I had one of those little pieces of Dove dark chocolate today. You know, the ones with the little messages printed on the inside of the foil wrapper? And it read:
"The further out of reach, the stronger the temptation."
Do you find this to be true? And is there a difference in the veracity of that statement when:
1. applying it to a literal, physical object of temptation at a physical distance (such as a piece of chocolate sitting on your desk versus across the room where you can see it but not reach it)
versus:
2. applying it to a more subjectively measured object of temptation at a different kind of distance (such as the Israelites wishing to go back to the way things were in Egypt, perhaps more a measure of emotional than physical distance)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that, while this statement may sound well-reasoned, a little thought proves it false. If something (a tangible object, in this case) that one desires is further away, although the desire may be the same, the temptation to acquire it is diminished. "Temptation" (T) might be defined as a constant (a) times the ratio of desire (D) over distance (d); T=a*D/d. Increased proximity, in other words, reduces the threshold of effort required to acquire something, thereby increasing temptation.
There is no such thing as temptation with chocolate. Temptation requires a living subject that ATTEMPTS to resist.
You speak truth, Diran, and the evidence is my third hip.
And as for you, James...is there some sort of equation for how difficult it would be for a theater major ten years out of college to follow your brilliantly logical comment?
Post a Comment