I think I have a basic disagreement with what seems to be the assumption underlying the statement. It seems to be obligation-based. By that I mean, what you have is something you're not entitled to; rather it's something you have to buy--with a corollary that if you don't pay for it, you possibly should feel guilty.
My sentiment, if I were phrasing a similar thought, would likely be responsibility-based. I would ask: are you going to use what you have to the fullest? And then I would consider the values that go into how it's used. But the only obligation I think that comes with "what you have," is the obligation to use it well and wisely. Not the obligation to pay for it--but the responsibility to use it well.
I went to read the whole poem, and it's technically wonderful, but I don't have the mental capacity to fully analyze what the whole thing is saying, or how this one quote may have gained or lost by being lifted out of context. And I only was looking at it out of context.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-24 09:14 pm (UTC)My sentiment, if I were phrasing a similar thought, would likely be responsibility-based. I would ask: are you going to use what you have to the fullest? And then I would consider the values that go into how it's used. But the only obligation I think that comes with "what you have," is the obligation to use it well and wisely. Not the obligation to pay for it--but the responsibility to use it well.
I went to read the whole poem, and it's technically wonderful, but I don't have the mental capacity to fully analyze what the whole thing is saying, or how this one quote may have gained or lost by being lifted out of context. And I only was looking at it out of context.
~Amanda