic value of a human being in terms of a status we've dreamt up ourselves. Us middle class bozos might regard educational achievement as "first", others wear ignorance like stars on an epaulette. Different "firsts", but Christ (I think!) says they're equally last. The endless loop doesn't seem all that illogical to me... in fact it seems an appropriate metaphor.

Steve (but not Stockman)

Jonny Gibson

But, if I may, doesn't that make is even more illogical? Ur saying that you dont think there even are any firsts to me made last.  Stocki's example of firsts were those who pass gcse's and are dedicated talented sports people.  He seems to be saying they're screwed. Sheesh.   Following the logic, there's almost something of the jihadi about it... don't worry there are many riches in heaven etc


No, far from it, i'm suggesting that our societies have plenty of "firsts", plenty of hierarchies to be top (or bottom) of. But I'm suggesting that none of them provide even a rational, never mind moral, basis for assessing the worth of a human being. And I think that would still be the case even in the absence of any kind of afterlife. BTW, jihadis are a case in point: They enjoy high status in the societies they are part of, based not on who they are, but what they do... It's surprising just how broadly counter-cultural the teachings of Christ were, and remain.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Blog powered by Typepad