Oh, the fickle power of morality. No matter how dedicated we are to a principal, we can nevertheless at any time decide to ignore it. And there are usually frighteningly few repercussions. When immoral acts are not illegal, it is so easy to get away with them. All you have to do is let yourself off the hook. And then its' even easier the next time.
To describe an action I perform which I know at the time to be immoral, I use the word "sin." It is the only time that I feel it appropriate to use such a damning (literally) term. It needs to be strong to hopefully have an effect and slow the downward spiral.
I rarely, if ever, apply it to others, because I don't know others' mental states. The same action performed by two different people could be a sin for one and not the other. Some actions are objectively morally wrong, but they are only sins if the actor realizes that at the time.
Sin is breaking a promise to yourself. No one truly knows it occurred but you.
Some repercussions:
* Children and the morally undeveloped cannot sin. I am fine with this; They are motivated by force, authority, and impulse. To sin one needs to be motivated by morality.
* I take "original sin" to refer to our natural capacity to commit sin.
* A sin can be a trivial action (e.g. eating a candy bar). If you do something you resolved not to do, I think it's a sin, regardless of its impact. Your motivation may be practical (losing weight), but your duty to keep your promises is moral.
* Most of this is just assertion, not argumentation. I'm describing how I use the word, not how everyone else does.
Sin: A free action which the actor knows to be morally wrong at the time it is performed.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Dancing With The Athletes
Not that I ever closely watched or become emotionally invested in the show, but I think Dancing With The Stars is crap. This is solely based on the fact that they allow professional athletes to compete. (Feel free to point out that technically Shawn is a "amateur" and I'll point out that she probably doesn't just do a little gymnastics in her free time.)
How in the heck are people like Penn Jillette and Cliff Clavin supposed to compete against people who not only have athletic intelligence, but also many of whom are "stars" precisely because they can learn choreography?
Here are the winners by season. I submit that only 1 and 7 should have been allowed in the competition. 5 is borderline, since I'll grant that he doesn't move a lot in his sport. But 2, 6, and 8 are just ridiculous.
1.) Kelly Monaco - actress
2.) Drew Lachey - boy band member (aka singing dancer)
3.) Emmitt Smith - football player
4.) Apolo Anton Ohno - speed skater
5.) Hélio Castroneves - auto racer
6.) Kristi Yamaguchi - figure skater (aka ice dancer)
7.) Brooke Burke - actress
8.) Shawn Johnson - gymnast (aka athletic dancer)
How in the heck are people like Penn Jillette and Cliff Clavin supposed to compete against people who not only have athletic intelligence, but also many of whom are "stars" precisely because they can learn choreography?
Here are the winners by season. I submit that only 1 and 7 should have been allowed in the competition. 5 is borderline, since I'll grant that he doesn't move a lot in his sport. But 2, 6, and 8 are just ridiculous.
1.) Kelly Monaco - actress
2.) Drew Lachey - boy band member (aka singing dancer)
3.) Emmitt Smith - football player
4.) Apolo Anton Ohno - speed skater
5.) Hélio Castroneves - auto racer
6.) Kristi Yamaguchi - figure skater (aka ice dancer)
7.) Brooke Burke - actress
8.) Shawn Johnson - gymnast (aka athletic dancer)
Breaking the Cycle
The message of the book I just read, "The People of Sparks," was that you can stop a cycle of hate and violence through acts of kindness and love. I am continually surprised as how well this works. Responding to hate with love usually a) makes the hater reconsider their attitude and/or b) really really upsets the hater. Either outcome is pretty nice.
The alternative, responding with more violence, solidifies and justifies the hater's attitude, while encouraging the development of more hate within you. As backwards as it sounds, acting with love or hate towards someone tends to promote the corresponding attitude in both of you. We embrace the role we find ourselves playing.
I also see this as one of Jesus' central messages, and one it seems Christians are often prone to forget, especially once they acquire political power. What would have happened if we had used the money spent on the Mid-East wars to instead build hundreds of schools and hospitals around the world? Would we be safer than we are now? I'm not sure, but it's an idea that catches my imagination...
"Who Would Jesus Bomb?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU3aQ43YkwU&feature=related
The alternative, responding with more violence, solidifies and justifies the hater's attitude, while encouraging the development of more hate within you. As backwards as it sounds, acting with love or hate towards someone tends to promote the corresponding attitude in both of you. We embrace the role we find ourselves playing.
I also see this as one of Jesus' central messages, and one it seems Christians are often prone to forget, especially once they acquire political power. What would have happened if we had used the money spent on the Mid-East wars to instead build hundreds of schools and hospitals around the world? Would we be safer than we are now? I'm not sure, but it's an idea that catches my imagination...
"Who Would Jesus Bomb?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU3aQ43YkwU&feature=related
Monday, May 18, 2009
Books v. Movies
Movies that are better than the books on which they are based:
Fight Club
Forest Gump
City of Ember
Watchmen
Shawshank Redemption
More to come...
Fight Club
Forest Gump
City of Ember
Watchmen
Shawshank Redemption
More to come...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Skill and Talent
The distinction between skill and talent is very important to me. I like to use "talent" to refer to innate abilities and "skill" to refer to developed abilities. I believe that, given an infinite amount of time, anyone can develop any skill. However, since in life we have time constraints, it's prudent to be aware of our talents and build upon them.
"Soar With Your Strengths" by Donald Clifton and Paul Nelson (which I have yet to read) warns of the tendency to focus too heavily on weaknesses. While it is important to compensate for your weaknesses, in order to be successful you should focus more heavily on maximizing your strengths. I couldn't agree more.
My personal story: I would not list athletics as a talent of mine. I'm not horrible, but I'm just about average at any sport I pick up. I spent an ungodly number of hours practicing basketball in high school. I was better than average, but I was never going to be great. Greatness was not attainable for me in four years given my talents.
Meanwhile, my philosophy for academics was "the minimum necessary to get an A." As I realized later, my biggest talent is academics, especially analysis, and I would have had far more success building on that talent (as I do now). I'm not saying I should have completely avoided sports, just that it wasn't the wisest focus for all my practice time.
This video deals with the distinction. Although he uses "talent" to refer to acquired abilities, which doesn't lend credibility to my definition... I'll keep using the words as I defined them though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUuJo_DeyI
My favorite part is about taking 10,000 hours to develop a skill. That's 3 hours a day for 10 years. It's ironic that at age 14 I started playing basketball about 3 hours a day. I'm 25 now. Maybe I should have kept it up... I think according to this definition, my only current skills are eating and sleeping. Hopefully by the time I'm 35 I'll have gathered a few more.
Talent: An innate affinity for a certain activity.
Skill: An ability acquired through practice.
"Soar With Your Strengths" by Donald Clifton and Paul Nelson (which I have yet to read) warns of the tendency to focus too heavily on weaknesses. While it is important to compensate for your weaknesses, in order to be successful you should focus more heavily on maximizing your strengths. I couldn't agree more.
My personal story: I would not list athletics as a talent of mine. I'm not horrible, but I'm just about average at any sport I pick up. I spent an ungodly number of hours practicing basketball in high school. I was better than average, but I was never going to be great. Greatness was not attainable for me in four years given my talents.
Meanwhile, my philosophy for academics was "the minimum necessary to get an A." As I realized later, my biggest talent is academics, especially analysis, and I would have had far more success building on that talent (as I do now). I'm not saying I should have completely avoided sports, just that it wasn't the wisest focus for all my practice time.
This video deals with the distinction. Although he uses "talent" to refer to acquired abilities, which doesn't lend credibility to my definition... I'll keep using the words as I defined them though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUuJo_DeyI
My favorite part is about taking 10,000 hours to develop a skill. That's 3 hours a day for 10 years. It's ironic that at age 14 I started playing basketball about 3 hours a day. I'm 25 now. Maybe I should have kept it up... I think according to this definition, my only current skills are eating and sleeping. Hopefully by the time I'm 35 I'll have gathered a few more.
Talent: An innate affinity for a certain activity.
Skill: An ability acquired through practice.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Actuary
A friend recently played me a snippet of a podcast called the BS Report with Bill Simmons. Bill had a guest on named Rick Reilly, and Rick was complaining about people disparaging him on their blogs. His grievance was, "I don't really want to read [criticisms by] people who have never met me. Or some guy that's an Actuarial by day, and at night he's trying to do this blog and he's pissed that he never got hired as a sports writer, so he's gonna take it out on me and other people that are hired. I don't really need to hear his gripes."
I wasn't aware that my profession, with one of the most strenuous professional exam processes in the world, was a typical fall-back job for out-of-work sports writers. I also wasn't aware that we're adjectives.
Actuary (n): One who specializes in the quantification of risk.
Actuarial (adj): Of or pertaining to an actuary.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The importance of logic
Shortly after the "stupid people are happier" comment, another conversation took place which included a logical fallacy. Can you spot it?
Person A: "How are you today?"
Person B: "I'm doing fine."
A: "You look quite happy."
B: "Are you trying to say I'm stupid?"
Though this was a joke, this logical fallacy, called "affirming the consequent" is actually very pervasive and often quite hard to detect.
Logically, here's the form:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P
This works in some situations:
If Bob is a human, then Bob is a Homo sapien
Bob is a Homo sapien
Therefore, Bob is a human
But it does not work in others:
If Jill got hit by a train, then she needs serious medical attention.
Jill needs serious medical attention.
Jill got hit by a train.
Jill is probably glad this is not sound reasoning, or else she'd have a hard time with doctors ("Jill, it appears that your appendix is about to burst. I must again advise you to stay away from railroad tracks.").
It seems like these would be very easy to recognize, but they can be very subtle. TV News personalities love them. Although ad hominem and slippery slope probably could be the most popular, from my limited exposure. Counting fallacies is pretty much the only way I can stand to watch Fox News.
Fallacies can also be very funny, however. Some friends and I recently laid the groundwork for our Fallacious Fitness Program. We noted that, if you get done with your workout and you aren't tired, then you didn't exercise hard enough. So the purpose of a workout program is to make you tired. Thus you can be more fit if you incorporate as many tiring activities as possible into your daily life. Some suggestions would be: using the stairs, parking far away, eating deep-fried foods, riding your bike to work, driving long distances, reading very challenging books, watching basketball for 6+ hours, and staying up really late. As long as you're tired, you must have worked out.
This can be combined with the fallacy of constitution to provide an eating regime. The rule: As long as the food item contains something healthy, it itself is healthy. Some examples might include: fruit roll-ups, chocolate-covered cherries, fried potatoes, deep-fried mushrooms, broccoli-cheddar soup, corn flakes, and so on.
Person A: "How are you today?"
Person B: "I'm doing fine."
A: "You look quite happy."
B: "Are you trying to say I'm stupid?"
Though this was a joke, this logical fallacy, called "affirming the consequent" is actually very pervasive and often quite hard to detect.
Logically, here's the form:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P
This works in some situations:
If Bob is a human, then Bob is a Homo sapien
Bob is a Homo sapien
Therefore, Bob is a human
But it does not work in others:
If Jill got hit by a train, then she needs serious medical attention.
Jill needs serious medical attention.
Jill got hit by a train.
Jill is probably glad this is not sound reasoning, or else she'd have a hard time with doctors ("Jill, it appears that your appendix is about to burst. I must again advise you to stay away from railroad tracks.").
The reason why the first argument works is that the first statement is actually an "if and only if" statement (which in formal logic is usually indicated by an "iff", which I always dug). P implies Q, but Q also implies P, so the statement is valid by standard if-then reasoning, technically called "modus ponens."
It seems like these would be very easy to recognize, but they can be very subtle. TV News personalities love them. Although ad hominem and slippery slope probably could be the most popular, from my limited exposure. Counting fallacies is pretty much the only way I can stand to watch Fox News.
Fallacies can also be very funny, however. Some friends and I recently laid the groundwork for our Fallacious Fitness Program. We noted that, if you get done with your workout and you aren't tired, then you didn't exercise hard enough. So the purpose of a workout program is to make you tired. Thus you can be more fit if you incorporate as many tiring activities as possible into your daily life. Some suggestions would be: using the stairs, parking far away, eating deep-fried foods, riding your bike to work, driving long distances, reading very challenging books, watching basketball for 6+ hours, and staying up really late. As long as you're tired, you must have worked out.
This can be combined with the fallacy of constitution to provide an eating regime. The rule: As long as the food item contains something healthy, it itself is healthy. Some examples might include: fruit roll-ups, chocolate-covered cherries, fried potatoes, deep-fried mushrooms, broccoli-cheddar soup, corn flakes, and so on.
So I hope this has helped drive home the importance of being aware of logical fallacies. The greatest minds throughout history have all been very aware of fallacies, so if you develop you awareness of them, you could be an amazingly intelligent person as well.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Happiness
Someone at work recently made the observation that "Stupid people are happier."
In other words, "Ignorance is bliss." This is a concern for me, as I place a high value on learning. Are my efforts to improve my understanding of the world simply going to lead to unhappiness?
King Solomon seems to think so in Ecclesiastes 1:18:
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."
But I don't completely agree. I can buy that, on the whole, those who are unaware of the often brutal truths of the world could potentially be happier on a day-to-day basis. However, they are probably not properly preparing themselves for misfortune, and hence will likely suffer more when it occurs. (You know that place where willful ignorance meets foreseeable accident? I'm there.)
In statistical terms, stupid people might have a higher average happiness, but also a much higher variance. In investment terms, stupidity has a higher potential return to compensate for increased risk.
Actuaries tend to be very risk-averse. We also tend to be very learned. If these traits are related, which one is the cause?
I'll accept that if I kept myself ignorant of certain facts I might be happier. But predictability makes me happy. Having control of my life makes me happy. I'm not willing to give up those things. Too risky.
As stated in the video I Love Progress Bars: "What we think we like are surprises, but did you know 99% of surprises suck?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24vYoso8Af0
In other words, "Ignorance is bliss." This is a concern for me, as I place a high value on learning. Are my efforts to improve my understanding of the world simply going to lead to unhappiness?
King Solomon seems to think so in Ecclesiastes 1:18:
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."
But I don't completely agree. I can buy that, on the whole, those who are unaware of the often brutal truths of the world could potentially be happier on a day-to-day basis. However, they are probably not properly preparing themselves for misfortune, and hence will likely suffer more when it occurs. (You know that place where willful ignorance meets foreseeable accident? I'm there.)
In statistical terms, stupid people might have a higher average happiness, but also a much higher variance. In investment terms, stupidity has a higher potential return to compensate for increased risk.
Actuaries tend to be very risk-averse. We also tend to be very learned. If these traits are related, which one is the cause?
I'll accept that if I kept myself ignorant of certain facts I might be happier. But predictability makes me happy. Having control of my life makes me happy. I'm not willing to give up those things. Too risky.
As stated in the video I Love Progress Bars: "What we think we like are surprises, but did you know 99% of surprises suck?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24vYoso8Af0
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Cute Pretty Beautiful Hot
It's been a while since I defined a word, so I'll try to make up for it. This time, I'm focusing on words used to describe women's appearances. In order to do this, I focused on famous people I would consider the epitome of a given word and tried to describe various characteristics: face, body, personality, how they react to compliments about their looks, and makeup abilities. Then I tried to give an overall impression/summary.
"Cute"
Person: Ellen Page
Face: Good smile, smiles with eyes
Body: Boyish, small
Personality: Spunky, silly
Compliments: "No, I'm not!"
Makeup: Minimal
Overall: Chipper schoolgirl
"Pretty"
Person: Anybody
Face/ Body: Aspects of face or body attractive, but on the whole you don't tend to realize it.
Personality: Pleasant, normal
Compliments: "Really? You think so?"
Makeup: Novice
Overall: Default compliment
"Beautiful"
Person: Anne Hathaway
Face: "Ideal beauty," symmetry
Body: Wears right clothes for body, in shape but not noticeably so.
Personality: Welcoming, warm
Compliments: "Thank you! You're so sweet!"
Makeup: Pro
Overall: Just slightly out of your league
"Hot"
Person: Victoria Beckham
Face: Stonefaced
Body: Slender, tight clothes, knows how to handle heels
Personality: Aloof
Compliments: "Why are you talking to me?"
Makeup: Striking
Overall: Completely unapproachable
I read a definition of "hot" on this article called "The 7 Girls You'll Date In College," which I recommend for a quick laugh:
http://www.bspcn.com/2009/03/14/the-7-girls-youll-date-in-college/
It which doesn't exactly match up with my definition, but I really like it:
"Not beautiful, not cute, just 'hot.' Whether it was Daddy, society, or the media who ruined her, she’s spent years fighting her natural looks to end up in a place that should, by definition, be attractive, but feels distractingly photoshopped."
Final thought: I didn't know what to do with "sexy." I can't come up with a person who I would consider sexy, but not also one of the other four. I'll keep thinking.
"Cute"
Person: Ellen Page
Face: Good smile, smiles with eyes
Body: Boyish, small
Personality: Spunky, silly
Compliments: "No, I'm not!"
Makeup: Minimal
Overall: Chipper schoolgirl
"Pretty"
Person: Anybody
Face/ Body: Aspects of face or body attractive, but on the whole you don't tend to realize it.
Personality: Pleasant, normal
Compliments: "Really? You think so?"
Makeup: Novice
Overall: Default compliment
"Beautiful"
Person: Anne Hathaway
Face: "Ideal beauty," symmetry
Body: Wears right clothes for body, in shape but not noticeably so.
Personality: Welcoming, warm
Compliments: "Thank you! You're so sweet!"
Makeup: Pro
Overall: Just slightly out of your league
"Hot"
Person: Victoria Beckham
Face: Stonefaced
Body: Slender, tight clothes, knows how to handle heels
Personality: Aloof
Compliments: "Why are you talking to me?"
Makeup: Striking
Overall: Completely unapproachable
I read a definition of "hot" on this article called "The 7 Girls You'll Date In College," which I recommend for a quick laugh:
http://www.bspcn.com/2009/03/14/the-7-girls-youll-date-in-college/
It which doesn't exactly match up with my definition, but I really like it:
"Not beautiful, not cute, just 'hot.' Whether it was Daddy, society, or the media who ruined her, she’s spent years fighting her natural looks to end up in a place that should, by definition, be attractive, but feels distractingly photoshopped."
Final thought: I didn't know what to do with "sexy." I can't come up with a person who I would consider sexy, but not also one of the other four. I'll keep thinking.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Making Connections
Lyrics from several rap songs have been stuck in my head lately. I think I might be too heavily involved in my actuarial studies, because I'm starting to make some strange connections. I'll provide literal translations for those who are not as well versed in hip-hop terminology.
"Go Grind" by Chamillionaire and Paul Wall
Line: If your ice is fake and you ask me for a verse, I make my price inflate.
Translation: I charge more for my songwriting services when I notice that people are wearing cheap jewelry.
Insurance translation: It is appropriate to increase the spread on a loan or bond if the debtor is observed to have increased default risk. Also, it is important to carry out underwriting to determine the appropriate risk category of an applicant and thereby diminish anti-selection.
Line: Have a hustle for every season.
Translation: Maintain a variety of different income-producing projects.
Insurance translation: Consider matching cash flows and diversifying risk through an expanded product portfolio, such as selling annuities to compliment life insurance.
Line: When money store up, make a different hustle blow up.
Translation: When you find yourself in possession of extra cash, use it to fund a new project.
Insurance translation: Reinvest excess capital.
"Umbrella" verse by Jay-Z
Line: In anticipation of precipitation I stack chips for rainy days.
Translation: I save money for use if uncontrollable negative events occur.
Insurance translation: It is good practice to use conservative estimates when calculating reserves so the company will not become insolvent if experience is worse than expected.
If you would like to further enhance your rap translation abilities, you can view this instructive video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pm2wTGgYAw
"Go Grind" by Chamillionaire and Paul Wall
Line: If your ice is fake and you ask me for a verse, I make my price inflate.
Translation: I charge more for my songwriting services when I notice that people are wearing cheap jewelry.
Insurance translation: It is appropriate to increase the spread on a loan or bond if the debtor is observed to have increased default risk. Also, it is important to carry out underwriting to determine the appropriate risk category of an applicant and thereby diminish anti-selection.
Line: Have a hustle for every season.
Translation: Maintain a variety of different income-producing projects.
Insurance translation: Consider matching cash flows and diversifying risk through an expanded product portfolio, such as selling annuities to compliment life insurance.
Line: When money store up, make a different hustle blow up.
Translation: When you find yourself in possession of extra cash, use it to fund a new project.
Insurance translation: Reinvest excess capital.
"Umbrella" verse by Jay-Z
Line: In anticipation of precipitation I stack chips for rainy days.
Translation: I save money for use if uncontrollable negative events occur.
Insurance translation: It is good practice to use conservative estimates when calculating reserves so the company will not become insolvent if experience is worse than expected.
If you would like to further enhance your rap translation abilities, you can view this instructive video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pm2wTGgYAw
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Countries
I'm just copying this in so I can delete it from my Facebook profile but still have it around to update.
Defining "visited" as ever having been in that area for any amount of time (including in an airport or car), here is a list of countries I've visited in the order in which I think of them:
Country: Netherlands, Bermuda, America, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Austria, Vatican City, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan, Monaco, England, Scotland, Ireland (27)
States: Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, California, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Utah, Maine, Oklahoma, Kansas (28)
Defining "visited" as ever having been in that area for any amount of time (including in an airport or car), here is a list of countries I've visited in the order in which I think of them:
Country: Netherlands, Bermuda, America, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Austria, Vatican City, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan, Monaco, England, Scotland, Ireland (27)
States: Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, California, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Utah, Maine, Oklahoma, Kansas (28)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Role Model
What should we do with Michael Phelps? The poor guy really screwed up with that bong picture.
It's pretty clear he needs to be punished - he is a role model for young people, so not punishing him would send the wrong message. This makes total sense, but we need to go further. We need to make Phelps a role model for young potheads.
There's an anti-marijuana ad I really like: A young boy says something like: "My brother smokes weed. He never killed anyone, he didn't get arrested, he didn't die. He just didn't really do anything at all." [cut to image of brother chilling on couch] I can't find it on youtube but if someone can, please post it.
That's the biggest problem with marijuana: it drains people's ambition. This is where Phelps can swoop in: "Michael Phelps and you. What do you have in common? You both rock the ganja. Mike has won 873 gold medals. You can't even take out the trash on Wednesdays. Think about it. Brought to you by the Partnership for Productive Drug Use."
Phelps is losing his endorsements:
I say screw 'em, Mike! Go talk to Frito-Lay and get your pic on a bag of Doritos. Next time that pothead reaches for the munchies, your visage might be just the inspiration he needs to get off the couch and do something spectacular.
Or he might just watch videos of the Olympics on youtube...
Monday, February 9, 2009
Love
I don't think I'm up to the task of actually defining this word, but I have a very strong belief about it that I'd like to share. I believe that the biggest mistake people make about love is that they consider it to be an emotion, whereas it is actually a choice. When you love someone, you make a commitment to them - a commitment to consider their interests as if they were your own. This is as true for friends as it is for significant others.
When you say you love someone, or call someone your friend, you should recognize that you are making a promise to them. You are saying that you will stand by them, even when it is not convenient or pleasant.
It's very exciting to meet someone who you respect enough to consider making this commitment (and love must be based on respect in order to have a chance). But excitement is not love - no matter how much you enjoy someone's company, this feeling will fade. Love, the commitment, does not fade. In fact, it grows with time as you become dependent on it.
The deepest feeling of love comes from recognizing the depth of your commitment to each other.
In Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus, the author suggested that, even if you don't feel like doing something loving for a person, if you do the action, you will often then find yourself experiencing the emotion afterwards. I tried it out, and it struck me as dishonest to consider bringing Susan flowers when I wasn't feeling deep emotions about her at the time. But I found that the tip totally worked - once I bought the flowers, I started to feel the emotions. I'm not suggesting that we feign affection, but I think sometimes we forget that it is our actions, not our feelings, that are the basis of love.
Emotion is too fickle. When you love someone, whether it be your spouse or your friend, your commitment needs to extend beyond emotion. It needs to be a matter of duty and integrity. The cost must be high in order for the reward to be worthwhile. And although these bonds sometimes might be a struggle to maintain, I believe they are the most important and fulfilling thing we can do in our life.
When you say you love someone, or call someone your friend, you should recognize that you are making a promise to them. You are saying that you will stand by them, even when it is not convenient or pleasant.
It's very exciting to meet someone who you respect enough to consider making this commitment (and love must be based on respect in order to have a chance). But excitement is not love - no matter how much you enjoy someone's company, this feeling will fade. Love, the commitment, does not fade. In fact, it grows with time as you become dependent on it.
The deepest feeling of love comes from recognizing the depth of your commitment to each other.
In Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus, the author suggested that, even if you don't feel like doing something loving for a person, if you do the action, you will often then find yourself experiencing the emotion afterwards. I tried it out, and it struck me as dishonest to consider bringing Susan flowers when I wasn't feeling deep emotions about her at the time. But I found that the tip totally worked - once I bought the flowers, I started to feel the emotions. I'm not suggesting that we feign affection, but I think sometimes we forget that it is our actions, not our feelings, that are the basis of love.
Emotion is too fickle. When you love someone, whether it be your spouse or your friend, your commitment needs to extend beyond emotion. It needs to be a matter of duty and integrity. The cost must be high in order for the reward to be worthwhile. And although these bonds sometimes might be a struggle to maintain, I believe they are the most important and fulfilling thing we can do in our life.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Freedom
Intro
Americans sure do love this word. It's what our country was founded on, the source of our prosperity, and the reason why so many people around the world hate us. So, I'd like to define it.
Metaphysical Freedom
I spent about six straight months in college trying to define this word, culminating with a 40 page senior thesis (single space). Tragically, that was on metaphysical freedom, which I don't think is the concept at issue here. But I can't resist summing up my position.
Recently, I've been watching Dexter, a show about a sociopath with an irresistible desire to kill people who has trained himself to only kill bad people. He works for the cops, and when a guilty person slips through the legal system, Dexter satisfies his urges. Lately, he's been succeeding at overcoming these urges. In the process of killing someone, this piece of dialogue took place:
Dexter: I don't have to kill you.
Victim: Oh that's a relief!
Dexter: No, you don't understand. I'm still going to kill you, but the need isn't there. I think it's a very good sign.
Metaphysically, I argue that a free action is one which originates from the causal nexus which we identify as the decision-making part of our psyche. It's a way to carve out freedom within a causally determined world, which is a challenge. Whether Dexter's killing was free or not depending on the origin of the action. Prior to this incident, his urges were controlling him, and hence he was not free. Now he was making the choice to freely kill the man. In a way, it was kind of his first murder... Clearly there's a lot more there, but I'll move on.
Political Freedom
First, political freedom isn't just doing whatever you want - that's anarchy. We don't like anarchy because we don't like people infringing on each other's rights. This is the basis of the harm principle, so elegantly captured by Olver Wendell Holmes:
"My right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose."
(There's actually a great set of follow-up questions on this site I just found... I might have to answer them sometime: http://doggo.tripod.com/doggfist.html)
The harm principle is very powerful, and is one of the fundamental tenants of Libertarianism. I'll tilt my hand and say that, while I'm still on the fence about economic issues, I'm extremely liberal on social issues. I believe that, as long as I'm not hurting other people, the government should leave me alone.
Other ideas expand upon this base. A lot of people believe that the behavior of one's society has an influence on individuals' decisions. Allowing use, for example, might make it more pervasive and acceptable. Also is the idea that there are necessary progressions from non-harmful activities to harmful ones. Drugs lead to violence, for example. (I wouldn't be a good Philosopher if I didn't point out that this is a slippery slope - a logical fallacy.) There's also disagreement about what does and does not harm other people, as well as what action, or lack of action, is necessary for someone to be considered a victim. These are both present in smoking ban debates.
I did a pretty bad exegetical job in that last paragraph - sorry I didn't explain the arguments very well (That's a logical fallacy called Straw Man).
Social Freedom
Social freedom is one of my primary confusions about America the freest country in the world. There are a lot of things that I can't do here that I could do in Europe. In the Netherlands, I could legally, at the age of 18, drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, hire a prostitute, be euthanized if I were terminally ill, swim in a pool without a lifeguard, and marry a man. Except for the swimming and the alcohol, I haven't felt the need to do any of these things in America, but I feel less free since the options have been taken away from me.
Liability is strange here. How is it the bartender's fault if she serves someone underage? The person taking the action should be responsible for the results. This statement rings true to me:
Americans want freedom without responsibility.
Economic Freedom
A lot of Americans seem to believe that taxes are lost income to them and associate freedom with low taxes. The Laffer curve and the Rahn curve tend to be used to support the idea that taxes and spending should be lowered. But they suffer from the same problem - it's clear that there is an optimum point of taxation and spending, but it's not clear where that point lies. There are things that I don't think the government needs to run (e.g. the post office), but there are some things that government can do better than individuals (create public transportation systems).
I think this balance should be a continual debate, but I don't see it as a debate about freedom. You have to pay for public services one way or another. Tax rates seem more of an issue of efficiency than freedom. How do we best take care of our necessities?
Conclusion
Maybe I struck on the core of the issue: debate. A free society is one in which you are allowed to express you views without risk of repercussion. Freedom means that you have a say, small though it may be, in the election of representatives and the formation of laws. People can live with social or economic policies they disagree with as long as we have the ability to affect change in them.
If this is what freedom is, I need to mention that, although America is good about this, it is not the first (Greece) or only (Western Europe) country to have this type of freedom. But I do agree that it is very important.
Freedom - The ability to affect change in one's government.
Americans sure do love this word. It's what our country was founded on, the source of our prosperity, and the reason why so many people around the world hate us. So, I'd like to define it.
Metaphysical Freedom
I spent about six straight months in college trying to define this word, culminating with a 40 page senior thesis (single space). Tragically, that was on metaphysical freedom, which I don't think is the concept at issue here. But I can't resist summing up my position.
Recently, I've been watching Dexter, a show about a sociopath with an irresistible desire to kill people who has trained himself to only kill bad people. He works for the cops, and when a guilty person slips through the legal system, Dexter satisfies his urges. Lately, he's been succeeding at overcoming these urges. In the process of killing someone, this piece of dialogue took place:
Dexter: I don't have to kill you.
Victim: Oh that's a relief!
Dexter: No, you don't understand. I'm still going to kill you, but the need isn't there. I think it's a very good sign.
Metaphysically, I argue that a free action is one which originates from the causal nexus which we identify as the decision-making part of our psyche. It's a way to carve out freedom within a causally determined world, which is a challenge. Whether Dexter's killing was free or not depending on the origin of the action. Prior to this incident, his urges were controlling him, and hence he was not free. Now he was making the choice to freely kill the man. In a way, it was kind of his first murder... Clearly there's a lot more there, but I'll move on.
Political Freedom
First, political freedom isn't just doing whatever you want - that's anarchy. We don't like anarchy because we don't like people infringing on each other's rights. This is the basis of the harm principle, so elegantly captured by Olver Wendell Holmes:
"My right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose."
(There's actually a great set of follow-up questions on this site I just found... I might have to answer them sometime: http://doggo.tripod.com/doggfist.html)
The harm principle is very powerful, and is one of the fundamental tenants of Libertarianism. I'll tilt my hand and say that, while I'm still on the fence about economic issues, I'm extremely liberal on social issues. I believe that, as long as I'm not hurting other people, the government should leave me alone.
Other ideas expand upon this base. A lot of people believe that the behavior of one's society has an influence on individuals' decisions. Allowing use, for example, might make it more pervasive and acceptable. Also is the idea that there are necessary progressions from non-harmful activities to harmful ones. Drugs lead to violence, for example. (I wouldn't be a good Philosopher if I didn't point out that this is a slippery slope - a logical fallacy.) There's also disagreement about what does and does not harm other people, as well as what action, or lack of action, is necessary for someone to be considered a victim. These are both present in smoking ban debates.
I did a pretty bad exegetical job in that last paragraph - sorry I didn't explain the arguments very well (That's a logical fallacy called Straw Man).
Social Freedom
Social freedom is one of my primary confusions about America the freest country in the world. There are a lot of things that I can't do here that I could do in Europe. In the Netherlands, I could legally, at the age of 18, drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, hire a prostitute, be euthanized if I were terminally ill, swim in a pool without a lifeguard, and marry a man. Except for the swimming and the alcohol, I haven't felt the need to do any of these things in America, but I feel less free since the options have been taken away from me.
Liability is strange here. How is it the bartender's fault if she serves someone underage? The person taking the action should be responsible for the results. This statement rings true to me:
Americans want freedom without responsibility.
Economic Freedom
A lot of Americans seem to believe that taxes are lost income to them and associate freedom with low taxes. The Laffer curve and the Rahn curve tend to be used to support the idea that taxes and spending should be lowered. But they suffer from the same problem - it's clear that there is an optimum point of taxation and spending, but it's not clear where that point lies. There are things that I don't think the government needs to run (e.g. the post office), but there are some things that government can do better than individuals (create public transportation systems).
I think this balance should be a continual debate, but I don't see it as a debate about freedom. You have to pay for public services one way or another. Tax rates seem more of an issue of efficiency than freedom. How do we best take care of our necessities?
Conclusion
Maybe I struck on the core of the issue: debate. A free society is one in which you are allowed to express you views without risk of repercussion. Freedom means that you have a say, small though it may be, in the election of representatives and the formation of laws. People can live with social or economic policies they disagree with as long as we have the ability to affect change in them.
If this is what freedom is, I need to mention that, although America is good about this, it is not the first (Greece) or only (Western Europe) country to have this type of freedom. But I do agree that it is very important.
Freedom - The ability to affect change in one's government.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Normal
I recently heard a report on the NPR program “On The Media” concerning the revisions being made to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/12/26/05
This manual, created by the American Psychological Association, is used by the medical community to define what types of psychological states and behaviors indicate that someone has a mental disorder. Or, on the flip side, it defines what is normal. Hence, the word of the day. What does it mean to be normal.
In the area of mental health, normal is the preferred condition. “Doctor, I can’t fall asleep unless I’m wearing socks. Is that normal?” This preference also seems to extend into the area of relationships. “Man, I wish I just had a normal family.” “Gosh, why can’t I just date a normal person for once.”
In these examples, normality is a desirable state. But the word is also used in the opposite way when referring to achievements. Albert Einstein did not have a normal brain. Michael Phelps is not a normal swimmer. We all would like to be exceptional in certain ways, and being told we are merely normal would be crushing.
Do you want your children to be normal? You need some clarification to answer that. On the one hand, “normal” can mean “not harmful.” On the other hand, it can mean “ordinary” or “average.”
I’ll argue quickly that both of these connotations have issues. With the first, let’s name an example of a normal person. Next let’s name a normal family. Do you have your answers? If you do, I’d be willing to be that they’re fictional. We have a conception of normality, but I’m skeptical that it truly exists. Every person and every relationship has something wrong with it. Even if there are normal people, they are in the extreme minority. I guess my position is that abnormality is actually normal.
Concerning the second option, there’s an issue with associating average with bad. It reminds me of a joke that we had in my education classes at ISU – “The goal of No Child Left Behind is to have every student be above average.” By definition, half of all people are below average. It’s not necessarily a bad thing.
But nevertheless these connotations do exist, so the definition will have to try to encompass them. A common thread is that they indicate alignment with a perceived average. Whether this is good or bad depends on what is being measured. So I’ll go with:
“Normal” – a lack of novelty
There’s definitely a tension between wanting to fit in and wanting to be exceptional. Luckily, as long as our behavior does not injure ourselves or others, I think we can leave the question of normality unanswered. But this still doesn’t help me figure out whether the fact that I live in Normal, Illinois is a good or a bad thing…
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/12/26/05
This manual, created by the American Psychological Association, is used by the medical community to define what types of psychological states and behaviors indicate that someone has a mental disorder. Or, on the flip side, it defines what is normal. Hence, the word of the day. What does it mean to be normal.
In the area of mental health, normal is the preferred condition. “Doctor, I can’t fall asleep unless I’m wearing socks. Is that normal?” This preference also seems to extend into the area of relationships. “Man, I wish I just had a normal family.” “Gosh, why can’t I just date a normal person for once.”
In these examples, normality is a desirable state. But the word is also used in the opposite way when referring to achievements. Albert Einstein did not have a normal brain. Michael Phelps is not a normal swimmer. We all would like to be exceptional in certain ways, and being told we are merely normal would be crushing.
Do you want your children to be normal? You need some clarification to answer that. On the one hand, “normal” can mean “not harmful.” On the other hand, it can mean “ordinary” or “average.”
I’ll argue quickly that both of these connotations have issues. With the first, let’s name an example of a normal person. Next let’s name a normal family. Do you have your answers? If you do, I’d be willing to be that they’re fictional. We have a conception of normality, but I’m skeptical that it truly exists. Every person and every relationship has something wrong with it. Even if there are normal people, they are in the extreme minority. I guess my position is that abnormality is actually normal.
Concerning the second option, there’s an issue with associating average with bad. It reminds me of a joke that we had in my education classes at ISU – “The goal of No Child Left Behind is to have every student be above average.” By definition, half of all people are below average. It’s not necessarily a bad thing.
But nevertheless these connotations do exist, so the definition will have to try to encompass them. A common thread is that they indicate alignment with a perceived average. Whether this is good or bad depends on what is being measured. So I’ll go with:
“Normal” – a lack of novelty
There’s definitely a tension between wanting to fit in and wanting to be exceptional. Luckily, as long as our behavior does not injure ourselves or others, I think we can leave the question of normality unanswered. But this still doesn’t help me figure out whether the fact that I live in Normal, Illinois is a good or a bad thing…
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Plan
"I don't really know why people do blogs; it seems so self-indulgent to me."
That was me not a month ago trying to figure out why people feel their lives are interesting enough to write about online. But, at the risk of being hypocritical and self-indulgent myself, I've decided to join the fray. We'll see how it works out.
It's a strange audience to write to... Trying to figure out if I'm going to limit it to a select few or just throw it out to the entire world. For now, I think I'll go for the latter. Keep me from gossiping.
So what do I have to contribute to all this noise on the internet? I don't think my day-to-day life is anything too notable. Those of you who want to hear about actuarial science probably already know a lot more about it than I do. No, I think instead I'll focus on my primary hobby - thinking. One of the main things I like to think about is definitions. Clearly, I know you can look up denotations in the dictionary, but I find connotations far more interesting. So I'll have some of those. I'll probably also throw in some musings about art, American culture, religion, politics, etc. Maybe a top-10 list occasionally. We'll see where things go.
For now I'll structure these pieces around defining a word and see how far that takes me. I summoned up all my cleverness to come up with the title of this blog, a combination of define and infinity. I'm hoping this save me from feeling the need to come to a conclusive result after a finite period of time - sometimes that's just not possible.
Finally, I'll make ever effort to be concise and humble, even though doing so will go against 98% of my natural inclinations.
Happy Obama Eve!
That was me not a month ago trying to figure out why people feel their lives are interesting enough to write about online. But, at the risk of being hypocritical and self-indulgent myself, I've decided to join the fray. We'll see how it works out.
It's a strange audience to write to... Trying to figure out if I'm going to limit it to a select few or just throw it out to the entire world. For now, I think I'll go for the latter. Keep me from gossiping.
So what do I have to contribute to all this noise on the internet? I don't think my day-to-day life is anything too notable. Those of you who want to hear about actuarial science probably already know a lot more about it than I do. No, I think instead I'll focus on my primary hobby - thinking. One of the main things I like to think about is definitions. Clearly, I know you can look up denotations in the dictionary, but I find connotations far more interesting. So I'll have some of those. I'll probably also throw in some musings about art, American culture, religion, politics, etc. Maybe a top-10 list occasionally. We'll see where things go.
For now I'll structure these pieces around defining a word and see how far that takes me. I summoned up all my cleverness to come up with the title of this blog, a combination of define and infinity. I'm hoping this save me from feeling the need to come to a conclusive result after a finite period of time - sometimes that's just not possible.
Finally, I'll make ever effort to be concise and humble, even though doing so will go against 98% of my natural inclinations.
Happy Obama Eve!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
