Much of philosophy is case studies of extremes. I don't think the benefits of stoicism, for example, means that any real human should act as a strict stoic.

Rather, philosophical debate is to me, a means of assessing the two ends of a sliding scale, and giving us tools to decide how far we want to stand on various scales of human behavior.

In this case, of course you don't endlessly forgive an aggressor. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity, as the saying goes.

I think the important point of this is to realize that if you want to reverse a situation with two bad actors, then somebody needs to forgive. That people are dynamic, and if you do have the leeway to be generous and give a second chance, then you should consider whether there is a reasonable possibility of the other person reciprocating in kind. Key point being like you said -- whether the bad faith behavior is highly predictable.

Just as generations of Japanese cannot forever hate all Chinese or Americans, or Jewish and Germans, or Americans and Russians.

Applies to things like romantic relationships as well. Everybody starts off with an open heart, and closes off if they are hurt by someone else. But you can either stay closed off and in pain forever, or allow yourself to be vulnerable in the hope that the other person reciprocates.

Some moderation makes sense -- like you said, all carrots, all sticks, neither of those approaches will work.

You can't turn the other cheek every time, but you also shouldn't be pasting him back forever.

At some point, somebody needs to turn the other cheek. Somebody needs to be the one to forget past grievances, and give another chance. And of course, hit back again if they squander that opportunity for reconciliation.

If your blind eye is smaller, it's called phthisis, meaning it shrank because the blood supply to the useless organ has effectively been irreversibly shut off (oversimplification). Even if the brain connections could be made, it still wouldn't be able to see because it will never have enough blood supply. You'd probably need a full eye transplant, and by the time we manage to do that, we can practically do full head transplants.

Really great progress they're making in the science though. It's a shame, about your misfortune.

Short answer is that it's not possible.

Long answer, most likely, the muscles are weak and imbalanced from disuse, so you might not be able to point your eye in the right direction to even begin making connections. If all of the biology is OK, then some connections can (possibly) be made, but 1 million to 1 odds, you'll never ever be anywhere close to happy with the vision.

You'd have to cover the good eye, and go through life using only the blind eye, likely for years. Learn to feel things while looking at them, and hope that your brain makes the right connections between specks of light and the physical form in your hands. You might get to the point where you can see that you're holding a vague oblong mass, and guess that it's a fork because it feels like one. That would be considered a success by current standards. At best, that eye might help you fumble your way around the world, slightly better and safer than being blind. But reading, recognizing faces, probably never.

Protect your good eye. Don't smoke, keep blood pressure/cholesterol down, don't become overweight or diabetic. Avoid getting sick. See your eye doctor regularly. Most importantly, wear some sort of shatterproof eyewear at all times. You don't have "back-up" eye like other people. Be well.

"fusion" is not "latent heat of fusion"

That's like saying hot dog isn't a valid term that means an American style sausage in a bun, because look what comes up on Google when you search "dog".

Of course if you search a different term, or only part of a term, you will get a different result.

Explained another way: the same amount of heat that goes into the house, will come out of the house eventually.

Only question is how much extra heat do we generate by running out AC units to pump the heat out?

These days, the drawing an exact likeness doesn't have as much point, but the underlying skill certainly does.

If you can legitimately draw photorealism (as opposed to sectioning and carefully copying a photo), then it represents a deep understanding of how natural phenomena affect form, the consequences of physics anatomy on body shape, and how shape affects light and perception.

Mastery of these concepts is prerequisite to creation of new works. How does having wings change a character's anatomy? Extra arms? How do you create buildings that look plausible yet alien? How do you create new garments that have believable textures and draping? Skills that are useful for cinema, for design, for editing.

The photorealistic drawing itself is probably of little artistic value, but it's a step towards creating realities that don't exist.

Thank you!

Hi Dr. Lee, thanks for your time. I tend to have an optimistic outlook, but I feel lost when trying to help somebody who has a pessimistic outlook.

Do you have any advice on how to speak with and/or guide somebody that we care about?

A potential issue is that verteporfin is a photosensitizer.

One of it's current usages is to cause controlled local tissue damage, to destroy or modulate proliferative lesions. It's given as an IV infusion, for a few minutes, followed by controlled application of light, then patients have to stay out of sunlight and bright indoor lighting for several days. Treated lesions may scar afterwards.

It's approved, and it may be useful for this purpose, but it definitely isn't completely benign, and doesn't necessarily eliminate scarring either. It's not clear how much would need to be given, how long it would need to be given for, and whether applying it topically or locally would be sufficient. If it turns out to need prolonged IV treatment, perhaps it could cause blindness as it circulates around the eyes and gets activated by screens, sunlight, and lighting.

What would be the potential risks of longer treatment? How long would it stick around in the tissue/blood? How much risk would there be of activation by light penetration into the skin? These are all questions that cost a lot of money to answer, and the answers could be deal-breakers.

It's promising, but it's not a harmless miracle drug.