That’s one reason why I don’t apologize for things. It’s because I’ve no right to expect you or anybody to accept anything I do or say — but I can always explain what I do or say. There’s no sense in apologizing, because nothing is ultimately defensible. But a man can act coherently; he can act in ways that he can explain, if he wants to.

The only demonstrable index to a man’s desires is his acts, when you’re speaking of past time: what a man did is what he wanted to do.

The idea is that you could have conflicting desires — say, the desire not to have dinner with us and the desire not to offend us. If you end by coming to dinner it’s because the second desire was stronger than the first: other things being equal, you wouldn’t want to eat with us, but other things never are equal, and actually you’d rather eat with us than insult us. So you eat with us — that’s what you finally wanted to do.

You shouldn’t say you’ll eat with us whether you want to or not; you should say you’ll eat with us if it satisfies desires in you stronger than your desire not to eat with us.

The authors of medical textbooks, like everyone else, can reach generality only by ignoring enough particularity.

— Now, is there any ultimate reason why the Cleveland Stadium shouldn’t seat fifty-seven thousand, four hundred eighty-eight people?

— None that I can think of, — I grinned.

— Don’t pretend to be amused. Of course there’s not. Is there any reason why it shouldn’t seat eighty-eight thousand, four hundred seventy-five people?

— No, sir.

— Indeed not. Then as far as Reason is concerned its seating capacity could be almost anything. Logic will never give you the answer to my question. Only Knowledge of the World will answer it. There’s no ultimate reason at all why the Cleveland Stadium should seat exactly seventy-seven thousand, seven hundred people, but it happens that it does. There’s no lreason in the long run why Italy shouldn’t be shaped like a sausage instead of a boot, but that doesn’t happen to be the case. The world is everything that is the case, and what the case is is not a matter of logic. If you don’t simply know how many people can sit in the Cleveland Municipal Stadium, you have no real reason for choosing one number over another, assuming you can make a choice at all — do you understand? But if you have some Knowledge of the World you may be able to say, “Seventy-seven thousand, seven hundred”, just like that. No choice is involved.

— It would not be well in your particular case to believe in God, — the Doctor said, — Religion will only make you despondent. But until we work out something for you it will be useful to subscribe to some philosophy. Why don’t you read Sartre and become an existentialist? It will keep you moving until we find something more suitable for you. Study the World Almanac: it is to be your breviary for a while. Take a day job, preferably factory work, but not so simple that you are able to think coherently while working. Something involving sequential operations would be nice. Go out in the evenings; play cards with people. I don’t recommend buying a television set just yet. If you read anything outside the Almanac, read nothing but plays — no novels or non-fiction. Exercise frequently. Take long walks, but always to a previously determined destination, and when you get there, walk right home again, briskly. And move out of your present quarters; the association is unhealthy for you. Don’t get married or have love affairs yet: if you aren’t courageous enough to hire prostitutes, then take up masturbation temporarily. Above all, act impulsively: don’t let yourself get stuck between alternatives, or you’re lost. You’re not that strong. If the alternatives are side by side, choose the one on the left; if they’re consecutive in time, choose the earlier. If neither of these applies, choose the alternative whose name begins with the earlier letter of the alphabet. These are the principles of Sinistrality, Antecedence, and Alphabetical Priority — there are others, and they’re arbitrary, but useful. Good-by.

Don’t you understand that all this rigmarole of flattery and chivalry — the whole theatrical that men perform for women — is disrespect? Any lie is disrespect, and a relationship based on that nonsense is a lie. Chivalry is a fiction invented by men who don’t want to be bothered with taking women seriously. The minute a man and woman assent to it they stop thinking of each other as individual human beings: they assent to it precisely so they won’t have to think about their partners. Which is completely useful, of course, if sex is the only thing that’s on your mind.