Thoughts about nothing
At times you have a lot to write and at times nothing. This passage is a product of an empty mind with lots of time
on hand. I think at times it is better to start with an empty mind and just write. The beginner's luck might produce
something classic.
Anyway, I never rated my writing skills highly. Lately I have been writing a bit more because of the ideas that seem
worth putting on paper. And that sums up my writing ability - full of ideas, lack of literary skill. As they say if
you are a good writer, you can get away with crappy ideas. Something like those prospective GRE applicants wrote in
college mags, where for every third word you had to use a dictionary. And they thought, it made their material worth
reading.
I think I could have had a couple of publications in the college mag, but what I lacked was confidence. Most
importantly I was confused. I didn't know back then that right and wrong are mere conventions. Cannibalism was
acceptable among Fijians while Jains didn't allow eating Ginger. The source of my confusion and often an inferiority
complex was that these people who so confidently flaunted their ideas on life, religion and anything and anyone,
knew something I didn't. When they flaunted their money, looks, health and anything that they thought they had more
than others, I felt lesser. I guess I am equally guilty for doing the same at times. It is just the inherent
competitiveness in humans. As they say, if there is a characteristic in a living being, it is because it helped it
survive/evolve at a certain stage. Competitiveness, must definitely have a use. It is often observed that there is
more competition between men in mixed gender groups as compared to 'only men' groups. The objective is quite
evident.
Look at all the possibilities of competition in our world. We compete in sports for medals, in school for grades, in
work for promotion, in war for national advantage, in art for fame, in business for money, and in politics for
power. For the winners of competitions there are fat wallets and big egos. What is there for the losers? What is the
ratio of winners to losers? Obviously there are many more losers than winners.
Hence the question to ask is 'Is competition good?'. I would like to take the example of communism, which stood for
collective good. Everybody is content with what they have and hence there is no competition. When there is no
competition, efforts are guided to something which is good for everyone. It seems like such an ideal scenario. I
mean with issues like climate change, poverty and overpopulation we should be directing efforts to eradicate them
rather than just try to beat each other.
Then why did it fail? Ofcourse, the US bled it to slow death. But wasn't it perfect? It did achieve amazing things.
USSR for example became the most powerful country and its people had all the necessities that they needed. They were
scientifically more advanced than any other country in the world. But I guess, it went against the very nature of
the human being. In killing competitiveness, it took away the only motivating factor, the winner takes it all.
Competitiveness has two sides like everything else. The carrot of a win (be it for material benefits or ego boosts)
motivates people to perform better. This is known as a 'healthy competition', where people compete to get better at
what they do, with the objective of the group getting better. Then there is the con side - 'unhealthy competition'
where all we do is to try to outdo each other.
Looking at a democratic setup where politicians do good work for the people so that people vote for them and they
win. I guess that is an ideal democratic scenario. But mostly what happens is politicians undermine each other. So rather than improve their credit they try to spoil the opponent's credit. With the only choice for voters left is 'Which is the better of the two evils?' democracy becomes a mockery.
This is where ethics becomes extremely important. Yes, the objective for a politician is to win elections. But what is the use of winning if the society on the whole is worse off. The politician might become richer and more powerful but he will rule over a low quality populace. So though his power will go up among the people he rules, because the power of the people he rules over goes down, his power goes down.
So now we are talking about ethics. But ethics are based on metaphysics. So we are back to square one. I started with my writing ability and reached metaphysics. It seems where ever I start with, it will take me all the way to
metaphysics. So until the metaphysics is sorted out, I can't define ethics. Until I deifne ethics, the question of
'Is competition good?' is meaningless. So is the democracy vs communism conflict. On it also depends my confidence
over my ideas. But to say the least, I have found out that all metaphysics starts with an assumption. So 'only one'
metaphysics is impossible to determine. Also, the correctness and quality of my writing is subjective and can not be
determined for certain. So any doubts about the correctness of my thoughts need not arise at all. Also any
inferiority complex arising from my inadequecies or 'so called' failures has no basis because what is good is again
subjective.
Hence what is important is to have a personal philosophy which comprises - metaphysics and ethics both backed by
solid reason and at times personal choice. Then there should be an acceptance that my philosophy is the best for me
based knowledge and mental capacity I have at this moment. This justifies different people having different
philosophies and they need not affect you. There should be an openness too for accepting new ideas and testing them.
If found to be correct incorporating them in the philosphy. Also there might be a stage where the new ideas get so
conflicting with the philosophy that I need to start from ground up. At such a time a decision needs to be made
about reworking the philosophy. Ofcourse I dont need to stress that the quality of ideas determines the amount of
effort needed to be put in incorporating them into my philosophy.
So the philosophy might not be able to give an absolute right and wrong answer, but atleast tell me what is best. Formation is an easy thing, implementation is difficult. If I can form such a philosophy and live it to the T I think I would consider it to be a TRUE success.
At times you have a lot to write and at times nothing. This passage is a product of an empty mind with lots of time
on hand. I think at times it is better to start with an empty mind and just write. The beginner's luck might produce
something classic.
Anyway, I never rated my writing skills highly. Lately I have been writing a bit more because of the ideas that seem
worth putting on paper. And that sums up my writing ability - full of ideas, lack of literary skill. As they say if
you are a good writer, you can get away with crappy ideas. Something like those prospective GRE applicants wrote in
college mags, where for every third word you had to use a dictionary. And they thought, it made their material worth
reading.
I think I could have had a couple of publications in the college mag, but what I lacked was confidence. Most
importantly I was confused. I didn't know back then that right and wrong are mere conventions. Cannibalism was
acceptable among Fijians while Jains didn't allow eating Ginger. The source of my confusion and often an inferiority
complex was that these people who so confidently flaunted their ideas on life, religion and anything and anyone,
knew something I didn't. When they flaunted their money, looks, health and anything that they thought they had more
than others, I felt lesser. I guess I am equally guilty for doing the same at times. It is just the inherent
competitiveness in humans. As they say, if there is a characteristic in a living being, it is because it helped it
survive/evolve at a certain stage. Competitiveness, must definitely have a use. It is often observed that there is
more competition between men in mixed gender groups as compared to 'only men' groups. The objective is quite
evident.
Look at all the possibilities of competition in our world. We compete in sports for medals, in school for grades, in
work for promotion, in war for national advantage, in art for fame, in business for money, and in politics for
power. For the winners of competitions there are fat wallets and big egos. What is there for the losers? What is the
ratio of winners to losers? Obviously there are many more losers than winners.
Hence the question to ask is 'Is competition good?'. I would like to take the example of communism, which stood for
collective good. Everybody is content with what they have and hence there is no competition. When there is no
competition, efforts are guided to something which is good for everyone. It seems like such an ideal scenario. I
mean with issues like climate change, poverty and overpopulation we should be directing efforts to eradicate them
rather than just try to beat each other.
Then why did it fail? Ofcourse, the US bled it to slow death. But wasn't it perfect? It did achieve amazing things.
USSR for example became the most powerful country and its people had all the necessities that they needed. They were
scientifically more advanced than any other country in the world. But I guess, it went against the very nature of
the human being. In killing competitiveness, it took away the only motivating factor, the winner takes it all.
Competitiveness has two sides like everything else. The carrot of a win (be it for material benefits or ego boosts)
motivates people to perform better. This is known as a 'healthy competition', where people compete to get better at
what they do, with the objective of the group getting better. Then there is the con side - 'unhealthy competition'
where all we do is to try to outdo each other.
Looking at a democratic setup where politicians do good work for the people so that people vote for them and they
win. I guess that is an ideal democratic scenario. But mostly what happens is politicians undermine each other. So rather than improve their credit they try to spoil the opponent's credit. With the only choice for voters left is 'Which is the better of the two evils?' democracy becomes a mockery.
This is where ethics becomes extremely important. Yes, the objective for a politician is to win elections. But what is the use of winning if the society on the whole is worse off. The politician might become richer and more powerful but he will rule over a low quality populace. So though his power will go up among the people he rules, because the power of the people he rules over goes down, his power goes down.
So now we are talking about ethics. But ethics are based on metaphysics. So we are back to square one. I started with my writing ability and reached metaphysics. It seems where ever I start with, it will take me all the way to
metaphysics. So until the metaphysics is sorted out, I can't define ethics. Until I deifne ethics, the question of
'Is competition good?' is meaningless. So is the democracy vs communism conflict. On it also depends my confidence
over my ideas. But to say the least, I have found out that all metaphysics starts with an assumption. So 'only one'
metaphysics is impossible to determine. Also, the correctness and quality of my writing is subjective and can not be
determined for certain. So any doubts about the correctness of my thoughts need not arise at all. Also any
inferiority complex arising from my inadequecies or 'so called' failures has no basis because what is good is again
subjective.
Hence what is important is to have a personal philosophy which comprises - metaphysics and ethics both backed by
solid reason and at times personal choice. Then there should be an acceptance that my philosophy is the best for me
based knowledge and mental capacity I have at this moment. This justifies different people having different
philosophies and they need not affect you. There should be an openness too for accepting new ideas and testing them.
If found to be correct incorporating them in the philosphy. Also there might be a stage where the new ideas get so
conflicting with the philosophy that I need to start from ground up. At such a time a decision needs to be made
about reworking the philosophy. Ofcourse I dont need to stress that the quality of ideas determines the amount of
effort needed to be put in incorporating them into my philosophy.
So the philosophy might not be able to give an absolute right and wrong answer, but atleast tell me what is best. Formation is an easy thing, implementation is difficult. If I can form such a philosophy and live it to the T I think I would consider it to be a TRUE success.
