reflections
Just got back from a long day of lessons. Mentally tired as hell, but motivated as I usually am after a good philosophy lecture.
Anyway, I just read something, and as always, it got me thinking. People ARE contradictory. That is a fact of people today - whether I like it or not. People just do weird shit all the time. I don't even want to waste my time using an example of idiocy.
Point is, it's not my place to question what people do. I don't have a RIGHT to do so. Who am I to question what you did, what you didn't do, what you said? Honestly, I don't even think your parents have the right to do so: only the person who is affected has that particular right to question your justification for your actions (and non-actions, of course).
Here's the main thrust of this post... if I am affected by someone's actions/non-actions, why can't I ask for an elucidation of the justification? Surely the ones who decide if the rules are just or not should be the ones who are affected by them.
(Another slight caveat: If you say you want something, then you would at least put in some effort to work towards it. That's like... so damn obvious that I'm a little ashamed of actually having to say it out loud. Geez. I mean, for goodness sakes, that's the least you can do - a little effort. *rolls eyes*)
Thus, if I'm affected by something that you've said that you've wanted (and would also include/affect both of us), why shouldn't I question your justifications for it? Particularly when you actually HAVE the resources to do it, and yet you don't. In all honesty, it just ties in with my point that people are contradictory.
Normative claim: "I want P, and this P will include/affect the both of us." (Pretty clear-cut, isn't it? No way of misinterpreting it.)
Factual claim: No effort whatsoever put into attempting to achieve P.
Judgment/Conclusion: I have a right to question your justification for claiming that you want that P. In fact, I will also claim that I have a right to ask why no effort was put into attempting to achieving that P.
Implication: I do feel disappointed, and to a certain extent, hurt, and also anger. I am only human after all. How, and why, should I reasonably expect you to still want that P, or possibly envisage you achieving that P? It's nothing short of placing an over-extended hope on, well, my goodwill. Goodwill runs out eventually, you know?
To me, it's like the classic (and over-stated) example of the old cliche: don't take my kindness as a weakness. It doesn't mean that I am obliging most of the time that I will oblige everything. I am, after all, only human.
Anyway, I just read something, and as always, it got me thinking. People ARE contradictory. That is a fact of people today - whether I like it or not. People just do weird shit all the time. I don't even want to waste my time using an example of idiocy.
Point is, it's not my place to question what people do. I don't have a RIGHT to do so. Who am I to question what you did, what you didn't do, what you said? Honestly, I don't even think your parents have the right to do so: only the person who is affected has that particular right to question your justification for your actions (and non-actions, of course).
Here's the main thrust of this post... if I am affected by someone's actions/non-actions, why can't I ask for an elucidation of the justification? Surely the ones who decide if the rules are just or not should be the ones who are affected by them.
(Another slight caveat: If you say you want something, then you would at least put in some effort to work towards it. That's like... so damn obvious that I'm a little ashamed of actually having to say it out loud. Geez. I mean, for goodness sakes, that's the least you can do - a little effort. *rolls eyes*)
Thus, if I'm affected by something that you've said that you've wanted (and would also include/affect both of us), why shouldn't I question your justifications for it? Particularly when you actually HAVE the resources to do it, and yet you don't. In all honesty, it just ties in with my point that people are contradictory.
Normative claim: "I want P, and this P will include/affect the both of us." (Pretty clear-cut, isn't it? No way of misinterpreting it.)
Factual claim: No effort whatsoever put into attempting to achieve P.
Judgment/Conclusion: I have a right to question your justification for claiming that you want that P. In fact, I will also claim that I have a right to ask why no effort was put into attempting to achieving that P.
Implication: I do feel disappointed, and to a certain extent, hurt, and also anger. I am only human after all. How, and why, should I reasonably expect you to still want that P, or possibly envisage you achieving that P? It's nothing short of placing an over-extended hope on, well, my goodwill. Goodwill runs out eventually, you know?
To me, it's like the classic (and over-stated) example of the old cliche: don't take my kindness as a weakness. It doesn't mean that I am obliging most of the time that I will oblige everything. I am, after all, only human.
NIGEL
8:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home