Well, that makes him seem intentional and at least somewhat interested in the process.

My theory:

He knew he would likely fold, and knew that he was seen as a real disappointment by a large group of people. So he said to himself, “aww, hell, I’ll give it the old college try, let’s see what this effort thing is all about.” So he actually showed up to that debate. Then, when it was over, he was so uncomfortable with breaking his long standing listless habits that he found himself once again overtaken by his lazy ways and couldn’t resist doing nothing much of anything once again.

And so now he’s gone.

That’s just a theory.

http://awaitingtenure.wordpress.com

CP,

I’m not sure. I’m undergoing massive intuition overload right now. I mean, it makes sense that the best exemplar would be flawless. At the same time, to allow people to improve themselves redemption (or forgeiveness) seems a necessarry societal trait.

We are all falable, and we all obtain benevolance by fits and starts right?

Moreover, the potental for redemption (or forgiveness) is one that we all possess and are capible of acting on. It seems to be, dare I say it, a virtue to those seeking personal betterment (providing it is applied correctly)?

Well, then how can the exemplar be flawless as they stand outside the pale of forgiveness?

Think about it this way, we forgive others because we are ourselves falable. But what happens when we are no longer falable? The traditional justification for forgiveness as a virtue breaks down and the exemplar no longer possesses the same push to forgive… or the need to be forgiven.