adherents of Darwinism
never ask the right questions,
they never ask awe-inspiring
questions...
    they always ask the
                self-assured
                      permanent questions...
          sure, Aristotle was wrong
and Darwin was right...
but at least Aristotelian thinkers
asked the wrong questions
and prolonged life:
while Darwinian thinkers
asked the right cul de sacs
worth of ******* -
Darwinism merely said:
philosophy begins with yawns...
        truly it begins with awe...
but yawns it is...
              you can be right
but nonetheless insolent in approach...
        while also being wrong
but nonetheless solvable
and accommodating in approach...
  what is the meaning of life?
  to ask impermanent (particular) questions
rather than ask permanent (universal) questions...
                    a |
       straight   |
    line             |
                                        Berlin
                ­       |
Palestine    
                       |
                                        Churchill
Stalin
      ­                 |
                       ^
               evil    good
                                         morality
without a compass.
  to ask but never ask in order to
encompass an answer (replication) -
                                to ask in order to
experience the full potency of asking per se,
            and to ask it to stage
the fullest mobilisation of
                                    creating ontological
momentum...
                               a life not questioned
is not a life worth moralisation: akin to
the Socratic investigation and the worth of living...
hence the morality analogue:
   a life not investigated is not worth living...
a life not questioned is not worth moralising...
            to question is to become moral:
the more questionable the more moral -
the more moral the less impressionable.