Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
One of my former co-workers is laying a big ol’ heavy thought on the Hello-Kitty of Blogging.
The article linked consists of a single sentence: “Selfish” is to “Self-Interested” as “Cheap” is to “Thrifty.” Agree or disagree, and please explain your answer. As you might expect, the comments are more worthy of your time than the actual adage. Perhaps you’d like to come up with one of your own.
After I replied, I had a vestigial thought about this: To act in an unselfish way, and then take active steps to make this act public knowledge, is inherently selfish. I’m trying to think of some possible exceptions to this, and thus far the only one I can produce is to set an example for others to follow that could not be set if the unselfish act were to remain secret. Other than that, altruism is utterly defeated, even set on a course to contradict itself, if it is exercised and then announced.
Update: I recall some anecdotes, of sufficient number to become generic and therefore unworthy of chronicling as individual items, in which altruism fermented into stupidity. Today’s “unselfishness” became tomorrow’s regretted mistake. It is disturbing and unsettling to recall those who had nothing to say against the unselfishness on the more ancient day, in fact were quite enthused about it, and were likewise enthused about calling out the stupidity in the more recent one.
My tentative conclusion is that there is not too much disagreement here, or not nearly as much as there would appear, in the land-of-thought. This is a disagreement of feeling. Anyone who’s been around the block a few times can see in an instant that co-signing for an auto loan has the capacity to be looked back on as a stupid idea; once it turns out to be one, the don’t-be-selfish types would, I predict based on past experience, insist that what made it stupid was not the act itself but the lack of agreement that took place before the papers were signed. Such a hypothetical defines the point of disagreement well, I think — with the one side saying, the arrangement is inherently dumb, and the other side saying bad experience should only exclude it in incremental baby steps. If only the “buyer’s” career prospects were sound at the time, if only it was a cheaper car, if only the co-signer made it more clear that the payments should be made.
If only.
It also occurs to me that the question is hard to answer because of our economic model: Your personal, financial health is inextricably bound to your power, your spectrum of options. It becomes an unworkable contradiction to say “there is something noble about sacrificing for others or for the greater good,” since in so sacrificing, you have to paint yourself into a corner, close off options, reduce your influence and therefore make your own soundness and techniques of judgment pointless.
In other words, if you think your way of doing things is so right, it is logical you will work to increase the effect that it has on you and the things around you — not reduce it.
And if you’re surrounded by people who think it is good for you to risk or sacrifice for others pointlessly, what is their opinion worth if tomorrow they’ll be joining the ranks of those calling you stupid for having done so?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.