War is fought on many fronts, from intelligence to actual confrontation. The intelligence war alone has multiple parts – from protecting own information and feeding false information to the opponent to affecting the morale of the other side. The amount of true information is usually not a problem, there is so little of it anyways. But making sure the fake information is believable and reaches a wide audience, now that is tricky.
History has shown us the power of information over the people. May it be the Vietnam war, where too much information caused dismay among the crowds and eventual retreat, or perhaps Nazi Germany, where by giving the Germans an old code book, the Allies managed the Normandy assault with a lot less difficulty than without having fed the opposing force fake information. Information is also important inside a single society.
“How many people actually belonged to the Nazi party? The Communist party? The Jihad party? A very small number. But there were always plenty of other people who were happy to do the work for them, and others afraid enough to let it happen.” – J.M.Straczynski
Argument ad hominem is a popular weapon of choice of nearly every politician aiming for power.
“Nobody takes power, they are given power by the rest of us.” – J.M.Straczynski
And by the process of elimination and manipulation of public opinion, it becomes a straight road to chaos. Because by allowing a single small group of people make a powergrab is one of the final steps to oppression, as proposed by Isaiah Berlin. This would be the case of positive liberty – the kind where people believe that their leaders know what the right things to do are. The negative case would be when the people limit the power of their leaders and hence believe that every person has to think of the bigger picture and that everyone can be fallible. The trick is to find a balance between these two liberties, as both extremes have a detrimental effect to the society, as extremes so very often do.
For now, let us contemplate on the idea of Gods and Their fluffy existence or a single one and His lonely existence.
“Probably too much wine, women, and smoke.”
“He didn’t do any of those things. To see him dead, how terrible for him!”
For the past few days I’ve been listening to a video where famous scientists say things that have been autotuned to sound like a song.
Now, I find a problem with it. Not that it doesn’t sound good per se, but the contents are… odd.
Being fascinated by something is great. It is inspiring, motivating and exhilarating. It makes a person want to learn more, be more, do more. But there is a limit to everything.
Sure, knowledge is extremely awesome, I cannot deny that, and sharing the knowledge is twice the fun. But sometimes people get all worked up over simple information. By being impressed by the fact that the atoms in our bodies haven’t always been there, but instead are a product of a larger process, we are simply impressed by the fact that we are made of matter. By being impressed by the fact that lightyears away from here, the constellations don’t look quite the same as they do here, is like being impressed by the fact that a cube has edges and can be viewed from different directions. Sure, it sounds fancy at first, but when one really thinks about it, it ceases being amusing.
The Universe is full of wonders, including the Earth as we know it. But not everything is a wonder. Also, Feynman is quite a groovy fellow.
Also, what kind of a person sets their SMS ring as ‘Hallelujah!’?
Certain events are prone to triggering vast amounts of nostalgia. May it be a celebrative event reminding one of the past three years or hearing some songstress triggering memories from more than a decade ago. It brings hope that life will get better in the future, as it has in the past. “Oh 90’s music how you make me smile.”
We get motivation from two basic interests: curiosity (the kind that motivated the cat to be more self-serving) and self-serving (the kind that motivated the cat to flee the box before Schrödinger or his followers could carry out the experiment). Pretty much all other interest are products of these two main points. It is also important to note that while curiosity and egoism overlap surprisingly often, they practically never conflict. Try to think about it.
Altruism is about making us feel better about who we are.
Altruism is a curious thing, I would classify it as phase 3 of rationality. The first would be complete rationality – not thinking before acting whatsoever. This means direct actions, basically what animals do. They see food and they are hungry, they eat it. They see food and they are not hungry, they try to storage it if possible. Nothing too complex, even a monkey can do it.
Phase 2 would be balance. A balance of rationality and irrationality. This assumes the existence of consciousness. Basically the phase where most humans are located – sometimes we do things we find reasonable, but sometimes obey our emotions instead. It is the life of the average Joe.
The aforementioned phase 3 would be the phase where the being understands that it has no rational cause to exist. Hence the being would most probably either self-terminate or become altruistic. That is until the being either reaches the underworld, phase 4 or revert to a previous phase.
Phase 4 is, obviously, overrationalizing. This is when the being has understood that not only he/she/it has not rational reason to exist, neither does anyone else. Hence there is no reason why not use this knowledge and live life to the fullest. If nothing matters anyways, why not have fun not mattering? This means the lack of regrets and denial of emotions. It is not a sad life per se, but some people may claim that life that follows only strict rules of logic is sad and cold as there are no emotions. They forget that for the person in Phase 4, it doesn’t really matter anymore. Anyway the wind blows, nothing really matters. And in that state, a being can thrive. With no morals, no regrets, no actual emotions, all kinds of possibilities open up ranging from simple manipulation to world conquest.
Perhaps there are more phases, perhaps not. I have yet to observe them. And one cannot argue with these phases because neither side could possibly have any hard evidence or cold facts to support their claims. Psychology is, after all, a mere pseudoscience, because empiric observations are impossible and every claim can be true or false, depending on the person deciding it. We would need intricate knowledge of the brain’s functions and once we have that and can definitely claim the existence or non-existence of these phases, it is no longer psychology, it is biology.
This is because it was a part of my childhood, my past. And someone reminded me of it.
CNN remains funny – now they have a news story about a cow that went to a McDonald’s drive-thru.
A great point to add to my previous post is the infamous Target scandal.
Yes, the one where a Target employee revealed that their market research reveals pregnant customers sometimes before the customers reveal it to others by tracking their purchases made in Target. This made them create personalized advertisement packages to maximize sales. It is yet another example of how corporations can persuade people into consumption targeted in the corporations’ favour. People are powerless.
Now one may argue that instead of talking about democracy, I’ve been rambling about capitalism and drawing an equals sign. I assure you, this is not the case.
Democracy is demos kratos – people’s power. This means that they are governed by a body of people they elect as their representatives. The upshot of which, is that politicians, whose views are those of the people, gain power to enforce policies that people want. The whole idea behind effectiveness is spiritus mundi – a hive mind of the people, basically the belief that while an individual can make mistakes, a society as a whole is nearly infallible. While it is logical that a single person’s mistake does not echo as much in a crowd as when he is alone in power. However, the belief that a large groups of people are not wrong and cannot orchestrate their own demise is, put quite bluntly, hogwash. Alas, all there is to do now is to agree with Mr Churchill – democracy is indeed a bad form of government, but it is the best that has been tried so far.
One of the main problems with democracy is that not everyone agrees with any given claim, decision, or policy. This causes unrest at every step. After all, if all people agreed on the same, it would no longer be democracy, it would be unification. And even that has its problems – if everyone were to think alike, what would happen to creative culture, what would happen to science? If everyone thinks of the same joke, then there will be nobody to tell it to. If everyone creates the same work of art, there will be nobody to receive credit for it. If everyone liked the same fashion, everyone would dress up as clones. And if everyone really thought alike, there would be no scientists – after all, they would be equal to a street bum, thinking no more than that bum. The fact that there would perhaps not be any bums either, is a minor nuisance. I’d say there are bums in every society, I’d say they are an inevitable product of the existence of society.
A product of a democratic society is the free market – free at first. By forcing corporations compete against each other for market share, the public benefits most. It forces the corporations to seek effectiveness and keep the prices low. This is why people think it is a fine idea and put it into practice. However, the result of a free market is the emergence of market leaders. And people are not really fond of some markets being lead by large corporations like Microsoft or Apple. Sure, there are many people who like the aforementioned market leaders, otherwise they would no longer be the market leaders. But they do create a threat to free market – a market leader has an established position as part of people’s lives, something they have grown accustomed to. As such, they have the power to chance people’s habits in their favour. By introducing new gadgets to the old ones, a market leader can easily force its competition to give up. After all, the market leader as a rule has more resources at its disposal than smaller companies. Sure, the smaller companies can survive as some niche product providers, but tackling a market leader is a task a little too difficult to undertake. Hence market monopolies are a result of democracy, may the monopolies be shared by two or three enterprises or not. With two corporations having the monopoly, it becomes a lot simpler to avoid any anti-monopoly laws and policies. And once those monopolies are born, it becomes near-impossible for people to affect economic democracy by the use of targeted consumption.
With a little bit of luck, the corporations sharing a monopoly continue to compete against each other, as opposed to friendly unofficial cooperation, unofficial to avoid any cartel accusations.
“O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.” – Sun Tzu (“Art of War”)
How can targeted consumption change public policy to improve society (or improve society without policy)?
Well, by purchasing certain products and/or services and not purchasing certain other products and/or services, a large number of people can manipulate the demand and hence influence the supply. This can be applied almost anywhere, and is. When people found out that McDonald’s was not using proper meat in certain burgers, the sales dropped significantly. That is, until they announced that they were reverting to ‘proper’ meat.
However, this requires a rather large number of people and their success depends on other people’s greed and cooperation. Manipulation requires an unified front. If there are too many ‘traitors to the cause’, the sales won’t drop as significantly, and, as a corollary, the supplier has less reason to change the product or service according to the demand as this may cause a drop in the profit margin – after all, they must fund the change and perhaps the new ‘improved’ product or service requires more monetary resources to be used for them to be supplied. Sure, an increased price could help, but it has a slight problem.
When a supplier is dealing on a small market – with little competition, the supplier can dictate the terms on which products and/or services are offered. Basically a monopoly – people won’t stop buying if they have no other option and they are able to afford the goods. Hence market manipulation is practically impossible on the consumer side, and practicable only on the provider side. This applies to a large number of cases, because even in markets with larger competition, loyal customers and the sheer amount of supply dictate the rules – a small supplier can hardly keep the market satisfied when a larger supplier raises its prices and the number of customers for the little guy increases very quickly. Hence, the small supplier runs out of stock and the larger enterprise can continue with the high price tag, as it has removed other options for a lot of its customers. This, in general, is considered bad business strategy. This is why the prices go up a little at a time, but often (as opposed to sharp raises very rarely). The effect is the same, but with a lesser loss of customers. And henceforth the consumer loses anyways.
Let’s be honest, this strategy applies in markets with several larger providers as well. It is enough to take Microsoft and Apple – basically the same product, slightly different design, but one costs about twice the price of the other… and makes a neat profit. Unfortunately this means changing the consumption habits of a large number of individuals has little effect. Sure, there can be some effect, but usually it is insignificant enough to be pushed aside.
In reality, the consumer can do little by targeted consumption. Using pressure groups to influence political powers appears a more viable option, which is why it is (I assume so) the most popular weapon of choice. But I wonder how can targeted consumption benefit the society. One can’t deny the existence of the influence it has over corporations and governments.
For now, the Unites States has limited its demands of banking information to American citizens. Inadvertently, since countries in the EU don’t wish to give out personal information and hence filter any and all information they do reveal, the IRS will receive information about some non-U.S.-citizens and lack information about some citizens. In any case, they obtain personal data through legal extortion. Let’s not forget, the United States has already demanded passenger data. And if someone chooses not to cooperate, those people will suddenly face difficulties communicating and trading with the States. It is evil. And I cannot think of a reasonable reason to demand so much. Why would they want to track every single one of their citizens all over the world? Or is the goal tracking every single person in the world, just they have to use salami tactics for now, just as Russia is?
It is no secret that ever since their unprovoked assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan, every single international action has been more than simply suspicious. World Police… bossing around at every opportunity. Apparently their local laws have international significance, otherwise SOPA would’ve been totally useless. I wonder where it will all stop. When the world is a police state? In any case, the result can’t really be good.
It is no wonder then, that the United States have earned the title ‘Empire of Evil’. Ironic.
Also, the storyblog is once again being updated relatively regularly. Now with Act II, the one where chaos develops.
Reading newspapers has become increasingly interesting now that people I know keep popping up in there. And not with obituaries, but rather with achievements and projects.
I told someone that I would talk about regret now, hence I shall talk about the U.S. demanding all kinds of personal information about people (travel data, banking data etc.) from the EU and its countries a little later, it’s not as if they would stop demanding confidential information without a clear reason anytime soon. So, you know, that is coming along.
So, regret. Is there a reason for regretting something done in the past? Sure, we have all had situations where we could have and should have done better, acted differently. If only we had known better… But is that worth regret and feeling bad about past events? I think not.
“What we should do does not lie in the past.” – Captain Okita
As much as we may wish, we are unable to change the course of past events. This is, assuming one does not have a surplus time machine just lying around, which sounds fairly reasonable. If that is so, having any emotions affecting us to wanting a change in the past seem to be quite arbitrary and impractical. Regret serves no practical use, as one cannot act on it. Unless one thinks of the consequences of regret. It is plain to see that regret is the emotion that teaches us that we’ve done wrong, that we should’ve done better. We will learn from the experience and do better next time we are in a similar situation. Hence once we understand we’ve done wrong and we know what the right course of action would’ve been, regret has accomplished its purpose and becomes useless again. In the end, it emerges with elegant inevitability that if regret were useful, we would be able to act on it, but we can’t so it isn’t. It’s use is extremely limited and extraordinarily short-term. That is, unless you happen to have a spare time machine, built out of a DeLorean, a hot tub or anything else.
Enjoy the legendary Matt Bomer (Chuck, White Collar)
A few weeks ago I earned the nickname Mr Demagoguery (why not Mr Demagogue, you must ask the pleasant female debater who dubbed me such). This is because I managed to befuddle a debating partner using demagoguery, a mere day before having to debate with the young lady. I managed to detain myself from resorting to such tactics the next day and was allegedly successful. However, I had already had a bite from the dark side, and had messed with another person’s mind. Demagoguery is a powerful weapon because it is very hard to resist or defend against.
Oftentimes deflecting strikes of demagoguery boils down to ignoring the fact that it is, in fact, demagoguery. This means responding to all ludicrous claims and ridiculous questions with calm logic and reason. It is effective because it foils the plans of a seasoned demagogue while strengthening your own arguments. Alas, some forms of demagoguery are just about evil enough to be ‘killers’. That is to say, there is no good way of answering to a specific claim or question, any answer would bring consequences not to one’s liking. Avoiding the matter leaves a kind of vacuum, an empty space where the opponent can weave his or her nest in. And a viper’s nest is harder to remove than merely a viper alone.
In such cases, one has about two choices: either submit to having an argument with holes in it, which can later be ever so slightly patched up, or revert to playing dirty. One skilled in the art of demagoguery rarely knows the proper methods of addressing a hostile demagogue. If one gets lucky, the demagogue loses his or her solid ground and becomes easily proven to be mistaken. If not, at the very least, the demagogue’s demagoguery will prove to be elegantly insufficient. Against asking stupid questions, creating a lack of stupid answers is surprisingly effective. The stupid answers remain stupid, hence weakening the asker. The lack of stupid answers, by substituting them for counterdemagoguery, can cause little damage to one’s own respectability, all while taking down the enemy strategy. Using fire against fire may work, but one should always remember that the fire department prefers water. Hence wisdom and a cool head is a better alternative to demagoguery.
“Zathros wants nothing, Zarthros gets nothing. Such is life.” – J.M.Straczynski
Also, if someone can find a way to post comments, please do, explaining how. This new layout looks aesthetically pleasing but I appear unable to find the option to post comments. If nobody figures it out, then a new change is also in order.
In the past few weeks I have gathered quite a bundle of ideas that shall make up Act Two and since I’ll be getting more than mere tons of free time, a continuation is in order and can be expected shortly.
I’ve been thinking of writing short stories as well. You know, small horror flicks where blood, guts and gore create an eerie climate and death. The usual. “There is a small line between life and death. It is amazing how long a man can linger there.” Alas, first I really should continue with the previous engagements. Yes, plural.
I’ve found that demagoguery is a fine weapon to have in one’s arsenal. It is like arguing with a stupid person – they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience (via Samuel Clemens), except with demagoguery you are the stupid person. The opposing side gets befuddled, your simple tactics confuse the eggplants out of them. A quick response is nearly impossible. And within all that confusion of the opposing side, mistakes are plentiful. This means you don’t even need your own arguments, you can use the opponent’s (or opponents’) own words to contradict their logic, which perplexes them even further. All while you find a small, yet powerful brick, with which you shine and the other side gets hit in a painful and humiliating manner. Figuratively speaking, naturally. The danger with demagoguery is that it is remarkably easy to spot.
The basis for the next paragraphs is this page, concentrating on logical fallacies. While these fallacies can be considered accidental, in case of a deliberate implementation, this can and should be considered demagoguery.
Argumentum ad hominem is one of the most common methods, which is why it is so easy to spot. This is exactly why it hardly ever works. Argumentum ad misericordiam is by far a more reliable option – people feel empathy and with an emotional speaker the audience can be gripped with ease. Argumentum ad logicam is an easy method that usually goes unnoticed. Sure, attacking the opponent’s logic is effective, leaving all of your points hanging is also a bad choice. It should be used in moderation, to avoid excessive stress on the partner’s points, in which case all the third party hears is those points. By partner, I mean the person that is trying to oppose your point of view (or whose point of view you are attempting to oppose). While this is not regular usage, I shall use it as a kind of a shout-out to a person who used it.
Argumentum ad numeram is not a wholly bad road to travel down, either. This has the downside of being a very narrow alley of possibilities of usage. By this I mean that you can hardly ever use it in a manner that does not diminish your authority on the matter. But if you can use it so, perhaps as an example that you have comrades of thought, and afterwards explain the logic, it works. However, in this case, it is no longer a fallacy of argument, but instead an introduction to the argument. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a nice one as well, I like to use it sometimes, unfortunately it is worse that playing Russian roulette – you can be blamed for using it even when you don’t and it can easily be missed when you do. This is best used to demonstrate your extensive knowledge (or make it appear that you have it if you don’t), however if push comes to shove and you are blamed for using this technique, a mere explanation (perhaps saying that since you thought everyone were acquainted, for random instance, with the theory of categorical imperative of Kant, it needed no further explanation) will do away with the accusation. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (and post hoc ergo propter hoc) has to be used with finesse and dicto simpliciter works nearly every time, hence they need no further commentary.
A naturalistic fallacy can occur accidentally or deliberately and usually goes unnoticed, as any argument that uses it, goes so as well. Hence it is a pretty useless point. Non sequitur is a nice thing to use. Sometimes a member or two of the third party notices it, but most of the time nobody gets it, unless the logic is very bushwhacked. It is always more effective to add a hint of truth to every lie, it makes it easier to swallow. Slippery slope has to be used with caution, overdo it and people will think you are three fries short of a Happy Meal, underdo it and nobody will care. Straw man is similar in that fashion. Tu quoque is a neat one as it is not actually a flaw of argumentation, it merely states that both sides are wrong and hence there is no victor. In the case that you are weaker and have a mistake that the opposing side stresses, yet has it as well, it is very reasonable to stab them in the back with their own knife – take them down to your level and you become more or less equal again. Instead of climbing up, you drag them down. And once you’ve done that, you have the first choice to take a chance at getting back on the ladder. That is a pretty good advantage, why else would the white side win more often than the black side in chess?
Note that the last sentence can be considered a part of demagoguery, even though it is not a structural part of an argument, but rather an illustration. It carries no weight other than clarification of point. People mistake demagoguery for many things, which is rather sad. But, as everyone knows, humans are not infallible and cannot be considered as such. However, the use of demagoguery can be extremely useful in certain scenarios, especially if one is forced to improvise. To some people it comes naturally when they have nothing else to speak about, others need to think about what, how and when to use. But it is a very stylish double-edged sword – it can be used to strike the enemy down, but might as well cut your own throat. To use it properly means caution at every step. And if that caution as been taken, you can easily beat your opponent with experience.
If I remember, I shall continue on this topic sometime later and write about how to avoid getting hit with the sword of demagoguery if one prefers not to use it, but their partner chooses it as their weapon of choice.
Lately there has been a lot of commotion about ‘hen’, a Swedish alternative to sexes. Basically calling every one ‘it’, instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ (or ‘see’ instead of ‘tema’ and ‘temake’ in a certain other language). This has raised more than a few eyebrows and wags of fingers. Instead of traditional and non-traditional gender roles, children are taught how to be ‘sexless’. This means boys in dresses and ‘gender neutral’ fairy tales take the scene – no damsels in distress, no chivalrous princes. The stories lack what we like about fairy tales – the clear-cut characters.
The problem with this method is clearly an increase of people that act like transvestites or hermaphrodites. Obviously, this has a positive effect on the current global overpopulation problem. However, some people have expressed concern over the deteriorating state of our present culture. We have preset gender roles – put bluntly, the female side keeps the kids happy while the male side contributes financial aid to do so. This system has been relatively effective for millennia, changing it creates a precedent, which should be avoided. If something isn’t broken, don’t fix it. “A lot has to be done, but not for the first time.” (YPM)
Not to mention the problem with cultural integrity. With more and more sexless people entering the society, thus not doing what society expects them to do, creates a group of people that can almost only create their own small communities where they could fit in. Modern society is increasingly discontent with people that are different. The terror and fear has done its job at making people paranoid of everything and everyone. Life’s value per se has decreased significantly. Hence everyone different has become a risk – different values of life might mean harmful actions with a clear conscience. This is dangerous for people near the ‘different’ people that ‘may’ go berserk. Naturally, this is paranoia.
“In the romance room, the female rabbits are chasing the male rabbits, und hier, the female rabbits are shrinking from the male rabbits. Und in both rooms, the male rabbits are just sitting around trying to figure out what it’s all about.” – Siegfried”You can’t have larger ideals with the smaller ones being compromised.”age quod agis
Independence. We all crave it, even if we don’t know why. Yet it is one of the many things in life nobody can ever reach. We all depend on someone, no matter what happens. Sure, one might jokingly say that we are independent when nothing depends on us. However, the truth of the matter is, quite simply, independence means the lack of the need for support, that one is able to manage on one’s own without anyone’s moral or material aid.
But every and each one of us has someone to depend on, may it be family, friends or a significant other. Someone we tell our secrets to, someone we seek advice from, someone we converse with just for the hell of it. It is nothing to be ashamed of, or feared. It happens to every one of us.
“Never fear answers. Fear running out of questions.” – J.Michael Straczynski
Conquering the world doesn’t sound like a bad idea. However, I always wonder why would a person want to do that, after all, what would one do with a conquered world? It’s not as if one could simply barter with it… and a simple life is possible without taking over the whole world. Money isn’t everything, and one certainly doesn’t need a world to become rich anyways. Sure, it is a very elegant way of proving a point, if one had a point to prove. Such as people are simple mindless obedient sheep who need a shepherd. In which case, one doesn’t need a whole world.
Perhaps it is to gain an opportunity to be condescending towards the whole of humanity, after all, it would mean outsmarting the most vicious and cunning opponents. It’s a nice challenge, but it is hard to think of a way to continue the success. Sure, proving to be the most effective and intelligent human on the planet may be awesome, but it feels empty. Everyone wants to be the best, but nobody knows what to do once they are the best. Without anywhere to progress, a whole greater aim of a person’s life becomes insignificant. And that sounds rather depressing to me.
Granted, conquering the world is an interesting pastime, something original to do for a while. But it shares the problem of proving one’s wits – once you’ve done it, there is nothing greater to aspire to. “This world is not enough.”
Spreading out to distant worlds is an option, but at our current state of technology, it is an insurmountable goal, so unless we meet the Centauri or someone else who gives us some nifty tech, there really isn’t a reason to become the boss, head man, top dog, big cheese, a head honcho.
Evidently I am sort of an utilitarian point of view – I want actions and consequences to have practical value. Things gain value by being utilized. And that is only possible when there is untapped potential. But I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence, therefore I am not quite an utilitarian. Categorical imperative still sounds too… good.
Since TED videos display very awkwardly when embedded here (I guess the code ain’t the best and I really can’t bother myself to check it), I’m just going to put the link here in the hope that you will listen/watch anyways. It’s rather good with a few funny bits. It’s monkey business with morality. Basically something one could very easily use at a certain Olympiad.
An interesting new race appeared on B5. Their distinctive characteristic is that they support the natural selection, in that they do not believe in helping the weaker species survive. After all, the weaker die and the stronger prevail. This raises the question of morality – is it right to help the needy or should we simply not care? Unfortunately, the problem was not explored in depth in B5.
To be fair, not giving a care in the world about other people (not just the inferior ones) does has its perks. For one, a person can commit fully to one’s own well-being. This means the possibility of manipulation without disruptive ethics. Note that it is merely a possibility, an opportunity, a chance to be seized if one were in that frame of mind. If one were not, the lack of caring enables a person to concentrate on one’s own personal interests for one’s own personal gain. Less time spent helping others means more time for oneself. Not to mention one never has to think about other people’s problems. And then some.
However, empathy can work in one’s best interests as well. By making and/or helping those close to us be effective and reach higher goals gives a person close connections at high and/or useful places. Not to mention a safety net if something were to go terribly wrong. Alas, if something were to go terribly wrong for someone you care for, nobody likes going down on one’s own. It’s a high risk, high reward kind of situation.
If one were to ask Kant about it, he’d say helping the weak one’s would indeed be the ‘right’ thing to do. After all, categorical imperative supports doing what one holds best to be a general rule of action. Complete denial of inferior people (subjective to each person) means potential denial of the person that starts the chain of categorical imperative. Hence it is not in the best interests of the person to create a society where he might be a victim of his own actions and views. Hence caring for inferior people means being cared for by superior people.
In conclusion, not caring for the little guy can prove to be useful at times, but as a general rule, making sure that you don’t lose anything by letting someone else rot gives better results. In this case, the means justify the ends, until a person innately starts helping the little guy, after which the ends start justifying the means. Helping others makes us better people, which is personal gain. Helping others is an action that makes us feel good. Everyone’s a hypocrite. When we do stuff for our own gain, it doesn’t even matter if its moral. It matters whether it looks moral or not. If it looks moral, it benefits us even further. If it doesn’t, it decreases our personal gain. And it definitely looks more moral to help others. By doing that we help ourselves. Donkeys.
I shall resume existing very soon, for now enjoy some quality swedish.
Muppets were a really hoopy crew. They taught the world the meaning of ‘running gag’, not to mention their oh-so-lovely very slightly violent humour. Nothing like anything modern. And it was fairly educational as well, where else would one learn how to cook like a Swede?
Childhood was a nice time. Can’t really think of a better time in my past. But that is kind of expected.
I woke up this mornin' with the sundown shinin' in, I found my mind in a brown paper bag, but then... I tripped on a cloud and fell eight miles high, I tore my mind on a jagged sky.
Keeping my grey brain cells under incessant stress is creating new opportunities and unexpectedly good results ever so often. Doing as much as possible every single day gives one many chances to exercise the mind to the full extent. May it be not using free days, doing some trivia quizzes or trying out some chess tourneys or simply taking part in as many things one appears to be competent enough in to be able to, the end effect is the same. The brain gets tired, results skyrocket, sleep deprivation starts ruling. And then it all crashes down with elegant inevitability. And that is precisely what I am currently doing. Artificially keeping my brain on the roll so that I don’t crash and burn just yet. This means a constant feeling of a sugar rush, mental degrading, crazy improvisation everywhere and acting in an extremely peculiar manner. In a few weeks, it should be time to take some time out of our daily lives to remember this holiday that is sadly no longer remembered. The pattern is emerging.
Wars have many different reasons. In the past, most wars have been all about spreading religion (the innumerable crusades) and simply wars of conquering some extra land. Lately its been more about punishing all the citizens of a country for the actions and ideas of the few. This includes communists and Muslims. Or they are used as excuses in order to strike hostile governments down and substitute them for puppet theatres. This is far from being honourable.
“People define honour as whatever makes them feel honourable. It is a circle that goes nowhere, which is, I guess, what circles do.” – House
Most wars in modern times are directed at the governments, which don’t play ball with ‘The Western Civilization’. It doesn’t even have to be the leaders of the nation. It doesn’t matter, whom the war is against, it matters who get hit by it. Let’s be honest, the collateral damage created by constant bloodshed is far from minimal. Innocent people get tortured and/or killed, their families lose everything. War is not nice, everyone can agree on that. But is it righteous to start a war with a nation because some members of the nation disagree with some members of an another nation?
I am not saying wars have no point and should never happen, I am saying that something is not quite working right. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all agreed that the natural state of things is without states and countries. Without governments controlling our moves. But as Hobbes explained, that is the situation where attacks against other people are most reasonable. Locke and Rousseau said that fights would never happen because people are good at heart. Sounds naive, and quite frankly, they were.
Governments are supposed to be by the people, for the people. They can’t really not be of the people. But every man/woman stands for his/her own good and therefore a completely greater-good-oriented government can’t exist (unless you genetically modify them in some way, as some odd book proposed, but really, that’s hogwash). In this very real and existing case no government rules only for the good of the people. And this is pretty much what democracy is – people’s power to affect governments with fear to make them obey. However, if governments were to obey the people, there would be no reason to invade foreign soil (except on some occasions after a little prep work by some publicity companies). If that were the case, there would be no wars. Well, there would be fewer wars, let’s not forget, some people like war and killing people that don’t agree with them. So I am not claiming that only governments are warmongers, that would be folly.
I’m just saying governments want wars to look good. By maintaining a constant supply of goods from distant countries, the people remain content and governments in power. And there are always excuses to keep the country safe from outside troublemakers, security is important in any culture.
Babylon 5 has an interesting take on the future. Not only does the chief of security assemble a Kawasaki Ninja, but aliens also ponder about old children’s songs and yell “I’ve let the computer analyse it repeatedly, it makes no sense!”. Not to mention space station caught in a flux, causing time dilation. The usual stuff.
“It’s a Russian thing. When we are about to do something stupid, we want to catalogue the full extent of our stupidity for future reference.”
"I am not of this time. If you take me, Zarthros die. If I stay, Zarthros die. Either way, it is bad for Zarthros."
“We are the grey. We stand between darkness and the light.”
You know, I might start enjoying quoting that thing, I already know a quote I’ll bring in for the next philosophical ramble. It’s about ants and gods. And it is a good one.
Today I conversed with a friend of mine (let’s not name any names) about the intentional use of alternate image. By this I mean maintaining an artificial impression that everything is fine. This can be accomplished by means of purchasing a fancy vehicle when money is tight or merely concealing one’s mental breakdowns and hard times. Sure, keeping one’s private life and public life separate is surely a common sight, but the problem lies in the question whether it is a problem or not.
Quite frankly, I don’t see a problem with having a multiplicity of lives (I do not agree with the quote “Leading a second life means giving up half of your first.”, I rather prefer the quote by House: “I have a drug addiction but I do not have a problem with it.”), since it is a natural side effect of trying to accomplish something greater. Nobody is perfect, but many of us can look quite near it. And maintaining a good image is a great boost to one’s career, just look at politics and their cover-ups. It helps strive towards greater goals, it helps succeed.
However, keeping one’s personal life secret does have its drawbacks and I do have to admit that. Hiding one’s problems can easily become a huge problem for not only the person, but his close ones as well. A problem that could be avoided by not hiding it. Mounting debts, nervous breakdowns, home violence, all hidden behind a facade of merriness. Problems that perhaps should not be faced alone, but with assistance. And this is the dark side of leading a double life.
So, in conclusion, while there are good and bad sides to being a hypocrite, it is only a matter of personal opinion if the trend of everyone being a hypocrite is a problem or rather a normal state of society. As always, you are more than welcome to keep the discussion going in the comments, I am prepared to defend both sides.
The weather is warm, it hardly ever snows now. Small flowers are blooming, blessing the countryside and little gardens with their beauty. Yes, the spring has sprung, there is no doubt about that.
It’s sad, really, having no snow for a long time. But on the other hand it is fairly nice to have more colours than merely white and yellow. A true rebirth of mottled nature.
I haven’t much thoughts today, but tomorrow I will surely get some. After all, people are funny and bring up various topics. Just last week I spoke with some random guy about different types of ammo (with a little sidetracking to MythBusters, for obvious reasons) for no apparent reason. But I can’t really ponder about that publicly, I would sound slightly homicidal and nobody wants that. But rest assured, I will get new topics.
Yesterday I spoke with a local Russian fellow, who has a competitive heart and a brain to go with it. Sure, not the cream of the crop, but good enough to be in the top brass. And we noticed how practically everyone can speak English fairly well, but have trouble with other foreign languages. Sure, it can be accounted to the whole world wide web thing being mostly in English. Quite honestly, the only non-English websites I visit regularly are a couple of blogs and a local newspaper, which I visit rarely. Frankly, I find it more useful to read that newspaper in paper form when I have time and get all the other interesting information from various other newsfeeds. The information gets filtered before it reaches me, giving me a compact, yet thorough, overview of the things that interest me, and The Daily Show gives me all the juicy bits of politics. All in English. Which reminds me, I should get back to some German newspapers or something of the like as well… oh well.
English rules our world. And quite frankly, it is not all good English. For instance, this very blog has surprisingly little English in it. Until now, the spell-checker was set to American (well, technically not, but that is a matter of semantics). I am sure you remember Henry Higgins’ comment about Americans and their language.
But for now I shall leave you with a nice song from a nice movie.
The trailer for it. Really entertaining, has Geoffrey Rush in an important role, which is always a great thing.
