Definitions | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'definitions' CategoryPage 2 of 2

“Freedom” as just a word

Published

on October 24, 2005

. 4 Comments

This one is related to People and their stated goals, below. But this is the most common example, and I wanted to write a bit more about this.

Freedom is a concept that most people find desirable, at least for themselves - many people, however, would like nothing else than to take away other people’s freedom. But I digress - what I mean is that, to most people, “freedom = good.”

However, many freedoms have been taken away in the name of freedom. Confused yet? The problem is that many people only “remember” the “freedom = good” part, and forget about what the word really means, and will support anyone who says he’s “fighting for freedom” or “defending freedom”… regardless of what he actually does.

This is not new. Ever heard of the French Revolution? It was supposedly about “freedom”, yet it was a reign of terror that virtually destroyed the country, and caused the death of millions. “Freedom?” You would have your head cut off if you looked at the “freedom-loving” revolucionaries in the wrong way, or if anyone - without needing a shred of evidence - accused you of being a “counter-revolucionary”. Because they said they were “fighting for freedom”, all their actions, anything they ever did, was completely excusable, and any criticism would label one as “anti-freedom” - to the guillotine!

A more current example is when a particular country is equated with “freedom”. Yes, that country may have once been the most free in the world, a bastion of freedom itself. But that doesn’t mean that “freedom” and “that country” are the same thing. The country is free only while it stays free. It wasn’t like some badge for perpetuity, you know. It’s perfectly possible that that country becomes “less free” and that other countries become “more free”. This is, of course, what I think the Bush administration, and their supporters, are doing. They say they’re “for freedom”, so anyone who is against them is “against freedom”… but from whom do the anti-freedom measures, such as the PATRIOT Act, come? Since when has disagreeing with the President made one a “traitor” or a “terrorist helper”? Never mind invading other countries…

Freedom isn’t automatic. You aren’t free just because you once were. And someone can say he’s “for freedom”… and be lying.

Hypocrisy, granite quarries and “the real world”

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 17, 2005

in absolutes, choices, definitions, honesty, ideals and work

. 6 Comments

I’ve written here, in the past, about the general dishonesty and corruption at my workplace - and, unlike some, I don’t think I’m in an especially “bad” place. From experience, both mine (it’s my 7th job or so) and others’, this place isn’t really so bad, compared to other companies.

Yet, the level of hypocrisy I have to maintain… disgusts me.

And, no matter how much I try to avoid it, I always think of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”’s Howard Roark, and how he ended up working in a granite quarry, because he refused to compromise on his principles.

Of course, Rand’s books are exaggerated - they’re books of extremes, of “black and white”, without shades of gray. I have responsibilities, I have a house to maintain, cats to feed, and debts to pay. I have dreams, which, while not directly related to material possessions, include some material possessions in them. So I can’t - right? - leave my job because of a “normal” level of hypocrisy, of intrigue, of “rewarding the bad workers and punishing the good”. Besides, most places are as bad as this one. And working on my own is still a bit far away.

Still…

I sometimes wonder if I’m not really sacrificing myself - what really matters, such as my integrity, my sense of honesty, and my self-respect, for something that, while important, isn’t that important.

Because I certainly don’t like myself as I say “good morning” to the department head, when I have absolutely no reason to respect him, know he’s incompetent and a liar, and wish him the worst morning in the world.

“Good” and “Evil”

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 10, 2005

in definitions

. 0 Comments

Since those terms have been mentioned recently, let’s talk a little about them.

Naturally, people have many different definitions of “good” and “evil”. Some believe “good” is doing what a God wants, and “evil” is the opposite of that. Some think “good” is helping people, and “evil” is being selfish, caring only for yourself. To some, “good” is doing what others expect of you, obeying authority, and so on. And many people don’t even believe in those concepts themselves - they believe they are just labels applied by Man.

Thinking a bit about it, I mostly agree with the Ayn Rand / Objectivist concept: “good” is whatever promotes life - not simply survival, but life as a rational being. “Evil”, then, is whatever promotes death - not just a physical death, but death of the self, death of your soul, death of your joy to live - a kind of “living death” (and I’m not talking about zombies :)).

An evil god, part 2: good and evil

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 5, 2005

in definitions and religion

. 6 Comments

Continuing the “evil god” theme… what defines good and evil? Are they “intrinsic” values, or are they something defined arbitrarily by some entity, such as a god, or gods?

For instance, I believe that “good” equals justice, truth, honesty, courage, integrity, protecting the innocent, and such. But I don’t think I’m in the majority.

Continue reading ‘An evil god, part 2: good and evil’

Creeds of Death

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 29, 2005

in collectivism, definitions, happiness and sadness

. 1 Comment

(once again, from my wiki, though this version is shorter…)

A “Creed of Death” (CoD) is my term for any belief (including religion), philosophy or political system which leads to death instead of life.

Note that I don’t mean “death” merely in the physical sense; in other words, I am not referring to some kind of suicidal cult, or a cabal of necromancers. I mean a “death in life”, a living death.

Continue reading ‘Creeds of Death’

Ideals or fanaticism?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 25, 2005

in definitions, fanaticism and ideals

. 0 Comments

Have you ever been called a “fanatic”? (I’m assuming, of course, that you are not one…)

I have. Several times, by different people. They could never justify their affirmation: they just “felt” that I was one, because of some ideal I had (and possibly have), or because I cared a bit about something that nobody cared about.

It wasn’t something I annoyed people with. I’ve never been a “preacher” of any kind. I believe in complete honesty, yet I never went around preaching honesty or attacking people for not being 100% honest 100% of the time. I don’t pirate music, software or movies, yet most people I know do so, and I’ve never bothered them about it. If they ask my opinion, I give it, but no more.

I’ve never attacked, or told people to attack, someone for disagreeing with me. I certainly don’t intend to become a martyr and kill myself in a blaze of glory to prove some point.

But I still am labeled a “fanatic” from time to time. Why?

Continue reading ‘Ideals or fanaticism?’

Fanaticism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 25, 2005

in definitions and fanaticism

. 3 Comments

Another one from my wiki…

Fanaticism, or being a fanatic, can be described as being so sure about something that you refuse to ever think about it again for even a millisecond. That thing is, or becomes, the most important thing in your life, its “driving force”.

Some people confuse fanaticism with merely an intense love or belief. I believe the difference is mostly the above: a fanatic never thinks about it again, his “certainty” encompasses everything. If you love something or someone, or intensely believe in something, but can still think rationally about it, see its faults, its “chips in the armor”, then you are not a fanatic.

A fanatic is not only incapable of admitting he is wrong about something, but also incapable of admitting it is possible for him to be wrong about it.

Not all fanaticism is about religion or beliefs: it doesn’t really depend on the importance of the subject. You can be an absolute fanatic about something unimportant (like a sports club), and you can have a true belief in some philosophy, religion or creed, or intensely love something or someone, without being a fanatic about it.

Being ready to die for a belief doesn’t necessarily make you a fanatic (I believe some things are worth fighting for and even dying for), but if you’re ready to kill for it, then you certainly are one.

It’s absolutely impossible to argue with a fanatic, as he’s incapable of rational thought about it. No matter how many contradictions you reveal in his belief, no matter what proof you show him that he is wrong. If you ever get any near to provoking the slightest doubt, he will violently defend his belief, sometimes becoming murderously violent. His belief is his life; without it it wouldn’t make sense to go on.

“Opposites attract”?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 8, 2005

in definitions, love and relationships

. 6 Comments

Yesterday, in a conversation, the other “party” said something to the effect of “opposites attract”. It’s certainly a common phrase, and a lot of people believe it to be true.

But it got me thinking. Which is always dangerous.

I’m not going to tackle whether opposites do attract or not, but, instead, what does “opposites” mean in this context.

Continue reading ‘“Opposites attract”?’

The Confusion of Principles

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 30, 2005

in definitions and principles

. 1 Comment

The “Confusion of Principles” is what I call what I believe is a mistake that many people make: believing that everything about them, no matter how minor or trivial (even something like a food preference) is “a principle” which must not be “betrayed”.

People seem to have some difficulty in separating:

tastes or preferences;
opinions;
personality traits; and
genuine principles.

Continue reading ‘The Confusion of Principles’

The misconception of individualism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 26, 2005

in definitions and individualism

. 7 Comments

In many blogs, sites, articles and so on, one tends to see a lot of opinions similar to the following: “oh, the relationship didn’t work out because he was too much an individualist!”. Or “people are way too individualistic these days, nobody cares about others”.

Apparently, people think of “an individualist” as “a manipulating, selfish, self-centered bastard who uses people and is incapable of caring about anyone”.

Which is quite a weird definition, because it doesn’t have anything to do with the word!

Continue reading ‘The misconception of individualism’

Conformists and non-conformists

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 25, 2005

in conformism, definitions and non-conformism

. 13 Comments

Quite a lot of people believe that in this world there are conformists, a.k.a. “mindless sheep”, the people who do things because “that’s what everyone does” - and, conversely, don’t do something because “nobody else is doing it”. People also believe that there are non-conformists, who supposedly are the opposite of the above. So far, so good.

Continue reading ‘Conformists and non-conformists’