This world involves so much nuance, and yet so many are hopelessly naive. Those who aren't are so entrenched in their ideological paradigms, that they have lost the ability to reason objectively.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Hyper extension
Every new phone I get has the latest computing power, and yet, each phone I have invariably runs into problems. If only they matched higher computing power phones with less computationally demanding phones, all phones would run perfectly smoothly.
Technology
I wish, instead of making technology so fancy, filled with useless gimmicks, companies would focus on making products that work. This is a lesson Apple has learned, and it is in part why so many are loyal to its products
Friday, August 16, 2013
The folly of science
There are many things in life that cannot be answered by Science. The folly of many in science is the assumption that their field can answer all that has been previously unanswered
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Undogmatically Dogmatic
"It is better to be proved incorrect than to never know what is correct."-Yousuf Hafuda
This is a position I have held for some time now, and one that I believe induces progress. But first, I must explain what I mean to propose with the ostensibly paradoxical statement of being undogmatically dogmatic.
Faced in the world are often two different types, ones that are in stark contrast of each other. There is the staunch absolutist, who invariably believes they are right. Also present is the apologetic relativist, realizing that so many have been wrong in the past, that they cannot possibly be right. While a position of humbleness, this is also a position of stagnation and confusion.
Those who espouse an overly dogmatic nature characterize a personality that is often closed minded, one that is not swayed by the clutches of reason and rationality. They often retain archaic justifications for beliefs simply for fear of admitting fault or error. This characterizes a large portion of human beings, and is to an extent ingrained in our nature.
However, there are also those who refuse to take a position, for fear of being incorrect. By their own accounts, this represents prudence and tolerance. However, this position represents defeat in the search for truth, the reluctant acceptance that the human race can no longer epistemologically progress.
Thereby lies the crux of the issue. The dogmatist does not respond to logic, rather to their visceral attachment to emotionally held beliefs. The relativist, although an aberration, rebuts such bigotry simply by giving up.
To combat such perversity, a new type must arise, one that remains in search of truth, not a self purported, self endorsed belief. This new type, can and must be an undogmatic dogmatist. They must balance to two often contentious notions of believing dogmatically those beliefs they do hold by arguing for them vehemently, and realizing when they are indeed wrong.
The reason why dogmatism, although often pejoratively referred to, is cardinal to such a quest is because one cannot present an argument eloquently unless they fully believe that which they are arguing for. If one does not fervently argue for a belief, that belief will not be given justice, and the danger of stagnation will once again prove present.
However, one must not retain such dogmatism beyond this nuanced sense. The very beliefs they hold, they must understand are always subject to revision, and once one finds what they believe is the ultimate truth, they can simply change their mind.
This omnipresent yet latent iteration of undogmatism must be veiled carefully, so that the impetus for progress is possible. What results is an incessant system in which different ideas are tested, refuted, abandoned, and new ideas acquired. The purpose for such a system is progress.
Indeed, it cannot be done any other way.
-Yousuf Hafuda
This is a position I have held for some time now, and one that I believe induces progress. But first, I must explain what I mean to propose with the ostensibly paradoxical statement of being undogmatically dogmatic.
Faced in the world are often two different types, ones that are in stark contrast of each other. There is the staunch absolutist, who invariably believes they are right. Also present is the apologetic relativist, realizing that so many have been wrong in the past, that they cannot possibly be right. While a position of humbleness, this is also a position of stagnation and confusion.
Those who espouse an overly dogmatic nature characterize a personality that is often closed minded, one that is not swayed by the clutches of reason and rationality. They often retain archaic justifications for beliefs simply for fear of admitting fault or error. This characterizes a large portion of human beings, and is to an extent ingrained in our nature.
However, there are also those who refuse to take a position, for fear of being incorrect. By their own accounts, this represents prudence and tolerance. However, this position represents defeat in the search for truth, the reluctant acceptance that the human race can no longer epistemologically progress.
Thereby lies the crux of the issue. The dogmatist does not respond to logic, rather to their visceral attachment to emotionally held beliefs. The relativist, although an aberration, rebuts such bigotry simply by giving up.
To combat such perversity, a new type must arise, one that remains in search of truth, not a self purported, self endorsed belief. This new type, can and must be an undogmatic dogmatist. They must balance to two often contentious notions of believing dogmatically those beliefs they do hold by arguing for them vehemently, and realizing when they are indeed wrong.
The reason why dogmatism, although often pejoratively referred to, is cardinal to such a quest is because one cannot present an argument eloquently unless they fully believe that which they are arguing for. If one does not fervently argue for a belief, that belief will not be given justice, and the danger of stagnation will once again prove present.
However, one must not retain such dogmatism beyond this nuanced sense. The very beliefs they hold, they must understand are always subject to revision, and once one finds what they believe is the ultimate truth, they can simply change their mind.
This omnipresent yet latent iteration of undogmatism must be veiled carefully, so that the impetus for progress is possible. What results is an incessant system in which different ideas are tested, refuted, abandoned, and new ideas acquired. The purpose for such a system is progress.
Indeed, it cannot be done any other way.
-Yousuf Hafuda
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Choosing an Economic System Based on Context, not Bias
For years there have been vehement verbal arguments waged regarding the 'ideal' economic system. The world has felt tumultuous and widespread implications as a result of such dogma, and it remains to be clear which economic system reigns supreme. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to a conclusive answer has been the issue of context. There are communists who still claim that communism is viable, and point to Soviet Russia as a failed communist regime.
As a result of the multitude of mitigating factors present in economic discourse, conclusions have been far from conclusive. Yet the ensuing battle is still being waged, and surprisingly, few have adopted the notion that the correct economic system may depend on context.
Perhaps the stumbling block in reaching such a conclusion is a result of the lack of objectivity in such a claim, and humans crave absolutist answers. It also removes the notion of group loyalty, pitting anarchists against socialists, socialists against capitalists, free market capitalists against Keynesians, and so on.
When one accepts the notion that different circumstances are inherently different, it becomes clear that the correct economic system may in fact lie in the context at hand. Those who will berate this as overt subjectivity may rest assured. The evaluation of economic systems based on context promotes objective answers, realizing that context plays an integral role in determining the ideal economic system. Thus, the number of 'correct' answers is multitudinous, but each unique example has one 'correct' answer.
A real life example of the implementation of this system is in fact quite simple. It has become common knowledge that Libya has been liberated, and this of course has lead to conjecture on which direction the Libyan people will head towards. Libya is a prime example because it contains qualities that deem it ideal for a socialist economy.
Libya has a small populous, but vast oil reserves. As has been seen in Norway, countries with massive oil reserves and small populations can withstand a subsidized economy, quite simply, because they can afford it.
One of the most potent criticisms of Socialism is that it reduces the incentive to work. What if there is a populous that does not need incentive to work, and simply works? This idea sounds preposterous to many, and is likely not a feature of any sane populous. However, not all populations were created equally. There are some populations that are more educated, some that have instilled in them a strong work ethic, and so on. In Libya, there is a population that is largely adherent to its religion, which stigmatizes those who choose not to work.
Now it cannot be safely assumed that the Libyan people are not in need of incentive. However, it can be postulated with relative certainty that they will not experience the widely berated 'bottom-feeder' effect of socialism, where those at the lower rungs of the social ladder become content with their ostensibly unsatisfactory circumstance.
Other situations can be appraised in a similar fashion. What is important to keep in mind is quite simply, that there is not one 'better' answer, only an answer that fits the circumstance. Circumstantial economics is the rational solution to what ails us. The manner in which problems have always been solved has depended on the circumstance, and this is a cardinal tenet of rational thought. Thus, in search of economic answers, we must likewise pay attention to the issue causally, and abort our unsubstantiated dogmas, biases and convictions.
The central tenet of the idea of choosing an economy based on context lies in the ability to transcend group loyalty and appraise each example for the unique situation it is. This is not a refusal to reach a definitive conclusion, but rather the realization that each situation warrants a separate response.
As a result of the multitude of mitigating factors present in economic discourse, conclusions have been far from conclusive. Yet the ensuing battle is still being waged, and surprisingly, few have adopted the notion that the correct economic system may depend on context.
Perhaps the stumbling block in reaching such a conclusion is a result of the lack of objectivity in such a claim, and humans crave absolutist answers. It also removes the notion of group loyalty, pitting anarchists against socialists, socialists against capitalists, free market capitalists against Keynesians, and so on.
When one accepts the notion that different circumstances are inherently different, it becomes clear that the correct economic system may in fact lie in the context at hand. Those who will berate this as overt subjectivity may rest assured. The evaluation of economic systems based on context promotes objective answers, realizing that context plays an integral role in determining the ideal economic system. Thus, the number of 'correct' answers is multitudinous, but each unique example has one 'correct' answer.
A real life example of the implementation of this system is in fact quite simple. It has become common knowledge that Libya has been liberated, and this of course has lead to conjecture on which direction the Libyan people will head towards. Libya is a prime example because it contains qualities that deem it ideal for a socialist economy.
Libya has a small populous, but vast oil reserves. As has been seen in Norway, countries with massive oil reserves and small populations can withstand a subsidized economy, quite simply, because they can afford it.
One of the most potent criticisms of Socialism is that it reduces the incentive to work. What if there is a populous that does not need incentive to work, and simply works? This idea sounds preposterous to many, and is likely not a feature of any sane populous. However, not all populations were created equally. There are some populations that are more educated, some that have instilled in them a strong work ethic, and so on. In Libya, there is a population that is largely adherent to its religion, which stigmatizes those who choose not to work.
Now it cannot be safely assumed that the Libyan people are not in need of incentive. However, it can be postulated with relative certainty that they will not experience the widely berated 'bottom-feeder' effect of socialism, where those at the lower rungs of the social ladder become content with their ostensibly unsatisfactory circumstance.
Other situations can be appraised in a similar fashion. What is important to keep in mind is quite simply, that there is not one 'better' answer, only an answer that fits the circumstance. Circumstantial economics is the rational solution to what ails us. The manner in which problems have always been solved has depended on the circumstance, and this is a cardinal tenet of rational thought. Thus, in search of economic answers, we must likewise pay attention to the issue causally, and abort our unsubstantiated dogmas, biases and convictions.
The central tenet of the idea of choosing an economy based on context lies in the ability to transcend group loyalty and appraise each example for the unique situation it is. This is not a refusal to reach a definitive conclusion, but rather the realization that each situation warrants a separate response.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Freedom as a Spectrum
The very notion of freedom is deceivingly simple. The laymen definition is that freedom is the ability to choose an indefinite range of actions. However, a quick look at history displays that the notion of freedom has endured much tumult, and has been a source for contention among intellectual circles.
Karl Marx promised his theory would usher the liberation of the proletariat. Libertarians make the exact opposite contentions yet they believe they best espouse the notion of freedom. The same is the case between all opposing factions throughout the course of history. If the definition of freedom is so simple, why is it that the interpretations have so widely varied?
To discern the answer one must perceive the notion of freedom through a nuanced approach. The simple definition of freedom induces the idea that a free society allows its members an indefinite range of actions. However, if this were the case, jurisprudence would be unnecessary.
What many fail to realize or address, is that an excess in freedom often leads to a lack of it. In the area of politics we have the political spectrum. In economics there is the economic spectrum. In art, there is the color spectrum. Yet there exists another widely prevalent yet much ignored spectrum. This is the freedom spectrum.
The idea of the freedom spectrum is quite simply, that in each situation there is a varying level of freedom. We will assume that on the left hand side is where there is an ultimate inhibition of freedom, and on the right hand side there is an unlimited range of actions.
On the right hand side society is given full discretion, while on the left hand side they are met with oppression. The basic tenet of this spectrum is quite simple, that in all situations freedom varies.
However, what many fallaciously assume is that in order to achieve ultimate freedom, society must err to the right. However, if we are all completely free, are we free to take each others' freedoms? If one is allowed an infinite range of actions, who will prevent them from murdering an individual they have personal qualms with?
This proves the seemingly paradoxical statement that ultimate freedom can lead to a lack of it. Thus, ultimate freedom does not lie on either side, but lies nearer the center. It is where each individual has as much freedom as they can without inhibiting the freedom of another. This in itself is a contentious statement and by no means ends the public discourse regarding freedom, however, it must be the guiding central tenet in determining what course of action provides for the most freedom.
This notion of freedom has an infinite amount of real life applications. A closely similar iteration of it does exist, but what I have done is to simply contextualize it so that my future points may be elucidated on and clarified more easily. Freedom as a spectrum is simply a prelude to forthcoming arguments regarding the real-life application of freedom in the context of varying fields of study.
Karl Marx promised his theory would usher the liberation of the proletariat. Libertarians make the exact opposite contentions yet they believe they best espouse the notion of freedom. The same is the case between all opposing factions throughout the course of history. If the definition of freedom is so simple, why is it that the interpretations have so widely varied?
To discern the answer one must perceive the notion of freedom through a nuanced approach. The simple definition of freedom induces the idea that a free society allows its members an indefinite range of actions. However, if this were the case, jurisprudence would be unnecessary.
What many fail to realize or address, is that an excess in freedom often leads to a lack of it. In the area of politics we have the political spectrum. In economics there is the economic spectrum. In art, there is the color spectrum. Yet there exists another widely prevalent yet much ignored spectrum. This is the freedom spectrum.
The idea of the freedom spectrum is quite simply, that in each situation there is a varying level of freedom. We will assume that on the left hand side is where there is an ultimate inhibition of freedom, and on the right hand side there is an unlimited range of actions.
On the right hand side society is given full discretion, while on the left hand side they are met with oppression. The basic tenet of this spectrum is quite simple, that in all situations freedom varies.
However, what many fallaciously assume is that in order to achieve ultimate freedom, society must err to the right. However, if we are all completely free, are we free to take each others' freedoms? If one is allowed an infinite range of actions, who will prevent them from murdering an individual they have personal qualms with?
This proves the seemingly paradoxical statement that ultimate freedom can lead to a lack of it. Thus, ultimate freedom does not lie on either side, but lies nearer the center. It is where each individual has as much freedom as they can without inhibiting the freedom of another. This in itself is a contentious statement and by no means ends the public discourse regarding freedom, however, it must be the guiding central tenet in determining what course of action provides for the most freedom.
This notion of freedom has an infinite amount of real life applications. A closely similar iteration of it does exist, but what I have done is to simply contextualize it so that my future points may be elucidated on and clarified more easily. Freedom as a spectrum is simply a prelude to forthcoming arguments regarding the real-life application of freedom in the context of varying fields of study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)