If when you say 'whiskey' you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason... then I am certainly against it. But, if when you say 'whiskey' you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine... the drink that enables a man to magnify his joy... then I am certainly for it. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
Interpretation
The quote expresses the dual nature of whiskey as both a destructive force and a source of joy depending on one's perspective.
In this quote, Noah S. Sweat presents a nuanced view of whiskey, contrasting its potential to cause harm with its capacity to foster joy and conversation. He acknowledges that whiskey can be seen as a 'devil's brew' that brings negativity and destruction, but also as 'philosophic wine' that enhances enjoyment and connection among people. Sweat's declaration of his stance implies a belief in the importance of context and perspective in evaluating substances like alcohol, encouraging open-mindedness without compromising one's principles.
In practice
This quote can be used in a discussion about responsible drinking at a social event.
Had the cub thought in man-fashion, he might have epitomized life as a voracious appetite, and the world as a place wherein ranged a multitude of appetites, pursuing and being pursued, hunting and being hunted, eating and being eaten, all in blindness and confusion, with violence and disorder, a chaos of gluttony and slaughter, ruled over by chance, merciless, planless, endless.
To be is to be perceived (Esse est percipi)." Or, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Everything on earth is beautiful, everything -- except what we ourselves think and do when we forget the higher purposes of life and our own human dignity.
If your mind is pure, all buddha-lands are pure.
Only those persons who have lived, really lived, are ready, welcoming, receptive, thankful to death. Then death is not the enemy. Then death becomes the fulfillment.
If something were brought about without an antecedent cause, it would be untrue that all things come about through fate. But if it is plausible that all events have an antecedent cause, what ground can be offered for not conceding that all things come about through fate?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.