It is human to communicate. Period. If one is looking out for the best for himself, he can do it best by exchanging something of value with someone else. How can one not communicate in such a scenario. And yet it seems to screw my happiness? Am I the proverbial ostrich living in denial? Someone said today that when I get the .... I forget friends! Someone says that I am ignoring them! Damn. Yes maybe I am. But then would I be writing this blog if I did not really care?
Google giving me a tough time at work. A company like google has minted money out of interaction. Cisco is teasing us with their human network commercials. Nortel had to counter it with some strange cryptic ad, which does not really register, and is far from eye catching.
Why do I hate the mobile? Why do I set status messages on my gtalk but cringe when someone pings me? Why do I feel guilty when I am not working? I thought these things would pass. Anyways.. I wanna be aggressive now. Take things head on. And for that communication is key. And people will just have to get used to my me time.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The absurd question.
An ant or a bee does not have a choice. It does what it is built to do. To be a good samaritan, to sacrifice! And yet, their community, the bee hive, the ant hill is almost always prosperous, with enough for everyone to eat and all that. Man has a choice. He can sacrifice! he can be a good samaritan, do all that is necessary for the good of others, he can submit his will to the will of the collective and become another ant or a bee. On the other hand he can do what is best for himself. He can pursue the best. He can keep him self at the centre of his attention.
The question is, which one is the better option for humans? I think the question is absurd. The moment you ask that question to yourself you know that you are looking out for yourself. You have already taken the second option.
To elaborate : since man is as he is.. an animal with the power to reason and conceptualize, there are bound to be differences in what different men think is best for the group if at all he agrees to put the group before himself. BUT WAIT.. I think I have committed an error in my reasoning here.. Actually given the same dataset (though this might be impossible, given that our "euclidean" perceptions differ from person to person) and the same decision making deterministic algorithm (reasoning skills, here again some people have better skills than others), the result will always be the same (might not be, for reasons look at the text in the brackets). So if the reasoning is right and the information is available for all, all men will make the same decision eventually. So does that mean that the first option is a valid one? If putting a group above oneself is pragmatic, then yes.
Now coming to the 2nd option. Is it possible for us to put ourselves above everything else? forgetting others completely? For example your kidney might not be working, if you are selfish you will probably pull out someone elses kidney and install it in yourself. BUT, then again a rational person will not? Is it because he abhors sacrifice. Either his or someone else's? you bet. This morality is crucial. That you will not sacrifice another for your gain. And only then is selfishness viable.
The question is, which one is the better option for humans? I think the question is absurd. The moment you ask that question to yourself you know that you are looking out for yourself. You have already taken the second option.
To elaborate : since man is as he is.. an animal with the power to reason and conceptualize, there are bound to be differences in what different men think is best for the group if at all he agrees to put the group before himself. BUT WAIT.. I think I have committed an error in my reasoning here.. Actually given the same dataset (though this might be impossible, given that our "euclidean" perceptions differ from person to person) and the same decision making deterministic algorithm (reasoning skills, here again some people have better skills than others), the result will always be the same (might not be, for reasons look at the text in the brackets). So if the reasoning is right and the information is available for all, all men will make the same decision eventually. So does that mean that the first option is a valid one? If putting a group above oneself is pragmatic, then yes.
Now coming to the 2nd option. Is it possible for us to put ourselves above everything else? forgetting others completely? For example your kidney might not be working, if you are selfish you will probably pull out someone elses kidney and install it in yourself. BUT, then again a rational person will not? Is it because he abhors sacrifice. Either his or someone else's? you bet. This morality is crucial. That you will not sacrifice another for your gain. And only then is selfishness viable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)