>
> On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> Cedric Chang wrote:
>
>> Difficult or not, I draw a line and act on it.  I get annoyed by  
>> people
>> who point out how difficult it is to make judgments or make choices.
>
> You may get annoyed for the wrong reasons and by the wrong people.  
> Being
> annoyed usually gets very quickly in the way of understanding  
> what's going
> on.
>
>> ( I think they use this difficulty to avoid doing anything )
>
> And you may think wrong -- exactly because you're getting annoyed.  
> That's
> not a good state for clear thinking.

I think you are over-stating my annoyance... It is not like I throw  
myself around the room. ; or foam at the mouth.
>
>> And my primary axiom is to preserve the maximum freedom for the  
>> maximum
>> number of people.
>
> How will you ever have a chance of getting near that axiom (or  
> goal) if you
> get so annoyed by other people that your chance of understanding  
> them (and
> what they think is their freedom) seems rather small? Without that
> understanding, you may end up trying to preserve your own, personal
> freedom, rather than the maximum freedom for the maximum number of  
> people.
> It takes a lot of patience, understanding and sensibility to do  
> anything
> for a larger number of people.

Not really, you just let them do what they want.  I used to be a  
control freak ; I have largely moved away from that.  It is really  
easy when you quit worrying about what other people are doing as long  
as they do not infringe on your space or others.  That is a lot of  
space.


> FWIW, and in case you didn't understand this, my post was a reply to
> Russell who stated (his believe?) that "corruption is bad" is a
> "self-evident truth". In order for that to make sense, one has to
> objectively define what is corruption. "Objectively define" means the
> definition may not depend on subjective criteria like intention.  
> Good luck
> with that.
Rather than worry about defining something "objectively" versus  
"subjectively" , I just take all my life experience and choose  
positions and draw lines in the sand and I ignore "self-evident  
truth" as a waste of time ; I freely laugh at "experts" and I use my  
personal judgement on a global level, not on a case-by-case basis.  I  
am not one who thinks much of "relativism".
>
> (It's rather easy to use one's own personal judgment on a case-by-case
> basis. No definition necessary; you just judge however you want, do
> whatever you want, and that's it.

Which is the way it should be

> But "self-evident truth" sets a somewhat
> higher standard WRT definition of what exactly is true here.)
>
> Gerhard


cc

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist