Wrapping Up Loose Ends

Wrapping up loose ends

It’s been a little while since I’ve had a serious post. Not for lack of thought, I can tell you that much. Most recently, I’ve been struggling with the same issue brought up in the Vegas post: if we do have a soul, what does it do? When in the evolutionary time line did it come into existence? What are the mechanics with which it interacts with our body?

Anyway, these aren’t the questions I’m looking to address today. Instead, you (reader of mine) are going to run through a gamut of topics: my started but unfinished blog entries.

Let’s start rolling right away:

Doing the right thing for the right reason

There’s a conversation technique in Dilbert author Scott Adams short book, “God’s Debris”. Summarized, the technique is as follows:

Everyone enjoys talking about themselves. If you have a hard time making conversation, ask the other person questions to find out details about them: they will be delighted at the opportunity to talk about themselves. Now naturally, if you’re trying to entertain yourself in this conversation you’re going to want to talk about yourself…but you’ve got the other person’s interest. You can now steer the conversation to yourself – the other person thinks highly of your conversational ability since they enjoy talking about you, and you get to talk about yourself.

You won’t be surprised to discover that I hate this technique. It’s underhanded, it’s fake, and it sidesteps a problem by giving it a makeshift solution. The real problem is not a lack of conversational ability, it’s an inability to recognize what is interesting in other people. If all you really want to do is talk about yourself, I think the real answer is going to come from introspection and personal changes, not techniques that cater to what is essentially a personality flaw.

I like to think that when someone asks me questions about myself, they are doing the right thing for the right reason. They are asking me because they actually care, they want to know a particular fact about me. The motive is important, not just the action.


What makes a piece of art great?

What is it that constitutes greatness in the realm of art? How is it we are able to separate popularity from greatness? Aren’t works of art essentially created for purposes of enjoyment? Does an author, a painter, a sculptor have to develop a new technique in order to be considered great or is it enough to simply be extremely skilled?

Take, for example, the author John Grisham. His work is very popular, probably because it’s entertaining. I don’t think many in America have any misconceptions about him being remembered as one of the great writers of the 20th century, though. Why? What is it that he lacks that Shakespeare (for example) has?


Good will

Is being good less valuable if it comes naturally? Is it less impressive to do “good” deeds based on your environment? Is something that is good for one person merely expected for another?

Is a good deed subjective? When judging the goodness or the value of an action, is it important to take into account the individual who performs the action? Should the standard for what constitutes a good deed be contingent upon the upbringing and past actions of the individual?

There are a couple questions I’ll ignore: 1- Is there such a thing as an objective good or bad? Can an action even have value? Also, I will be ignoring the fact that wildly varying cultures will have significantly different ideas of what good vs. bad is. I’m limiting my discussion to a comparison of individuals from similar cultural backgrounds.

I want to briefly touch on an unusual question. Are we really involved in the choices we make, or is it really just a biological calculation taking place? How can anything be good or bad if there is no choice ever made? Basically, the question of free will. It’s important to recognize that the existence of free will is a spiritual dilemna much more than a rational one. Whether or not the decisions we make or the paths we choose are the result of biological processes or supernatural influence does not change the fact that the actions we take now do have a direct influence (you could say it’s correlational) on our future actions. Whether or not free will exists is unimportant: if it does not exist, we shouldn’t act any differently.

Now on to the main question: is “good” subjective? Should we hold different people to different standards based on environmental factors? To an extent, I believe the answer is yes. Anyone raised in a environment where they are loved and encouraged to be good will certainly have an easier time performing good actions. To put it simply (and using the foundation of behaviorist psychology) we will generally behave in ways that generate positive reactions. If a given behavior is rewarding, that behavior will probably be repeated (it sounds rather mechanistic, but it’s really just common sense). Often, individuals raised in harsh environments have received little or no positive reinforcement for “good” deeds and are therefore less likely to have a natural desire to perform them.


On a similar note: does being good become less valuable if you recognize that the only your doing it is for self-satisfaction? For example, does the fact that my desire to do good deeds are truly motivated by an inner desire to be the kind of person I want to be change it from an altruistic deed to a selfish one?

Does it become less meaningful to do apparently altruistic deeds if the motivation includes self-satisfaction? Is there a difference between a good selfish deed and a bad one?

I think the answer that comes most naturally is that there is a definite difference between a selfish deed and an altruistic one…the problem is not getting the answer, the problem is the method that shows why.