Vacuous, useless little piece. Sham thinking.
You are how you act
81–90 of 199 posts
Re: You are how you act
#82> We begin pure and only fail because society, obligation, or expectation pulls us away from who we truly are. s/pulls us away from/reveals
Your substitution would make that sentence nonsensical. We can’t begin pure and through action be revealed to actually be impure.
Both Rousseau’s and Franklin’s views have utility. One requires one to express one’s inherent goodness. The other defines whether one is good by whether they do good acts. These both promote good acts.
Taking inherent nature from Rousseau but ascribing bad acts to that inherent nature just means no one is truly responsible for their actions. If they are good they do good. If they are bad it is because they are bad. Anyone believing they are just “a bad person” has no reason to even try to be good except to avoid consequences. It’s a bigger cop out than “society made me” while simultaneously puritanical in ignoring the role of outside influence like society.
Re: You are how you act
#83I do love when Boz espouses opinions. He has got better them over the years, this one is much less teenager trying to sound clever. Which is great, I love to see people grow. The problem with this is that in my professional dealings with him, he has two modes: empathetic & arrogant dick. At his worse he was fighting in the comments section of workplace, telling employees that they are wrong. At his best he is warm an…
Were they wrong?
Yes, demonstrably.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/meta-smartwatch-leaked-a...
That abomination should have been killed from the start.
the lack of attention to user experience in any of the RL based products
The utterly stupid "blockchain compatibility" policy, which was too late, to fucking stupid and poorly executed.
The inability to run any project in RL that delivered any kind of value
(horizon's many many many iterations is an affront to any kind of good governance)
Re: You are how you act
#84The title reminds me of the quote that goes.. : "You are not what you think you are, but what you think, you are".
Re: You are how you act
#85Well that's a completely artificial either-or straw man.
It is possible to make progress while trying to do good. Lots of people do that.
Re: You are how you act
#86>"The repetition of behavior, not the sincerity of belief, is what shapes character"
To perform behavior X repeatedly and consciously for a long time, you have to have a belief (whether it is good or bad). Hence it is the sincerity of belief which shapes character.
Like when you wash yourself every now and then: you repeat that because you have a belief that keeping yourself clean is useful. Without that belief, you won't waste your time on that. Behavior is just an expression of a belief.
Re: You are how you act
#87 I find the Franklin model far more useful [...] because it gives you agency.
Re: You are how you act
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fair question, but would you trust them equally in an unanticipated crisis, where doing the right thing might be costly in hard-to-predict ways?
If the two are indistinguishable from an outsider's perspective how would you know which one to trust?
This sounds like a job for cryptography!
(No, it doesn't, actually.)
Re: You are how you act
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fair question, but would you trust them equally in an unanticipated crisis, where doing the right thing might be costly in hard-to-predict ways?
If the two are indistinguishable from an outsider's perspective how would you know which one to trust?
You can phrase the same question thus: which set of traits is more likely to lead a person to stay true to prior form in a crisis?
Re: You are how you act
#90I don't know much about Franklin, but this strikes me as a gross oversimplification of Rousseau, to the point where I wonder whether the author has actually read much Rousseau, rather than just other lightweight "thinky pieces" on Rousseau. For example The Social Contract is significantly concerned with how people can and will act in accordance with the general will. Also the idea that these philosophies are "almost…
I have no position on the OP, but this comment has more shame than content. The couple fig leaves of quibbling over dubiously relevant points doesn't really clarify whether the OP's point is incorrect. I have no reason to take your opinion as more authoritative than the OP's when you don't even really engage with what the OP says. *edited for nuance
I don't agree that the comment is empty, it did remind me of some philosophy classes, and it did entice my curiosity enough to search about Rousseau again. Your comment though, in poethic irony, doesn't bring anything to the table besides complaining about the top comment.