First of all, pardon my French (I never really got that expression…), but I am using an analogy that requires the above ‘unmentionable’ word to be used.
I’m sure any of you who are at ease with English (as a language) and are surrounded by people who are at equal ease with English will have heard the term ” bullshit”.
Bullshit can be loosely described as something worthless. Now, the question remains: is it truly, intrinsically worthless?
Let’s get literal. Would you, given the chance, accept an offer of a big, stinky, steamy pile of bullshit. I actually mean shit that a bull shat out ?
(wow, you can really see my biology student side here, huh?)
I’m guessing you won’t. Allow me to guess your occupation: student? Banker? Shop owner? Restaurant waiter? Designer? Professional procrastinator? None of these (except, at some point, the last) require or create a desire for bullshit.
Now, what if you were a farmer. Better yet: a farmer with starving crops. Bullshit (and many other kinds of shit) has got to sound like an offer from heaven? Sure, it’s stinky, but it’s natural, it doesn’t come with all those negative effects industrial fertilizers have and it’s probably a whole limb cheaper!
I guess what I’m trying to get to is that hardly anything (if anything at all) is intrinsically worthless: it is only considered so because we are looking at it from a context that makes it seem worthless.
Things are considered worthless because they are out of context
Look at all the great “unappreciated geniuses” throughout history! We pity them for any ill-treatment they suffered and say they were ” ahead of their time”. Gaudi, Van Gogh, Mendel, da Vinci… the list is endless!