Opening Song:Beethoven - Pastoral Symophony
Opening Mood: Reflective
Dreams and reality, Romantics and the Realists,Foolish and the Practical - Such has been the distinction made between men since ages. Take any field you want - Art, music, science,sports ; There have been people who have followed the norms and there have been people who have broken them to create new ones... Did you ever wonder why? Why is such a distinction required at all?
I've been thinking about this since quite sometime now... I've been wanting to voice out my opinion since a long time now... I guess, I found my voice in "October Sky".. However this post is not about the movie, its about the distinction that our "society" chooses to make.
The world is subjective, lets face it. There is no point in trying to beat around the bush , trying to find out a perfect equation that will model the whole thing and tell you "objectively" whats right and wrong, good and bad. Judgement,prerequires you to possess some standard by which you can judge. Do we have any objective standards?? I guess philosophers and scientists have been trying to figure out an answer to this riddle since quite sometime now. Only difference being that, philosophers were sitting on their armchairs and playing around with words, and Scientists sitting in their laboratories playing around with their equations.. Good and Bad, are nothing but "subjective" interpretations of the underlying reality.. So should anyone tell us what is good for us and bad for us?
Take an example of your own life... Think about those instances, where you get a great idea, a brilliant one, and want to try it out, but you don't... Why? You are afraid of being termed as a fool by the society. You are afraid of being judged. You are more worried about how you'll live in people's minds rather than your actual living.. You could have tried and tested the validity of that thing yourself. But fear of failure stopped you. Fear, that if it fails, you won't have the courage to think "new" again.
Look around you,and you'll find people looking for security in life. Parents want their kids to go to the best schools, score high grades, get a good job which offers a fat paycheck, get a good life partner, and "settle down". Settle down, into a loop - a secure loop,which will guarentee you a secure life. But ask yourself, what would that secure life consist of? What about your dreams, your thoughts , your ideas? What about these intimate things which were yours and only yours, which define you, the reason for why you are the way you are? Let go of them? Let go,to live a life?
Whose life are you living? Your own or the one society has chalked out for you? When the society is talking about high grades, does it say anything about understanding the subject and loving it?
When it talks of a great job with a fat check , does it mention anything about job satisfaction?
When it talks about getting a life partner, does it consider something called "love"? Na.. Why should it? Or rather, how should it? You see, understanding, satisfaction, love cannot be quantified? They are subjective terminologies which can be understood by each person independently. On things like these, you cannot impose standards, can you?
The great things that exist in the world today, which inspire millions to live, were not created within the security loop. They were created due to man's passion for his work. Due to his patience to test nature, and the patience to endure. Due to his ability to enjoy and appreciate the beauty in all things.
You see, a good design has to be creative. And creativity cannot be instilled through injections, or formulae. It is inherent, inborn. Comes out of careful observation and passion. Implementation on the other hand, can be considered a science. After all, all science is nothing but the documentation of things that have successfully worked till now ( and also of those which haven't).
There are people in this world, who just live a life in the secure loop. They treat it as a punishment, some sort of a unwanted mundane routine they have to go through, inorder to remain alive.. Then there are others, who are so impressed with their thought process, that they keep on thinking without bothering to check their thoughts with reality. Mankind needs a combination of both. If you try and look back in your own lives, you'll probably find that some of the happiest moments came when you lived your thoughts.. When you realized them.
Thinking is one thing, and taking appropriate action is completely another. Do both, and you'll see life the way it was never before.. Stick to only one of them, and you'll miss out on the other..
To be happy, you need both O Brother...
Closing Mood:Reflective
Closing Song: Nocturne for Piano no 9 - Chopin.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
>>It is inherent, inborn. Comes out of careful observation and passion
arent these two statements contradicting?
good to see someone making sense of his ruminations, giving us food for thought, and not leaving his questions unanswered.
The two statements aren't contradicting. My being inherent and inborn, I think you mean, human nature and his capabilities. By careful observation and passion, he refers to the choice to utilise his abilities or not. I do not intend to put words in your mouth, but let me know if I am wrong.
Do we have any objective standards??
Yes, we do. Our life.
philosophers were sitting on their armchairs and playing around with words
Do you put Ayn Rand and Aristotle in the same category?
Scientists sitting in their laboratories playing around with their equations
Would you put Richard Feynman in the same?
Things you would realise you should avoid, on reading De Bono's "How to have a Beautiful Mind"(which I recommend, Gautham), is to not make sweeping generalizations, make way for special circumstances and situations. It even accomodates for your perception of subjectivity in what he calls "the logic bubble". Go on and read it and you will know.
The great things that exist in the world today, which inspire millions to live, were not created within the security loop. They were created due to man's passion for his work. Due to his patience to test nature, and the patience to endure. Due to his ability to enjoy and appreciate the beauty in all things.
You forgot to include intellect. I would not label it "human" intellect cos whether you utilise it is yet another choice you need to make.
After all, all science is nothing but the documentation of things that have successfully worked till now ( and also of those which haven't).
I totally disagree. Science definitely means a lot more than that. Does remind me of Feynman's quote about how science does not decrease a flower's beauty, but in fact, enhances it! Would post it when I get hold of it.
A good piece where you did dissect how society could rule a person's life, but the reasons you provided are wrong.
Dude, our ethics match. Our only differences lie in Metaphysics and Epistemology!
:)
i totally agree with "wattever". u put into words what our group has always believed in. Ayn Rands, "the fountain head" sums it up. in toohey's words. u kill the individual and make him subjective to the collective. thats how u can rule them all.
The Borg are coming!!!!
@priya
The inherant and inborn refers to the quality of the thing in reference. How you extract the quality out is by careful observation and passion. It was an incorrect sentence considering the context. My mistake. I apologise.
@shivdeep
Phew! Probably first time when the comment was as big as the post. Lets dive in.
>>Do we have any objective standards??
>Yes, we do. Our life.
Whose life? Mine or yours? Or some collective life that you are refering to??
>>philosophers were sitting on their >>armchairs and playing around with words
>Do you put Ayn Rand and Aristotle in the >same category?
Yes I very much do. My life is *too* precious to be lived according to some bullshit written by someone else. I rather experiece my life first hand rather than live some-one else's second hand life.
>>Scientists sitting in their laboratories >>playing around with their equations
>Would you put Richard Feynman in the >same?
Yes again I do. George Boole, Richard Feynman, were no doubt great people who proposed great *theories*. They were of no use to me, unless someone thought of how they can be corelated to life. I do appreciate their *theories* and the imagination behind it. But if you ask me to accept such a theory as a law, sorry dear, I too can propose thousands of them and publish million papers. But unless I *show* how it works, its probably equivalent to Harry Potter.
>make sweeping generalizations, make way >for special circumstances and situation.
What do I call general and what do I call special?? What's obvious to me might be a very special case for you. Is the *general* and *special* decided by the masses??
>You forgot to include intellect. I would >not label it "human" intellect cos >whether you utilise it is yet another >choice you need to make.
I ( and this is *my* personal view ) have no respect for idle human *intellect*.period.
>Does remind me of Feynman's quote about >how science does not decrease a flower's >beauty, but in fact, enhances it! Would >post it when I get hold of it.
So you are trying to tell me that feynman gets *more* happiness when he dissects the flower and understands why it smells so sweet? If happiness is what you are seeking for , why bother how do you get it? And again based on what do you compare the happiness a person gets when he smells the rose, and the one which u get when u dissect it? If doing one thing makes you more happy, is it then valid in generalizing for the whole of humankind??
>Dude, our ethics match. Our only >differences lie in Metaphysics and >Epistemology!
I don't know about my epistemology or metaphysics. Read IF.That's my personal favourite poem and a code which *I* intend to live by.
One more thing - In my opinion, A man of words, and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds.
@Kripal Pais
>Ayn Rands, "the fountain head" sums it >up. in toohey's words. u kill the >individual and make him subjective to the >collective. thats how u can rule them >all.
And when you feed him ayn-rand's *objective* philosophy , you really set him free, is it?? Toohey, is after all just a character conceived by someone's imagination. Don't tell by being benevolent, someone's gonna end up like him.
Let me summarise the whole thing - Do what you wanna do in life. People won't understand you at first. Doesn't matter. People don't understand most things anyway. Work towards the realization of your dreams. They are yours. And you don't need to justify them to anyone else.
More brick-bats are most welcome :)
" Do what you wanna do in life. People won't understand you at first. Doesn't matter. People don't understand most things anyway. Work towards the realization of your dreams. They are yours. And you don't need to justify them to anyone else."
-- Does tat mean u can do anything inorder to attain your goals?
Then wats the point in living in a society?Better go back to the dark ages.
The reason I wrote an apt comment to ur post was the topic was debatable..thats it!
Whenever you write one, expect me to write one back, until the day I consider you a hopeless case....and even after that....cos its definitely better than getting drunk and only then letting out your true thoughts!:)
So here I go...
Whose life? Mine or yours? Or some collective life that you are refering to??
You definitely know me better than that. To you, yours. To me, mine....
My life is *too* precious to be lived according to some bullshit written by someone else. I rather experiece my life first hand rather than live some-one else's second hand life.
It would do a lot more good how exactly do u label the philosophies bullshit. I thought you would explain it in the next sentence, but seems like your criterion for labelling something as 'trash',is anything that you haven't thought of or experienced first-hand.
It might so happen many times, that if you were given the time to think about a thing, you would reach the same conclusion, provided you have the same facts and knowledge, and the same adherence to your reasoning faculty. Would you then label it as 'trash' cos you chose not to think about it? Or that somebody has already thought about it, and there is nothing more that you can add or append to it, but only apply it? That you haven't been able to 'invent' something there?
I know you are looking out for inventions everywhere with a curious mind, but you wouldn't have done much of that, or rather couldn't have, if you hadn't checked out the previous theories, laws. And how do you deem them as true? As you said, by "showing how they work".
So I would demand it, that you show me how Objectivism "doesn't work"?
Prove the philosophy wrong, and you will have one more guy calling it 'trash'!
And nobody is asking you to follow someone's second-hand life. Or for that matter, you can't call it one!
Cos what you are doing now, has been done by scores of engineers before. Yup, if you want to avoid living a "second-hand life", you should probably start typing with your toes. That will make you a helluva "first-leg" person...oops..."first hand" person.
George Boole, Richard Feynman, were no doubt great people who proposed great *theories*. They were of no use to me, unless someone thought of how they can be corelated to life.
Why wait for someone to correlate it to life? Do it yourself! Check it out yourself whether the theory works or not! And if it does, it has definitely been of use to you
But if you ask me to accept such a theory as a law, sorry dear, I too can propose thousands of them and publish million papers. But unless I *show* how it works, its probably equivalent to Harry Potter.
This is where you deviate greatly. You are right that the theory has to be shown.
Theory:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Agree that with this definition, Ethics also would be theory. But the laws and axioms you are seeking for, are in Metaphysics and Epistemology.
If you do not have time to go through it, do not give yourself time to criticize it either.
What do I call general and what do I call special?? What's obvious to me might be a very special case for you. Is the *general* and *special* decided by the masses??
The logic bubble, my friend, that decides it!
I ( and this is *my* personal view ) have no respect for idle human *intellect*.period.
The obvious "idle" to you, might be a special case to me. :)
So you are trying to tell me that feynman gets *more* happiness when he dissects the flower and understands why it smells so sweet? If happiness is what you are seeking for , why bother how do you get it? And again based on what do you compare the happiness a person gets when he smells the rose, and the one which u get when u dissect it? If doing one thing makes you more happy, is it then valid in generalizing for the whole of humankind??
I am not trying to tell you. I only tell you, and try to make you understand.
Definitely *how* you get happiness is important. Eccentrics might really get happiness by killing people. People might get real happiness out of mistreating their friends. I don't know about you, I aint allowing them that pleasure.
And Feynman made that comment, when a reporter claimed how the beauty of a flower would decrease, if you get to know more about it. The "mysterious beauty lost" kind. Feynman only claimed how, in *his view*, it only enhances the beauty. Nobody generalized. He just put forth his view. It is left upto you to see what you think about it, and why?
I don't know about my epistemology or metaphysics. Read IF.That's my personal favourite poem and a code which *I* intend to live by.
I don't know about the millions of theories you can write, and even publish(donno who will, IBM?!). Read "Objectivism:Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Peikoff. That's my personal favourite book and a philosophy which *I* intend to live by.
In my opinion, A man of words, and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds.
In my opinion, A man of codes, blind to beautiful roads, is as noisy as a lake full of toads.
And dude, next time, when you write such a refreshing reply to my comment, please inform me. :-)
I happened to read your reply, by sheer chance. Even bloglines doesn't notify me. Know any way out?
I dive in here. Agree with ego here that takes a remarkably tiny amount of intellect to align your behavior according to the behaviour of a character instantiated by a an author in a work of fiction.
Reminds me of a quote : You are unique. Just like everyone else in the planet. (humour? )
Getting back to the point of happiness as perceived by feynman. Depends on what you perceive happiness to be.
I can be a guy who finds the computer key board very beautiful. Happiness could be either sitting at my desk looking at the keyboard and admiring the 104 keys beautifully crafted in some assembly line in Taiwan, or I could beat at it with all my might and watch beautiful creations land on the display console.
So what do I wish to say here? Happiness means different things to different people. (reminds me of that ad which is running these days on Television - HSBC bank I guess).
Some one might feel happy surrendering their indivuality(check the spelling) by modelling their behaviour to some character in a work of fiction. Some might feel the same happiness in challenging the same. In the end all that matters is "living " life.
As the cliche goes. Live Life No one gets out aLIVE!!!
Cheers
Amen
Sathya
Whose life? Mine or yours? Or some collective life that you are refering to??
You definitely know me better than that. To you, yours. To me, mine....
To me mine, to you yours... *That's* pretty objective to start off for.
It would do a lot more good how exactly do u label the philosophies bullshit.
Any preachy philosophy, which sets rules and regulations for you is bullshit in my opinion. When you were born, nature did not send you with a tag on your forehead saying *this* is your purpose in life. So this is good and that is bad. Discussing over this would be equivalent to why you like a certain color and why I don't. There are certain things that *have* to be experienced first hand. I believe that life is one such thing.
It might so happen many times, that if you were given the time to think about a thing, you would reach the same conclusion, provided you have the same facts and knowledge, and the same adherence to your reasoning faculty.
For that you need to have the *same* knowledge. But show me a way by which you can quantify qualitative experience and I will and I'll come to the same conclusion.
Science is a different case because things are pretty much quantified there. And you know very well what is it that you are seeking. You set up a standard ( and this is for the entire scientific community ) and you set out to achieve it. But can you do the same for an individual? Doesn't he have any right to choose? Were the ethics invented by nature, or was it man's creation to *ease* his life in a society? Nature never said don't kill humans. Infact there are people who do that and get away with it. And even if they are caught they are punished by *humans* who claimed that killing another man is wrong. And how did they come to this conclusion? They reason out and they did convince the *majority*. So the proposal became a law by majority vote. At times, even that's not the case. There have been times , as anonymous pointed out( Dark Ages )when rules were set by certain previlaged people. But again, rules were set up by Men.
I know you are looking out for inventions everywhere with a curious mind, but you wouldn't have done much of that, or rather couldn't have, if you hadn't checked out the previous theories, laws. And how do you deem them as true? As you said, by "showing how they work".
I said, it doesn't work for *me*. Again please seperate out scientific theories and philosophical ones. The former ones are deterministic while the latter ones are fuzzy. And fuzzy means ambiguity - which means subjective interpretation.
Prove the philosophy wrong, and you will have one more guy calling it 'trash'!
Dude, define right and wrong first. I only said the philosophy doen't work for me because there are a lot of things unexplained.
Cos what you are doing now, has been done by scores of engineers before
They sure did. But their perspectives were different, approaches were different from mine. The same goal can have thousands of paths. Or probably millions, or may be infinite. I don't know. I will not give up discovering until I am bored. I dunno if I am supposed to have any purpose in life. So I chalked out my own - To achieve happiness. And what makes *me* happy can't be understood by you, unless you start living *my* life. And same applies for me too. I don't question your whims your fancies. It's your life. Unless we have some common interest, which is gonna affect both of us, I don't see why either of us should justify our actions to the other person.
Why wait for someone to correlate it to life? Do it yourself!
If a person proposes a theory and takes no responsiblity of it's interpretation and application, he has no right to question when people claim it won't work. And as I said before, It doesn't work for me. :).
Theory:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is *widely accepted* and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
I am ok with repeatedly testing and making predictions , i.e if you can. But you see, as of now neither me nor you can make a perfect prediction on what a person is going to do. He always has a choice to do otherwise. And theorizing about how a person should live, what is good and what is bad for a person to do, presupposes that you are well versed with the art of prediction. Only in this case you aren't.
The logic bubble, my friend, that decides it!
Again - play with words.
The obvious "idle" to you, might be a special case to me. :)
That's a surprising statement to come out of an objective person like you. Or is it that you are expecting everyone to refer you as the objective standards ?
Eccentrics might really get happiness by killing people.
The eccentric might consider you an eccentric for not getting happiness by killing people. On what basis do you say that your claim of him being an eccentric is correct and his claim of you not being eccentric is wrong? Please apply objectivism here and enlighten me.
In my opinion, A man of codes, blind to beautiful roads, is as noisy as a lake full of toads.
I have grown tired of you making claims that anything other than what you see is ugly and what you hear is noisy. That's pretty much what Ayn Rand teaches you I guess :)
@Sathya
I totally agree with you that happiness means different things to different people. I just don't understand why some people want everyone else to feel happy with what they say! Is it some-sort of a *I need to validate my happiness* thing??!
IMHO, what we need is not people with the same idealogy, but people with a mentality to accept the differences that exist between them and others and live with it.
dude i dont accept this reply as a foot note to some other reply. Definitely this doesnt yield me happiness.....
Smiles
Dude wats this obsession for random da... ur kids also have random as a part of their blog url?!!!!
Is it some sort of random phenomenon? or is it an oxymoron.... of course you didnt chose the random title randomly ... did ya?
@Sathya
i dont accept this reply as a foot note to some other reply. Definitely this doesnt yield me happiness
:) I will remember that henceforth.
The kids? Oh, that- Again a strange coincidence! Neither of us had the knowledge of the existance of other untill we met on the blogspace.
Is it some sort of random phenomenon? or is it an oxymoron.... of course you didnt chose the random title randomly ... did ya?
I was working on Markov chains and random walks when I created the blog. Ask Thamie!
@ To sathya
Agree with ego here that takes a remarkably tiny amount of intellect to align your behavior according to the behaviour of a character instantiated by a an author in a work of fiction.
I agree with you people too. But it isn't easy to understand a treatise on philosophy, and if you find it consistent and all sufficing, to actually integrate it into your present knowledge and understanding of the world. Far more difficult is to apply it in your life for philosophy is a "way of life".
Happiness means different things to different people.
Yes it does. But the consequences of the means to attain it are different. Cos one's means don't justify his end. A murderer's means to achieve happiness aren't justified cos he is entitled to his happiness. This is one important criterion to judge people striving for their own hapiness.
Some one might feel happy surrendering their indivuality(check the spelling) by modelling their behaviour to some character in a work of fiction. Some might feel the same happiness in challenging the same.
Sathya, again you refer to a character of fiction. I agree that Ayn Rand's following has become more like a pop culture now, in the lines of Che Guevara and like. Wonder how many people who wear Che's shirt know enough about him. Your understanding about Rand, I am sorry to say, has been similar. You do not know about Rand enough. And so is the case, with most who read her. They read her fiction and imitate her characters(which fortunately you didn't :) ). What they forget is that they should not, cos every person's life is different in its trivialities, and hence demands different action. What you can learn, is the underlying principles and ideology of her characters, which she elucidates more(and in a very precise manner) in her non-fiction, and apply it to the situations in your life. If you would use Newton's Laws in a problem on mechanics, would I say you "imitated" him? No, I would say, you "applied" it.
Yes, you will say how the philosophy can be so concrete as Newton's laws? Have a mug of beer with me, and I will let you know all. :)
In the end all that matters is "living " life.
In the end all that matters is "the life" you live. :)
Live Life No one gets out aLIVE!!!
Bravo amigo!;)
@ sathya
Agree with ego here that....
Do you agree with the rest?:)
@ Gautham
You definitely know me better than that. To you, yours. To me, mine....
To me mine, to you yours... *That's* pretty objective to start off for.
You need to know what I mean by subjective and objective.
subective:Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world(reality)
objective: Having actual existence or reality.or Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
That one's life is an objective standard to himself, is an objective statement. Whst is subjective, is whether you realise this objective statement.
Any preachy philosophy, which sets rules and regulations for you is bullshit in my opinion.
I agree. But what does a "preachy" philosphy do? Preach. A preacher always finds his foundation on belief. Objectivism, then, doesn't preach. It teaches. It tells, examine it yourself in its entirety, and see whether you see what I see.
Discussing over this would be equivalent to why you like a certain color and why I don't.
Definitely discussing about "one's life" is far more important than discussing "one's colour choice".
I wouldn't say it is equivalent, I would say its similar. And similarity, implies there is/are difference/s. The relative relevances about the two, is one such difference. Consequently, the amount of time and seriousness you dedicate to the discussion and what you infer out of it, should be more in case of "one's life". I simply don't see the equivalence!
There are certain things that *have* to be experienced first hand. I believe that life is one such thing.
You don't have to believe this. You have to only know. For, you don't have a choice, in whether you want to live a "first hand" life or not. One is solely responsible for what he does out of his life. Whether he is an individual who takes decisions in his own life, or lets others take it for him( which mind you, is one more decision!).
Quoting Maximus Decimus Meridius: Whatever you do in life, echoes in eternity!
and quoting Shivdeepus Shettius "And whatever echoes in eternity, you should do in life!"
He he...I need a beer!:)
For that(two persons arriving at the same conclusion) you need to have the *same* knowledge. But show me
a way by which you can quantify qualitative experience and I will and I'll come to the same conclusion.
Quantifying(for the sake of comparison with other quantities) qualitative experience is possible. You need to probe backwards enough. What quality one experiences, depends on his definitions(closely related to concept formation. A matter of one's epistemology) and his perceptions( a matter of his metaphysics).
These being same, one will find qualitative experiences similar to that of the other. Similar because,
certain minor trivialities might still exist, which are of no relevance to the context. Just as your "idle intellect" comment was irrelevant to the context of what I said "intellect and its choice to use it, are also to be added in the list to pursue one's dreams". An "ad hominem" attack! In fact, an attack based on very limited knowledge of the other person.
Not to deviate from the case in hand, its possible to quantify qualitative experiences.
But can you do the same for an individual? Doesn't he have any right to choose? Were the ethics invented by nature, or was it man's creation to *ease* his life in a society?
Ethics was not invented by anybody! It was there. Do you say, a rock was invented by nature? By the
nature of man, and the nature of reality around him, his ethics already existed. It was only to be
discovered. By a human's right to choose, you imply his right to choose his ethics. From what I said
then, that, I think, is a contradiction in terms. Cos all the choices you make come in the domain of ethics. In the vague sense of the word ethics, you can choose your ethics but it will reflect on your
ethics. I use the "vague sense", cos ethics, by part of its definition, is the branch of philosophy that
stems out of metaphysics and epistemology, and not just anything that you choose to do in life.
There have been times , as anonymous pointed out( Dark Ages )when rules were set by certain previlaged people.
By dark ages, I think, Anonymous meant those days, when a man hadn't invented anything other than what he
had invented himself. So if you invented something then, you would have been "the certain privileged
people".
I said, it(theories and laws) doesn't work for *me*.
Nobody proves theories and laws by making it work "for people". They show it by making them work "in
reality".
The former ones(theories of science) are deterministic while the latter ones are fuzzy(theories of
philosophy). And fuzzy means ambiguity - which means subjective interpretation.
I agree. Except that there is one exception: a non-fuzzy philosphy. Objectivism. Whenever I wrote here,
by philosophy I meant Objetivism. If it is non-fuzzy, why should I not draw similarities between science
and philosophy?
Dude, define right and wrong first.
I thought you did not want the definitions, cos they don't go well with your "subjective interpretation" of concepts. But if you mean in this context, good: that furthers a man's life; wrong: what retards or destroys a man's life.
Yes, one might say, how do you know whether one thing furthers or retards life. Go to reality out there. See whether you "work" there. :)
I only said the philosophy doen't work for me because there are a lot of things unexplained.
If you would have read only the wikipedia page on "Linux", you would have said, Linux doesn't work for me
because there are a lot of things unexplained.
They(engineers) sure did. But their perspectives were different, approaches were different from mine.
Agreed( And I knew it before too). But my intention was to convey that your different approaches,
perspectives along with the others' use the same principles of logic as enunciated by Aristotle? That "a
is a". Wouldn't you be then be "second handed" in your own words?
And what makes *me* happy can't be understood by you, unless you start living *my* life.
I have already talked about qualitative experiences.
Unless we have some common interest, which is gonna affect both of us, I don't see why either of us
should justify our actions to the other person.
The "common interest" that affects both our lives is, we express our philosophy openly. And you need to justify any of your actions that affects me or anybody else.
If a person proposes a theory and takes no responsiblity of it's interpretation and application, he has no right to question when people claim it won't work. And as I said before, It doesn't work for me. :).
Often the proposal, and application, of a theory requires different specialized domains of knowledge. He doesn't let it go, he just passes it on to someone who can do better. By doing so, he was responsible. Ocourse if it doesn't work, he can't blame the other person.
Also, if the applier doesn't understand the theory properly but only in tits and bits, and then ventures out to apply it, he cannot claim that it doesn't work! And this definitely works for you! :)
And your theory that "If a person proposes a theory and takes no responsiblity of it's interpretation and application, he has no right to question when people claim it won't work. " doesn't work! :)
theorizing about how a person should live, what is good and what is bad for a person to do, presupposes that you are well versed with the art of prediction.
Theorizing about how a person "will" live, requires the art of prediction.
The logic bubble, my friend, that decides it!
Again - play with words.
Dude, I have not been playing with words. As far as I recollect, I have been correcting your words!:)
The obvious "idle" to you, might be a special case to me. :)
That's a surprising statement to come out of an objective person like you.Or is it that you are expecting
everyone to refer you as the objective standards ?
I thought I will talk in your language and make you realize its absurdity. You made it!:)
Mine was a special case, cos our interests differed. I was idle in your domain of interest. But I wasn't in mine. So my "idleness" in your view was a special case. If you ask me what has been my domain of
interest, you are seeing it in my posts.:)
From where you conclude that I expect everyone to refer to me as an objective standard, I do not know. What I know is that I lend out a hand to those below me to come up here and experience the good that I
experience. Cos once upon a time, I was lended a hand.
The eccentric might consider you an eccentric for not getting happiness by killing people. On what basis
do you say that your claim of him being an eccentric is correct and his claim of you not being eccentric
is wrong? Please apply objectivism here and enlighten me.
Eccentric:Departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern.
The normal present established norm is not to kill people. So I call him an eccentric and I am right by
the meaning of the concept "eccentric". He should not call me so, cos "not killing people indiscriminately" is an established norm in our society(thankfully!:)) and I am adhering to it, for reasons well known.
I have grown tired of you making claims that anything other than what you see is ugly and what you hear
is noisy. That's pretty much what Ayn Rand teaches you I guess :)
This doesn't affect me much: you making claims that anybody who doesn't follow exactly what you do and is interested in exactly what you are in, is short of deeds.
And if you knew a dime about Rand, she teaches one to be objective, and so, labelling anything other than what I see and what I hear is ugly and noisy, is being subjective.
Now that tells me a lot about how much you knew about Objectivism in the first place. And much more important than that, it tells me a lot about my misconceptions about you.
Ciao.
Post a Comment