In the meantime, have you thought carefully about big issues, such as punctuality, commitment, etc., and preferably, your personality?
In terms of punctuality, I come close to Immanuel Kant, and in terms of commitment, I am not as inexplicable as Søren Kierkegaard.
You are obscuring the discussion! What about you as a person?
Aren't you happy that I am not taking your questioning as a wholesale denial of my existence?
It could be that it is so, but you haven't realized yet...
Lately, I have been involved in a few episodes in which the target parties of criticism have responded rather emotionally.
I didn't know that you go around telling people to re-examine their personalities!
Comrade, I am disappointed that you think I am so crude...
Well then, do you wish to congratulate yourself that you are not emotional at this moment?
Don't you think most people would get very upset if you ask them to reflect on their personality? We often become too angered to assess the cause and the implications of such a suggestion. The first thought upon hearing it would be "What the hell is s/he talking about?" Then, "How rude!"
"Who does s/he think s/he is to tell me so!", and finally, "I don't want talk to her/him again."
I find it interesting that we usually do not investigate what could be the problem with us, or between us and the person who made the criticism. We respond with anger and sometimes hate, and not much more.
That points to the inefficacy of very explicit criticisms.
I agree. In my experience, it is more effective to avoid the person that we do not like rather than to tell her/him so in words.
I think it quite reasonable, though, that we respond with anger when we are told to rethink our personality, because it is a threat to our very existence.
Unemployment has the same effects. Lack of work is not only about being deprived of income, but also a report card from the society that we are incapable of doing anything that is worth payment. You can go further in interpretation and say that the society would rather see you dead, because it is not giving you an opportunity to earn your bread to stay alive. The unemployed frequently experience anger. Of course, this is not to say that any unemployment is justified.
Social welfare could prevent us from starving and mollify our angry feelings.
Some deny the usefulness of it on the grounds that it makes the diligent pay for the lazy. No system can possibly circumvent all cases of abuse, but many do not seem to acknowledge that, especially the ones who manage without welfare.
Everything has undesirable aspects, and if we cite them as reasons for terminating its existence, neither you nor I would be here.
What we should do instead is to list both pros and cons, weigh and compare them with those of the alternatives. Belgium has one of the highest income taxes in the world, and I heard Belgians comment that they'd better become ill just so that they could make good use of the taxes that they had paid and would be paying.
They weren't joking?
They were quite serious. Suppose they are given two choices for the coming year: pay their taxes and remain healthy, or become gravely ill and be cared for without paying income tax or medical expenses.
They would definitely choose the former.
I would think so, too. They are lucky that the choice happens to be that of their liking.
The problem here is that they are unaware what kind of choice they face and that it is not entirely up to them to make the choice.
The same holds for social welfare. Some of us are lucky enough to be employed and pay for others.
Many are not aware of the choice: to be employed and contribute to the funds, or to be unemployed and draw from the funds.
If we are faced with the choice, the majority of us would choose the former. We cannot deny that luck plays a big part in our lives. In other words, the choice is between to be lucky and not in need of handouts, or to be unlucky and in need of financial assistance. People who grumble about welfare do not know that the choice has been made in their favor.
Many would want to purchase luck if possible.
If income taxes are what we have to pay for our luck that enables us to earn money, I would consider it inexpensive.
What about the unproductive uses of public funds, i.e., the money collected from us?
As I said, no plan of ours can succeed in weeding out all waste. If we do, it would be through intimidation and fear, as would be under autocracy or totalitarianism. Besides, if we are to make noises about misuse of funds, why don't we complain about Bill Gates? He has locked many of us into Windows operating system, which is much inferior to Linux. What would the public think about his owning a 66,000-square-feet estate that includes a swimming pool with an underwater music system if he were the head of a state?
It has been built by the money that we paid for Windows... If he were a head of a nation, he would be seeing a scene just like the painting by Eugène Delacroix depicting the July Revolution of 1830 in front of his estate!
We often forget a very important fact that we as voters have a say in how the public funds are used and we can hold the public administrators accountable for it. However, we have no power over Bill's riches. It's his money, period.
Many want to keep him as an example of how rich you can become, although the chances are nil for 99.999% of us.
Almost nobody thinks about the fact that we footed the bill for his 1000-square-feet dining room, but he still has to invite us for dinner!
Calm down, comrade. You can't fight against the idea, or rather myth, on which that country is founded.
It never ceases to astonish me... Getting back to the topic of reactions to criticisms, we oftentimes focus on the emotions provoked in us rather than the content of the criticisms. It is not rare that we see faces that want to tell us, "So, you don't like me, huh?"
Some actually say so.
It is a sneaky way to deflect criticism, because we are obliged to negate that allegation instead of talking about what made us criticize in the first place.
I'd say childish, too.
I agree. Do you remember that as kids we would fight, for example over play grounds, and soon it would escalate into abuses, such as how stupid the others' siblings or parents were?
It became a contest of showing how much more we detested the others than they disliked us, and how much more we could insult them than they could insult us.
Many engage in that strategy or derivations of it, even as adults. They change the point of dispute or add more points so that the original one becomes out of focus.
They don't want to discuss in depth what was at issue at the beginning.
It becomes impossible to talk about it, when you see the face or hear the line, "So, you don't like me." If we accept that there is no pure black or white in this world, the most mature action to take is to search for something that we agree with in our "enemy's" argument.
If we don't, we are probably allowing our self love to overrule everything else.
Precisely. We tend to make a similar mistake when we talk to people in other ideological camps. It is easy to divide the worldly views into two: the ones from our side, and the rest.
Our inclination is to agree with everything from our side and dismiss everything from the other sides.
There should be valid points in our opposition's opinions, too. Conversely, if we agree on everything with the members of the same camp, we were most likely coerced. To accept that fact and to search for such points is one sign of maturity, I think.
If so, most politicians are puerile. Not only they like making simplistic contrast among camps, but in some countries they also like to dig for dirt which has little to do with the ability to govern.
It is rare that we see politicians publicly acknowledging validity of the opponents' opinion. When we do, that is also when they are accused of selling out or being weak. Holding an extreme stance is much easier than reaching a balance in the middle.
Maintaining it is difficult, too, because you would be considered an unreliable ally by all sides.
Courage is seldom rewarded...
You know, striking the middle-ground is sometimes meant to deceive others by way of wearing two hats at a time.
Cowardice and even manipulation can be indistinguishable from courage!
Let's hope that true courage is recognizable to all of us...
Posts
