Buckle up motorists - It's the law! And of course, as everyone knows, the law is the law! You follow the law or suffer the consequences. But why is that the case? What gives lawmakers the power to restrict the freedoms of other people? They are human beings just like the rest of us. People should be entitled to do whatever it is they see fit without worrying about the opinions of some law-giving authority.
A perfect system of laws would enable people to do exactly what they feel is appropriate. No individual is logical enough to create perfect laws that would equally apply to all of humankind. In fact, it seems like laws evade logic altogether, and most laws are nothing more than relative social constructs. Therefore, the ideal system would provide laws dictated through a consensus of the general population. When people vote to create laws, they are testifying to the moral superiority of those measures. By the fact that people have agreed to this law, it is apparent that this code of conduct is acceptable to that society, and the people of each locale are therefore free to act exactly how they see fit.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to implement this ideal society, and the kinds of democracy that abound today are only poor approximations of this model. Although people occasionally vote on referendums, and all representative lawmakers have earned their respective positions through popular polls, it is hard to claim that all the laws with all the esoteric language are a fair representation of the popular sentiment. Laws are very complicated, and loopholes are plentiful. Sophisticated politicians use convoluted logical arguments to concoct laws laced with legislative jargon. Very few people know the laws, and even fewer people understand the laws. Lawmakers compose, Judges interpret, and lawyers defend. If the law is far out of the reach of the common individual, it is definitely not the fair rules of conduct acceptable in that locale. Situations like these lead to the abrogation of freedoms.
If laws become too complicated, they cannot be easily justified. A good example of the shortfalls of a complicated structure of laws is the aftermath of the Wikileaks incident. Should we prosecute the founder of Wikileaks website for his misconducts? Lawmakers are not yet certain if he has violated any laws while engaging is his latest whistle blowing actions. But senators are looking far and wide hoping that at least some minor violations would eventually show up. Now ask yourself, if the investigations discover that laws were broken, would it be appropriate to take punitive actions? After all, if senators did not know the law, is it appropriate to hold him accountable for the law? Also, think of what happens if the investigation yields nothing. We may have an individual being vilified by all of humanity yet free of any legal charges. Why should the words in some law book take precedent over national sentiment? It is clear that complicated laws introduced in the current structure of government do not necessarily always represent the popular opinion of right and wrong.
A better form of law would be one that links punitive measures directly to popular opinion. Instead of governing by sophisticated scholarship, people follow common sense. The jury system in the United States represents a good start in the process of reaching this general framework of governing. With a jury, the final decision of guilt results from the popular decision of a few common citizens. It shouldn't matter what the smart judge or the shrewd lawyers have to say. If the people think a man is guilty, he is guilty by definition. The jury system is a good start, but a perfect system would have to augment this basic structure. There should be no laws and no law books. If a person acts in what seems to be an inappropriate manner, a jury would decide whether such actions are indeed unruly. Instead of 6 or 12 people, this jury would have about 30 people. If the jury feels that the person acted inappropriately, then the person has acted outside of the accepted codes of conduct in that locale. After much deliberation, the jury would decide the proper consequences as well. However, if these people find that the defendant has done nothing wrong, he or she has acted in a lawful manner.
With such a system in place, people would be free to do what they themselves have deemed appropriate. People need only act with common sense, and they wouldn’t have to worry about unknowingly violating esoteric laws. A law that does nothing more than to encourage people to act with common sense can be justified as a law that should bind all of us. We are not limiting anyone’s freedoms. Rather, we are collectively doing what we want.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Adaptive Commuting Theory
Being the kind of guy who welcomes phone calls and never takes steps to bring a conversation to a close, I typically have phone conversations lasting until the early morning hours. This tendency can cause problems for someone who wakes up at 5:40 AM in order to attend daily morning prayers services located a mile and a half away. Going to bed late inevitably leads to a late rise, and an already stressful morning is compounded with additional time constraints. After sloppily tending to all the necessary morning chores, I am left with only one venue for mitigating the unbearable time pressure: The commute.
The time needed for commuting is frequently underestimated, especially when dealing with relatively short distances. If an appointment is scheduled for 10:00, and I leave my house at 9:45, it doesn't usually bother me that the normal travel time for that distance is twenty five minutes. To the contrary, if I happen to be running late, I typically plan to gain back lost time by commuting a little faster. When commuting by bicycle, there is always extra energy stored somewhere in my legs specially made available for these circumstances. When commuting by automobile, I push the gas peddle just a little closer to the floor. Even when commuting by train, I can play some neat tricks by transferring to express trains and then returning to local trains. The later I am, the faster I commute. The extra adrenaline rush helps me perform maneuvers that would have been unthinkable during a normal ride. I can sleep comfortably at night knowing that my adaptive commuting theory can take care of any delay that may arise from my tardy awakening.
Unfortunately, my beautiful theory of everything is lacking in one minor detail: There are other people on the road and there are other people in the trains. These people are going about there daily routine, and the fact that I am in a mad rush doesn't seem to cross their minds. While I slam the door, gun the engine and floor the gas peddle, a different and completely random human being is going about his daily drive in his good old humdrum manner. Although my world may be rushing, planet Earth isn’t rotating any faster. People of all kinds are capable of throwing a monkey wrench into adaptive commuting theory. School buses, garbage trucks, ambulances, fire trucks, pedestrians, cyclists, people looking for parking spots, people taking my potential parking spots, people double parking, people triple parking, people becoming sick on trains and people casually driving for fun, are all potential shocks to this otherwise perfect equilibrium. Although at least some of these threats should be anticipated, they are frequently overlooked.
These disturbances add elements of uncertainty to adaptive commuting theory. Can the commute really be relied upon to make back lost time? Some days I wake up late, yet everything works according to theory. On other days, I find myself stuck behind a garbage truck while circling for parking. This morning I was able to experience the clear contrast between both of these options during my daily commute.
I had been chatting with my brother until 1:00 AM, and the conversation only came to a close after his phone's battery went dead. With a working alarm clock and a theory of commuting, I fell into a peaceful slumber. At 5:40 AM an annoying alarm began slowly invading my dreams. I hit the snooze button three times and turned on the radio while only 10% awake. When I finally realized that all the vicious murder and robberies were not coming from my imagination but from 1010 WINS, it was already 6:20. I was running late! I had to reach my destination by 6:40! I hurried as fast as I could, and I was in the car and ready to go by 6:33.
I knew that I could make it on time if everything went according to theory. I backed up my one-way street to avoid a strategically placed traffic light. Approaching the first intersection, a delivery truck passed me by and stopped at the light. I was in no mood of following that slow moving vehicle, but there appeared to be no other option. The clock ticked to 6:36. Four minutes was more than enough with no lights and no trucks. After following the truck a few blocks, I noticed a red light ahead. It was at this point that I devised a plan to beat the traffic. I turned on a side street hoping to use a different avenue. As I raced down the block at about 40 mph, I noticed a car with New Jersey plates just thoughtlessly moving out of a parking spot. This time I floored the brakes, and was about to hit the horn. Didn't this guy realize that I was in a hurry? I held myself back from honking him, and I watched as he slowly and aimlessly glided through the yellow light, leaving me in the red. I didn't believe what had happened. I missed a crucial light because someone from a different state couldn't realize that my schedule was at stake. After waiting at two lights it was already 6:40. To make matters worse, I saw the same truck pass me by as I was waiting at the light. It turns out that my trick had made me even more late. It seemed like the commute would not be as adaptable as anticipated.
My plan failed and I was already late, but I wanted to be less late than more late. At this point I was ready to fly. The light turned green and I hit the gas. Light after light, I continued at a cruising speed of at least 45 mph. There were no cars! My plan was now working. I turned on a side street, found parking instantly, and arrived at my destination. It was only 6:43, and I managed to make up the lost time. The extra will power propelled by my desire for being slightly less late managed to shorten the commuting time substantially. The commuting theory had been partially vindicated.
I found partial evidence for adaptive commuting theory, but it still seems like giving one's self plenty of extra time for the commute is definitely the ideal. I have found that commutes can be completely unpredictable, and adaptive solutions can have equally unpredictable consequences. I still remember the time when I kept missing the train because I was switching back and forth between different platforms. I waited at one platform, watched one train after another arrive at the other platform, and finally switched platforms right before my train would arrive. Fortunately, my destination was only the Bronx Zoo. Commuting time should never be underestimated, and negative shocks frequently offset any gains produced through fanciful tricks. However, for the days that I happen to wake up late, I find comfort in fooling myself into thinking that the commute is relatively flexible.
The time needed for commuting is frequently underestimated, especially when dealing with relatively short distances. If an appointment is scheduled for 10:00, and I leave my house at 9:45, it doesn't usually bother me that the normal travel time for that distance is twenty five minutes. To the contrary, if I happen to be running late, I typically plan to gain back lost time by commuting a little faster. When commuting by bicycle, there is always extra energy stored somewhere in my legs specially made available for these circumstances. When commuting by automobile, I push the gas peddle just a little closer to the floor. Even when commuting by train, I can play some neat tricks by transferring to express trains and then returning to local trains. The later I am, the faster I commute. The extra adrenaline rush helps me perform maneuvers that would have been unthinkable during a normal ride. I can sleep comfortably at night knowing that my adaptive commuting theory can take care of any delay that may arise from my tardy awakening.
Unfortunately, my beautiful theory of everything is lacking in one minor detail: There are other people on the road and there are other people in the trains. These people are going about there daily routine, and the fact that I am in a mad rush doesn't seem to cross their minds. While I slam the door, gun the engine and floor the gas peddle, a different and completely random human being is going about his daily drive in his good old humdrum manner. Although my world may be rushing, planet Earth isn’t rotating any faster. People of all kinds are capable of throwing a monkey wrench into adaptive commuting theory. School buses, garbage trucks, ambulances, fire trucks, pedestrians, cyclists, people looking for parking spots, people taking my potential parking spots, people double parking, people triple parking, people becoming sick on trains and people casually driving for fun, are all potential shocks to this otherwise perfect equilibrium. Although at least some of these threats should be anticipated, they are frequently overlooked.
These disturbances add elements of uncertainty to adaptive commuting theory. Can the commute really be relied upon to make back lost time? Some days I wake up late, yet everything works according to theory. On other days, I find myself stuck behind a garbage truck while circling for parking. This morning I was able to experience the clear contrast between both of these options during my daily commute.
I had been chatting with my brother until 1:00 AM, and the conversation only came to a close after his phone's battery went dead. With a working alarm clock and a theory of commuting, I fell into a peaceful slumber. At 5:40 AM an annoying alarm began slowly invading my dreams. I hit the snooze button three times and turned on the radio while only 10% awake. When I finally realized that all the vicious murder and robberies were not coming from my imagination but from 1010 WINS, it was already 6:20. I was running late! I had to reach my destination by 6:40! I hurried as fast as I could, and I was in the car and ready to go by 6:33.
I knew that I could make it on time if everything went according to theory. I backed up my one-way street to avoid a strategically placed traffic light. Approaching the first intersection, a delivery truck passed me by and stopped at the light. I was in no mood of following that slow moving vehicle, but there appeared to be no other option. The clock ticked to 6:36. Four minutes was more than enough with no lights and no trucks. After following the truck a few blocks, I noticed a red light ahead. It was at this point that I devised a plan to beat the traffic. I turned on a side street hoping to use a different avenue. As I raced down the block at about 40 mph, I noticed a car with New Jersey plates just thoughtlessly moving out of a parking spot. This time I floored the brakes, and was about to hit the horn. Didn't this guy realize that I was in a hurry? I held myself back from honking him, and I watched as he slowly and aimlessly glided through the yellow light, leaving me in the red. I didn't believe what had happened. I missed a crucial light because someone from a different state couldn't realize that my schedule was at stake. After waiting at two lights it was already 6:40. To make matters worse, I saw the same truck pass me by as I was waiting at the light. It turns out that my trick had made me even more late. It seemed like the commute would not be as adaptable as anticipated.
My plan failed and I was already late, but I wanted to be less late than more late. At this point I was ready to fly. The light turned green and I hit the gas. Light after light, I continued at a cruising speed of at least 45 mph. There were no cars! My plan was now working. I turned on a side street, found parking instantly, and arrived at my destination. It was only 6:43, and I managed to make up the lost time. The extra will power propelled by my desire for being slightly less late managed to shorten the commuting time substantially. The commuting theory had been partially vindicated.
I found partial evidence for adaptive commuting theory, but it still seems like giving one's self plenty of extra time for the commute is definitely the ideal. I have found that commutes can be completely unpredictable, and adaptive solutions can have equally unpredictable consequences. I still remember the time when I kept missing the train because I was switching back and forth between different platforms. I waited at one platform, watched one train after another arrive at the other platform, and finally switched platforms right before my train would arrive. Fortunately, my destination was only the Bronx Zoo. Commuting time should never be underestimated, and negative shocks frequently offset any gains produced through fanciful tricks. However, for the days that I happen to wake up late, I find comfort in fooling myself into thinking that the commute is relatively flexible.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Overanalyzing Stupid Questions
Some people are blessed with the ability to laugh at dumb jokes. Other people are slightly less fortunate, and plain corny jokes produce nothing more than a cold stare. People that laugh at dumb jokes are easily entertained and generally affable, while those who can't find humor in cute puns are hard to impress and difficult to befriend. I happen to not fit either of these categories. When I hear a corny joke I am genuinely entertained, and I typically give plenty of laughs. However, if I see any illogical points associated with the humorous tidbits I make sure its author is aware of them. First comes the laugh, and then comes the critique. People find themselves in a puzzling situation. Should they tell me their jokes or should they not? Most people appreciate my laughing, but few appreciate the follow up commentary. Although I believe I have been gifted with an appreciation for stupid jokes, my over-analysis needs to be dealt with.
A good example of my over-analysis of jokes took place a few weeks ago during a train ride. While on the train I was overhearing a few loud girls talking about random things. My ears perked up when I heard one of them ask a theoretical question that sounded like it would introduce a pun. "What would you do if you were stuck in a car and you had a baseball bat?" the girl asked. Before I could hold myself back, the over-analysis power was already in full force. I realized that since the obvious answer was to smash the windows with the baseball bat, it was obviously not the correct answer. Then I thought of a stupid but slightly amusing answer. Could it be that the answer is just to unlock the door? I thought this could not be the answer because it would violate the premise of the question. If you are really stuck, you can't just unlock the door. The other girls said that they would smash the windows open. Then the girl replied: "Why would you smash the windows? Just unlock the door!" At that point I realized that I had overanalyzed the joke. I also realized that a better solution would have been to put the keys in the ignition and drive off. If stuck doesn't really mean stuck, anything can be the answer.
A few days later I was going out for pizza with a friend of mine when the same question came back to haunt me. This friend of mine was trying to test my personality to see how I would react in dire circumstances. He came up with a brilliant question. Unfortunately, I had not learned my lesson regarding my over-analysis of theoretical questions. "Chaim," he asked. "What would you do if you were trapped in a room and you had no way of getting out?" Without even giving the question much thought I already had the answer. I had overanalyzed this question days earlier. I told him I would do absolutely nothing. Before I could explain my deep analysis I was enduring a series of insults belittling my foolishness and laziness. I knew it was too late to save myself, but I figured I would give it a try. "What would you do?" I asked. He answered in a very passionate manner. "I would yell and scream, I would start praying really fervently, and I would bang hard on the door." Then I asked him why he would bother doing those things if it was impossible to escape. He brushed away my point, and told me not to overanalyze stupid questions.
I have learned that acting illogically is very important in certain circumstances. When being told corny jokes it's always nice to just give a little laugh and ignore any logical flaws. After hearing an inspiring story, common courtesy tells me that I should at least pretend to be emotionally moved. It shouldn't matter if the story sounds like a commonplace occurrence. Overanalyzing may lead to logical conclusions, but logical conclusions are not always the end all.
A good example of my over-analysis of jokes took place a few weeks ago during a train ride. While on the train I was overhearing a few loud girls talking about random things. My ears perked up when I heard one of them ask a theoretical question that sounded like it would introduce a pun. "What would you do if you were stuck in a car and you had a baseball bat?" the girl asked. Before I could hold myself back, the over-analysis power was already in full force. I realized that since the obvious answer was to smash the windows with the baseball bat, it was obviously not the correct answer. Then I thought of a stupid but slightly amusing answer. Could it be that the answer is just to unlock the door? I thought this could not be the answer because it would violate the premise of the question. If you are really stuck, you can't just unlock the door. The other girls said that they would smash the windows open. Then the girl replied: "Why would you smash the windows? Just unlock the door!" At that point I realized that I had overanalyzed the joke. I also realized that a better solution would have been to put the keys in the ignition and drive off. If stuck doesn't really mean stuck, anything can be the answer.
A few days later I was going out for pizza with a friend of mine when the same question came back to haunt me. This friend of mine was trying to test my personality to see how I would react in dire circumstances. He came up with a brilliant question. Unfortunately, I had not learned my lesson regarding my over-analysis of theoretical questions. "Chaim," he asked. "What would you do if you were trapped in a room and you had no way of getting out?" Without even giving the question much thought I already had the answer. I had overanalyzed this question days earlier. I told him I would do absolutely nothing. Before I could explain my deep analysis I was enduring a series of insults belittling my foolishness and laziness. I knew it was too late to save myself, but I figured I would give it a try. "What would you do?" I asked. He answered in a very passionate manner. "I would yell and scream, I would start praying really fervently, and I would bang hard on the door." Then I asked him why he would bother doing those things if it was impossible to escape. He brushed away my point, and told me not to overanalyze stupid questions.
I have learned that acting illogically is very important in certain circumstances. When being told corny jokes it's always nice to just give a little laugh and ignore any logical flaws. After hearing an inspiring story, common courtesy tells me that I should at least pretend to be emotionally moved. It shouldn't matter if the story sounds like a commonplace occurrence. Overanalyzing may lead to logical conclusions, but logical conclusions are not always the end all.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Religious Umbrella Users
As a former religious umbrella user I feel I am qualified to tell over my experiences with umbrella abuse, and I think my story will be inspirational to all of those who find themselves in similar circumstances. Breaking any habit is never easy, and I hope people will learn from my story, and not falter the same way I have.
As a religious umbrella user I used an umbrella whenever it rained. Although, this practice may sound quite innocent at first, a further description would reveal the dangers of such practices. I would wake up on rainy mornings hearing the buckets of water splashing against the awning of my side door. With my umbrella in hand, I would embrace the wild weather with dauntless strides. Never did I lose faith in my umbrella, even in the toughest of monsoons. Over the years I began relying more and more on my umbrella to keep me dry. Many a day I would leave my house with no rain coat; just my good old umbrella at my side. Unbeknown to myself, I had become a confirmed religious umbrella user. What started as a harmless fad was now a real addiction. Although only three of its eight original ribs still worked, and the cloth had a big hole running right through the middle, I never doubted my umbrella for a second. I had perfect faith that this device was all that was needed to keep me completely dry.
A few weeks back my faith was seriously challenged, and ever since that incident my passion for umbrellas just hasn't been the same. Like any other rainy morning, I braved the streets with my trusted friend. I laughed at people with raincoats, and I mocked those who would stay indoors. Suddenly, I noticed something very peculiar. Although I was using an umbrella, I still seemed to be soaking wet. The wind blew the rain at me from all angles, and the mere two feet of plastic above my head was doing nothing for my pants. Doubts over the effectiveness of umbrellas began entering my thought patterns. I willed such blasphemes out of my conscious mind, and I continued to hold onto the umbrella with unbreakable faith. However, the biggest challenge had yet to come. Suddenly, a big gust of wind turned my umbrella inside out, and an enormous amount of drenching power was unleashed on my various articles of clothing. I wasn't taken yet. Being the warrior that I was I battled the rain head on. I skillfully positioned the umbrella causing the wind to work in my favor. The umbrella was back, and the battle continued. Gusts of wind came from every direction, but I kept repositioning my raingear. I remember onlookers watching me from the comforts of their automobiles. I was in a raging battle in what resembled a sword fight with nature. I put up a resilient fight, but the wind was just too powerful for me to endure.
After a good five minute duel, my energy was sapped, and I surrendered to the storm. I closed the broken umbrella and put down my hands. The cold rain smacked against my cheeks as I solemnly treaded back to my house. Like a sponge, my clothing soaked in all the rain, and I no longer resisted the forceful winds. Once defeated, I knew that my faith in umbrellas had come to an end. I would no longer trust them to keep me dry. After arriving back home, I changed into some dry clothing, put on a good waterproof raincoat, and promptly drove the car to my destination.
I wonder how many people put their faith in umbrellas. How many people use umbrellas even though they don't work? Many people think as I did; if you are using an umbrella you will be just fine. I have found to my dismay that umbrellas don't seem to do their job. I have left the group of religious umbrella users, and I now find it amusing to watch people battle the wind as I used to do. Aside from not working (a minor issue), umbrellas are constantly misplaced, and the broken ones are usually the only ones available during a time of need. Although I admit to still using umbrellas on occasion, I feel I am better off now that I am well aware of their limitations. I think umbrellas should come with a disclaimer warning the user about their potential misuses, and I wouldn't mind if each one came with a copy of a story such as mine for the purchaser’s perusal. I know it is hard for some people to break the habit and give up the umbrella. But I think after reading my inspirational story, people will think twice before relying on a flimsy piece of plastic to protect one’s self from buckets of water.
As a religious umbrella user I used an umbrella whenever it rained. Although, this practice may sound quite innocent at first, a further description would reveal the dangers of such practices. I would wake up on rainy mornings hearing the buckets of water splashing against the awning of my side door. With my umbrella in hand, I would embrace the wild weather with dauntless strides. Never did I lose faith in my umbrella, even in the toughest of monsoons. Over the years I began relying more and more on my umbrella to keep me dry. Many a day I would leave my house with no rain coat; just my good old umbrella at my side. Unbeknown to myself, I had become a confirmed religious umbrella user. What started as a harmless fad was now a real addiction. Although only three of its eight original ribs still worked, and the cloth had a big hole running right through the middle, I never doubted my umbrella for a second. I had perfect faith that this device was all that was needed to keep me completely dry.
A few weeks back my faith was seriously challenged, and ever since that incident my passion for umbrellas just hasn't been the same. Like any other rainy morning, I braved the streets with my trusted friend. I laughed at people with raincoats, and I mocked those who would stay indoors. Suddenly, I noticed something very peculiar. Although I was using an umbrella, I still seemed to be soaking wet. The wind blew the rain at me from all angles, and the mere two feet of plastic above my head was doing nothing for my pants. Doubts over the effectiveness of umbrellas began entering my thought patterns. I willed such blasphemes out of my conscious mind, and I continued to hold onto the umbrella with unbreakable faith. However, the biggest challenge had yet to come. Suddenly, a big gust of wind turned my umbrella inside out, and an enormous amount of drenching power was unleashed on my various articles of clothing. I wasn't taken yet. Being the warrior that I was I battled the rain head on. I skillfully positioned the umbrella causing the wind to work in my favor. The umbrella was back, and the battle continued. Gusts of wind came from every direction, but I kept repositioning my raingear. I remember onlookers watching me from the comforts of their automobiles. I was in a raging battle in what resembled a sword fight with nature. I put up a resilient fight, but the wind was just too powerful for me to endure.
After a good five minute duel, my energy was sapped, and I surrendered to the storm. I closed the broken umbrella and put down my hands. The cold rain smacked against my cheeks as I solemnly treaded back to my house. Like a sponge, my clothing soaked in all the rain, and I no longer resisted the forceful winds. Once defeated, I knew that my faith in umbrellas had come to an end. I would no longer trust them to keep me dry. After arriving back home, I changed into some dry clothing, put on a good waterproof raincoat, and promptly drove the car to my destination.
I wonder how many people put their faith in umbrellas. How many people use umbrellas even though they don't work? Many people think as I did; if you are using an umbrella you will be just fine. I have found to my dismay that umbrellas don't seem to do their job. I have left the group of religious umbrella users, and I now find it amusing to watch people battle the wind as I used to do. Aside from not working (a minor issue), umbrellas are constantly misplaced, and the broken ones are usually the only ones available during a time of need. Although I admit to still using umbrellas on occasion, I feel I am better off now that I am well aware of their limitations. I think umbrellas should come with a disclaimer warning the user about their potential misuses, and I wouldn't mind if each one came with a copy of a story such as mine for the purchaser’s perusal. I know it is hard for some people to break the habit and give up the umbrella. But I think after reading my inspirational story, people will think twice before relying on a flimsy piece of plastic to protect one’s self from buckets of water.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Last Night Of Chanukah 2010
Does anyone else take pictures of their menorah? There is a lot of momentum building up with each successive night. First we start off lighting one wick. Then we light two and then we light three. Before you know it, we are lighting eight wicks, and the menorah is completely full. At this last night there is a lot of excitement in the air (not to mention all the smoke). I find it hard to just let all that excitement go to waste. In order to keep the momentum going, I have to document every step of the final life of each flame. I carefully film the last light as it gasps for oil. Once I have taken the pictures and the videos I can rest assured that I have fully experienced those last moments of the Chanukah menorah.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Good = Pleasure
Defining the most basic concepts can be quite difficult. The foundations of all knowledge are based on postulates that can neither be proved nor disproved. Starting with self-evident statements, a solid framework is created, and useful conclusions can be universally accepted. When delving into philosophical thought, it is especially important to agree on definitions, and thereby avoiding countless amounts of arguments that would otherwise result. After a long debate over which circumstances are considered "good" for each person, it became obvious that a proper definition of "good" would have been able to provide the necessary clarity to avoid useless bickering.
Before pondering the nature of true "good" in the world, I must begin by first clearly defining "good." Using no philosophical pondering, I will simply define "good" as pleasure. Having done that, the definition of pleasure may need to be specified as well. However, some words are too basic to possibly be defined, and can easily be understood remaining undefined. The concept of "pleasure" seems like a good candidate for this category. In other words, pleasure is readily apparent when it is experienced, and no further definition is necessary. My definition of "good" has asserted that the experience associated with pleasure is exactly the same as that which should be associated with good. Therefore, in further philosophical debates, good and pleasure can be interchanged.
What makes this definition important? At first glance such a trivial definition seems to add nothing, and no debates are avoided by clarifying this point. However, the difference in context of the normal usage of these two words may lead some people to debate this definition. Although pleasure is readily apparent to everyone, "good" may be easily misconstrued as something else. Pleasure is usually used to describe more simple situations, but "good" is commonly used in more complicated ones. For this reason one rarely comes across an argument regarding the nature of pleasure, but arguments over sources of true good constantly abound. Once good has been defined to be completely inseparable from pleasure, more complicated situations can be analyzed, and agreements are easily attained.
Using this definition of "good," ask yourself some questions. Firstly, is it ever good for anyone to suffer? Before pondering any further, notice that suffering is the antithesis of pleasure. It becomes clear that deriving pleasure through suffering is a paradox, and it should never be good for someone to suffer. Secondly, can someone do “good” for someone else by doing something that he or she doesn't like? Again, if it is assumed that pleasure by definition is liked, and good by definition is pleasure, it is not possible for someone to derive pleasure from something that is not liked. Therefore, one would never be doing “good” for someone if the result is not something that the individual would like.
Although these results may seem counterintuitive and flawed, deeper analysis can lead to a resolution. When one describes a painful procedure as being good for the patient, he or she thinks the patient will have an overall net gain of pleasure from the benefits outweighing the negatives. In economics, the concept of maximizing intertemporal utility describes the nature of a person trying to gain the most pleasure over an entire lifetime. Although at times a decision may have painful repercussions, it is believed that an overall assessment of the future lifetime will be that of a net gain in pleasure. Similarly, when one decides what is good for another person, it is assumed the helping party feels that he or she possesses the knowledge for maximizing lifelong pleasure that the receiving party may lack. The word "good" still means pleasure, but the pleasure is presenting itself in a more complicated situation.
In the Jewish religion, a similar concept can be found when discussing the afterlife as a reward for fulfilling the Torah's laws. In the Jewish world view, all that is created is good. Therefore, if some things don’t seem pleasurable, they must be a result of an individual’s misdeed. Although this is a good attempt, there are still some evils in the world that seem to befall everyone, and very few people can truly testify that life was a pleasurable experience. To reconcile a good world with an unpleasant existence, an afterlife must exist in which reward is given to those who deserve it. This proof of the afterlife stems from the definition of good as that which is pleasurable, and the assumption that the world exists for the good of humans. The pleasure is relegated to the next world to explain the fact that most people don't enjoy themselves in this world.
Although people may disagree over the source of true good, it is important that both parties at least agree on the definition of good. This small clarification can lead people to agree on many more concepts than they originally thought.
Before pondering the nature of true "good" in the world, I must begin by first clearly defining "good." Using no philosophical pondering, I will simply define "good" as pleasure. Having done that, the definition of pleasure may need to be specified as well. However, some words are too basic to possibly be defined, and can easily be understood remaining undefined. The concept of "pleasure" seems like a good candidate for this category. In other words, pleasure is readily apparent when it is experienced, and no further definition is necessary. My definition of "good" has asserted that the experience associated with pleasure is exactly the same as that which should be associated with good. Therefore, in further philosophical debates, good and pleasure can be interchanged.
What makes this definition important? At first glance such a trivial definition seems to add nothing, and no debates are avoided by clarifying this point. However, the difference in context of the normal usage of these two words may lead some people to debate this definition. Although pleasure is readily apparent to everyone, "good" may be easily misconstrued as something else. Pleasure is usually used to describe more simple situations, but "good" is commonly used in more complicated ones. For this reason one rarely comes across an argument regarding the nature of pleasure, but arguments over sources of true good constantly abound. Once good has been defined to be completely inseparable from pleasure, more complicated situations can be analyzed, and agreements are easily attained.
Using this definition of "good," ask yourself some questions. Firstly, is it ever good for anyone to suffer? Before pondering any further, notice that suffering is the antithesis of pleasure. It becomes clear that deriving pleasure through suffering is a paradox, and it should never be good for someone to suffer. Secondly, can someone do “good” for someone else by doing something that he or she doesn't like? Again, if it is assumed that pleasure by definition is liked, and good by definition is pleasure, it is not possible for someone to derive pleasure from something that is not liked. Therefore, one would never be doing “good” for someone if the result is not something that the individual would like.
Although these results may seem counterintuitive and flawed, deeper analysis can lead to a resolution. When one describes a painful procedure as being good for the patient, he or she thinks the patient will have an overall net gain of pleasure from the benefits outweighing the negatives. In economics, the concept of maximizing intertemporal utility describes the nature of a person trying to gain the most pleasure over an entire lifetime. Although at times a decision may have painful repercussions, it is believed that an overall assessment of the future lifetime will be that of a net gain in pleasure. Similarly, when one decides what is good for another person, it is assumed the helping party feels that he or she possesses the knowledge for maximizing lifelong pleasure that the receiving party may lack. The word "good" still means pleasure, but the pleasure is presenting itself in a more complicated situation.
In the Jewish religion, a similar concept can be found when discussing the afterlife as a reward for fulfilling the Torah's laws. In the Jewish world view, all that is created is good. Therefore, if some things don’t seem pleasurable, they must be a result of an individual’s misdeed. Although this is a good attempt, there are still some evils in the world that seem to befall everyone, and very few people can truly testify that life was a pleasurable experience. To reconcile a good world with an unpleasant existence, an afterlife must exist in which reward is given to those who deserve it. This proof of the afterlife stems from the definition of good as that which is pleasurable, and the assumption that the world exists for the good of humans. The pleasure is relegated to the next world to explain the fact that most people don't enjoy themselves in this world.
Although people may disagree over the source of true good, it is important that both parties at least agree on the definition of good. This small clarification can lead people to agree on many more concepts than they originally thought.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thoughts on TSA procedures
Not everyone agrees that security trumps all. Some people would sacrifice their security for other agendas. The terrorists are willing to die in order to earn their reputation in the next world. Similarly, many people would take the risk of giving up their lives rather than being subjected to sexual abuse. Jewish law requires one to give up his life in order to avoid engagement in certain promiscuous acts. Although most people agree that security is an important matter, some people would rather take on the extra risks than being subjected to intrusive searches. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has decided that the measures being taken (though admittedly intrusive) are the appropriate course of action given the circumstance of today's threats. They have implicitly decided that these intrusive measures are still worthwhile if they will save lives. But how intrusive does a search have to be before it's too much?
I don't fly too much, but I can see how people would be frustrated with the new screening techniques. The Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines basically allow security personnel to see right through peoples' clothing. Although the images are supposed to be deleted immediately, hundreds of pictures have already turned up on the Internet. One is allowed to opt out of these machines, but the alternative is an almost invasive pat-down. Many stories of humiliated passengers have been flooding the Internet, and pictures of these pat-downs have made headlines. It doesn't seem like there are too many options for those who fly. Either use the AIT machine but risk your picture being on the Internet, or take a pat-down but risk humiliation. There must be a better solution to this problem than to subject people to these screening measures.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any method of screening for terrorists that could be less intrusive. If we are trying to avoid all terrorist attacks then we must subject everyone to a thorough search. Terrorist have shown that they can hide explosives anywhere in their bodies. We must remove our shoes because of the shoe bomber, and we must endure a pat-down because of the underwear bomber. It seems like security comes with a price tag, and we must all pay it if we want to avoid all possible threats. Imagine a passenger with an explosive in his or her underwear. During a pat-down, the explosive device would be felt by the agent and a further investigation would be warranted. The passenger would be cursing the TSA through the whole procedure for being treated in such a humiliating manner. Once caught however, it would be clear that the procedure was worthwhile. With every new terrorist attack we will be forced to devise more intrusive security measures. With subway bombing we would have to screen subway passengers. With car bombing we will have to screen automobile drivers. With more and more security measures we will continue to lose more and more of our freedom. If we are willing to pay anything for security eventually we will be paying everything.
I don't fly too much, but I can see how people would be frustrated with the new screening techniques. The Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines basically allow security personnel to see right through peoples' clothing. Although the images are supposed to be deleted immediately, hundreds of pictures have already turned up on the Internet. One is allowed to opt out of these machines, but the alternative is an almost invasive pat-down. Many stories of humiliated passengers have been flooding the Internet, and pictures of these pat-downs have made headlines. It doesn't seem like there are too many options for those who fly. Either use the AIT machine but risk your picture being on the Internet, or take a pat-down but risk humiliation. There must be a better solution to this problem than to subject people to these screening measures.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any method of screening for terrorists that could be less intrusive. If we are trying to avoid all terrorist attacks then we must subject everyone to a thorough search. Terrorist have shown that they can hide explosives anywhere in their bodies. We must remove our shoes because of the shoe bomber, and we must endure a pat-down because of the underwear bomber. It seems like security comes with a price tag, and we must all pay it if we want to avoid all possible threats. Imagine a passenger with an explosive in his or her underwear. During a pat-down, the explosive device would be felt by the agent and a further investigation would be warranted. The passenger would be cursing the TSA through the whole procedure for being treated in such a humiliating manner. Once caught however, it would be clear that the procedure was worthwhile. With every new terrorist attack we will be forced to devise more intrusive security measures. With subway bombing we would have to screen subway passengers. With car bombing we will have to screen automobile drivers. With more and more security measures we will continue to lose more and more of our freedom. If we are willing to pay anything for security eventually we will be paying everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
