Ah, the infamous words of the Aeon Yojimbo. For those of you who aren't as nerdy as I am (which is probably everybody that actually reads this), Yojimbo is a summon from FFX. And yes, I do like to use nerdy references to introduce my topics since my mind seems to work that way... Also, these topics don't seem to be as long as before, so this should be good news to those that have shorter attention spans haha
Yes, today is somewhat of a reference to economics, hence the whole deal thing in the title. In fact, Yojimbo himself would only attack if you paid him, so I find that funny as well.. Anyways, the topic has to do with deals and what not. Again, I'm gonna be assuming that most of those who read my entries took Malek. But, just as a refresher (or information for those that didn't take Malek) one of the main things that Malek pushed for was there is no such thing as a rip off. Basically, people have the option whether or not to accept the price that is given/offered to them. Malek would always give the example of a man in the desert dying of thirst and having a water vendor come along. The vendor would charge $1000 for the bottle of water since the man was in great need of it. Thus, there's no rip off since the man agreed to it and he was so desperately in need of it. Of course, the point that there is no such thing as a rip off is debatable in itself, but not something that is currently in my head. Thus, we are just going to accept that for now and we can debate later.
The thing that we are going to talk about, though, is the finalization of a deal. The situation that Malek typically mentions is not something that would be favorable to be in. Even if the situation is extreme, my point is that it can apply to other "deals" in our lives, such as college tuition (which is extremely applicable to basically everyone who reads this haha). The thing that bugs people most is that they're not getting a "fair price" (Again, something that can be debated later) for what they're paying for. Thus, they try to compensate it by other means. I've heard that in order to get a "good" education" you have to pay ridiculous amounts and thus students should be entitled to a bit more than their education. I've heard this rationale used to justify a bit of behavior, especially in the dining halls. Some people who take things from the dining halls say that they're paying so much that they are entitled to take something, whether it be more food, silverware, or even soy sauce bottles.
Sure, I can understand where this is coming from. It's annoying to get a renowned education and something for a "low" price college wise. Yet, I'm still against this. The thing is, a deal has already been established. It seems highly unethical to agree to a deal and all its provisions then go against one of those provisions. It's probably like an ethical equivalent to lying, for agreeing to a deal and then going against its provisions means that you agree to something then go against it, meaning that your agreement to the deal is false. I mean, it wouldn't be cool to sell something to someone for $100 and then they decided that they wanted more for it since $100 is too much, even if it is something they already agreed to. It is something that is hard and annoying to keep to, though. Paying around $100000 can really get to some people, especially for something that is a form of prestige haha. Well, all in all, I guess it's just important to remember what you agreed to in deals and what not and also just to analyze your own actions. Yeap yeap... Food for thought!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Phat and low
Sorry for not writing for a while (again). Being home was very amusing and all, and I touched the computer for only about 20 minutes overall. Also, I forgot what I was going to write till I got back to school, so I guess it all works out. Anyways, if anyone wants to know what is up with the title, it was Chris' idea. So yeah...
Before I get started with the actual entry, it's important to know what Gricean implicatures are. These are things I just learned about in my Linguistics class a few weeks back. If you think the word "implicature" looks like "imply", that's because they are very similar. Implicatures are basically sentences that don't directly say something but mean it. So yes, it's basically like implying something, except implicatures aren't meant to be subjective, whereas implying things can fall into the realm of the subjective. So yes, the word "implicature" was specifically invented to avoid the subjectivity that may come with implying things.
For those who want an example, the example "Can you pass the salt?" is a great example. Even though this question is not actually asking if someone is physically able to pass the salt, even though it can mean that, it implicates that I want the salt. Thus, the sentence means something that it doesn't directly say. An example of messing with implicatures is a riddle actually. For those of you who have heard it, it's the riddle about having two coins adding up to 30 cents, but one of them is not a nickel. Note here that I said only one of them is not a nickel. This does not mean that the other cannot be a nickel, which is part of the answer to the riddle, but it implicates that neither coin is a nickel. Hopefully that's enough explanation for now...
Anyways, why this background relates actually goes bak to my Wednesday of running around for class and work. Basically, last week was election week, which is a huge thing here. There are two groups, Students First and Bruins United, and both were campaigning like crazy. I literally ran into about 10ish people each way I would walk. And yet, these people wouldn't just say something like, "Vote for Students First!" No, they were hardcore... They would ask if you've voted, then bombard you with information about why you should vote for their candidates and what not. Also, they would seek and follow people. I pulled out my phone a few times and walked around some people, yet they would still follow me and cut me off asking for my vote. By this point I hadn't actually voted since the online poll had been only open for one day and I was still thinking about who to vote for. Thus, I would feel bad and ethically violated if I just lied to everybody who would ask me if I had voted yet.
Well, this situation came to what I saw as a quick fix when I passed my friend Jonathan leaving Bruinwalk (No, not Jonny Chue, but a friend from CCM). Anyways, he figured he'd help me out and gave me a sticker that had "I <3 SF!" on it. I quickly caught on to the sticker idea and just wore it and waved it around to any political people asking for my vote. They saw that I had the sticker and totally left me alone, making the walk to class so much nicer.
I initially justified my conscience by reasoning that the sticker itself has no mentioning of my voting on it. It just mentions my support for a specific group, and thus I figured they would leave me all alone. But, Justice actually called me out on this, and I think he's right. The stickers were handed out in the later part of the day to those who said they had voted so that way they wouldn't be haggled anymore. And thus, the stickers were meant for those who actually had voted, not those who were still thinking about it.
Now, the thing is, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with having the sticker. Me displaying the sticker isn't lying in itself, for there's nothing on the sticker that says anything about me voting, but me supporting a specific group. Yet, now that I'm looking back, I think it's rather deceptive to use the sticker. Although it may not be directly lying, it is messing with implications. Thus, it was quite deceptive of me to use the sticker to make it seem like I had voted when I actually had not. Maybe I am just overly ethically sensitive, but I still feel that I am at fault here. Now, if I had known that the sticker wasn't meant to be a sing that I had already voted, then the situation would be different. But, I did know beforehand and thus I feel at fault.
I guess my whole justification for feeling at fault is the problem of being deceptive with implicatures. In fact, the riddle mentioned in the intro is a riddle due to the manipulation of implicatures. The main ethical fault would be in an attempt at deceiving another, and thus maybe an indirect form of lying. Or, I could just be overly sensitive to the use of manipulation, iono. Oh well, food for thought!
Before I get started with the actual entry, it's important to know what Gricean implicatures are. These are things I just learned about in my Linguistics class a few weeks back. If you think the word "implicature" looks like "imply", that's because they are very similar. Implicatures are basically sentences that don't directly say something but mean it. So yes, it's basically like implying something, except implicatures aren't meant to be subjective, whereas implying things can fall into the realm of the subjective. So yes, the word "implicature" was specifically invented to avoid the subjectivity that may come with implying things.
For those who want an example, the example "Can you pass the salt?" is a great example. Even though this question is not actually asking if someone is physically able to pass the salt, even though it can mean that, it implicates that I want the salt. Thus, the sentence means something that it doesn't directly say. An example of messing with implicatures is a riddle actually. For those of you who have heard it, it's the riddle about having two coins adding up to 30 cents, but one of them is not a nickel. Note here that I said only one of them is not a nickel. This does not mean that the other cannot be a nickel, which is part of the answer to the riddle, but it implicates that neither coin is a nickel. Hopefully that's enough explanation for now...
Anyways, why this background relates actually goes bak to my Wednesday of running around for class and work. Basically, last week was election week, which is a huge thing here. There are two groups, Students First and Bruins United, and both were campaigning like crazy. I literally ran into about 10ish people each way I would walk. And yet, these people wouldn't just say something like, "Vote for Students First!" No, they were hardcore... They would ask if you've voted, then bombard you with information about why you should vote for their candidates and what not. Also, they would seek and follow people. I pulled out my phone a few times and walked around some people, yet they would still follow me and cut me off asking for my vote. By this point I hadn't actually voted since the online poll had been only open for one day and I was still thinking about who to vote for. Thus, I would feel bad and ethically violated if I just lied to everybody who would ask me if I had voted yet.
Well, this situation came to what I saw as a quick fix when I passed my friend Jonathan leaving Bruinwalk (No, not Jonny Chue, but a friend from CCM). Anyways, he figured he'd help me out and gave me a sticker that had "I <3 SF!" on it. I quickly caught on to the sticker idea and just wore it and waved it around to any political people asking for my vote. They saw that I had the sticker and totally left me alone, making the walk to class so much nicer.
I initially justified my conscience by reasoning that the sticker itself has no mentioning of my voting on it. It just mentions my support for a specific group, and thus I figured they would leave me all alone. But, Justice actually called me out on this, and I think he's right. The stickers were handed out in the later part of the day to those who said they had voted so that way they wouldn't be haggled anymore. And thus, the stickers were meant for those who actually had voted, not those who were still thinking about it.
Now, the thing is, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with having the sticker. Me displaying the sticker isn't lying in itself, for there's nothing on the sticker that says anything about me voting, but me supporting a specific group. Yet, now that I'm looking back, I think it's rather deceptive to use the sticker. Although it may not be directly lying, it is messing with implications. Thus, it was quite deceptive of me to use the sticker to make it seem like I had voted when I actually had not. Maybe I am just overly ethically sensitive, but I still feel that I am at fault here. Now, if I had known that the sticker wasn't meant to be a sing that I had already voted, then the situation would be different. But, I did know beforehand and thus I feel at fault.
I guess my whole justification for feeling at fault is the problem of being deceptive with implicatures. In fact, the riddle mentioned in the intro is a riddle due to the manipulation of implicatures. The main ethical fault would be in an attempt at deceiving another, and thus maybe an indirect form of lying. Or, I could just be overly sensitive to the use of manipulation, iono. Oh well, food for thought!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Beeeeeeee Yourself!
Whew, sorry for the delay everyone. I had a jam packed end of the week, as I mentioned in my last post. I got in about 18 hours of work in two days plus I've been keeping up with school, which is pretty crazy if you think about it haha. Also, no ideas have really been coming to mind lately, so it makes it all the harder to write an entry...
Actually, no ideas overall have really popped into my head, even today. So this entry is probably going to be a bit more on the rambling side rather than focused thought. Sorry to anyone that bothers!
Hm, well as some of you might know I'm sorta into sociology/social psychology. Just the way people interact and just the mental layer behind that is something that interests me. I figured today I'll just look at some obscure social topic, even though it'll probably be a shorter entry (That's what is up with the title, if anyone is wondering)... Oh well!
Even though it's definitely not as prevalent today, cartoons sometimes are meant to convey moral messages. Well, maybe moral isn't exactly the best word for it, but lessons that are important for just doing better in life. Of course, most cartoons today don't exactly have a positive life lesson, but more like an example of something that you shouldn't do, even though the characters have everything work out in the end...
Well, I guess one of the main "lessons" that I wanted to tackle today is the idea of being yourself. I'm pretty sure it's something that you've all heard... Even Genie in Aladdin tells Aladdin to "beeeeeeeee yourself" (I doubt many people actually remember that scene though haha). The basic idea is that we can't put on a facade, for we don't actually fool others, are even ourselves really for that matter. Thus, just be yourself and life will be that much simpler.
Sure, it's a good lesson and all, but my friend Timmy pointed out an interesting question: What does it mean to be yourself? Some of you may think this is a rather simple question, but it actually struck me as quite interesting as well... Let's try to clear up this situation with an example. Imagine that you meet someone that is quite outgoing. They have all the same interests, hobbies, etc. that you do. Yet, after hanging out with this person for a while, you realize that he changes depending on each person he meets. It seems as if he has a different mask to associate with each person, but doesn't have one true face that he seems to stick to. What does it then mean for him to be himself?
Some of you may simply think that his nature is that of being two-faced, to say the least. On one had, that seems rather harsh, for a sociable nature isn't exactly a bad thing. Maybe having multiple faces is, but then how do you qualify his true face? If his true face is being two-faced (wow, this is getting odd), then is that something that he should actually "be" then? How do you discover what your true nature is? For, one would think that it's not one's actual nature to have a negative character trait, or maybe that's just my own thoughts...
Well, maybe a better way to look at things is what if one's inherent nature is that of a negative character? Should you really "be yourself" then? It would seem like not the best thing to be constantly reinforcing questionable behavior...
Hmm, perhaps a better way to look at one's nature is to divide it up. Even though there's probably multiple ways to do this, let's take a shot in the dark and say a human can have an innate moral nature and in an innate personality nature. When people say "be yourself," they mean that you are supposed to be your innate personality nature (hmm, that sounds awkwardly worded), and not actually your innate moral nature, for most people believe that humans are sinful by nature, to say the least. That way, people can still be themselves while reconciling with other differences...
Yet, this definition seems to be kinda off... Sure, not being yourself morally can be a good interpretation, for it could be an indirect way to promote good moral behavior. Yet, it seems to beg the question in the sense that we still haven't established what one's personality nature is. It could just be overall personality, but that could be linked back to the idea of being two-faced, and all those problems come again. Also, those with abrasive and harsh personalities are not exactly popular, and thus you wouldn't want those people to exactly "be themselves." What to do what to do...
This always seems to bother me. I would want to say "being yourself" is a good idea, but we do have some troubles that we need to sort out first before we would think of advising it. Well, even though this sounds kinda stupid, maybe you just need to establish a personality, or simply change something to become "yourself." Like, let's say that you are one that does have an abrasive personality by nature or are very two-faced. Maybe the best way to be yourself is to change your personality by being nice or not two-faced. Yet, if we do change this, can one say that they are truly being themselves? I think it would depend on the level of change/how one deals with it before we could answer the question. Thus, it seems quite subjective, so to speak... Oh well, food for thought... It's just interesting how we use some phrases without really thinking about what they mean sometimes... Anyways, that's enough for now. Maybe if I think about anything better I'll put that down in a future post, but for now farewell...
Actually, no ideas overall have really popped into my head, even today. So this entry is probably going to be a bit more on the rambling side rather than focused thought. Sorry to anyone that bothers!
Hm, well as some of you might know I'm sorta into sociology/social psychology. Just the way people interact and just the mental layer behind that is something that interests me. I figured today I'll just look at some obscure social topic, even though it'll probably be a shorter entry (That's what is up with the title, if anyone is wondering)... Oh well!
Even though it's definitely not as prevalent today, cartoons sometimes are meant to convey moral messages. Well, maybe moral isn't exactly the best word for it, but lessons that are important for just doing better in life. Of course, most cartoons today don't exactly have a positive life lesson, but more like an example of something that you shouldn't do, even though the characters have everything work out in the end...
Well, I guess one of the main "lessons" that I wanted to tackle today is the idea of being yourself. I'm pretty sure it's something that you've all heard... Even Genie in Aladdin tells Aladdin to "beeeeeeeee yourself" (I doubt many people actually remember that scene though haha). The basic idea is that we can't put on a facade, for we don't actually fool others, are even ourselves really for that matter. Thus, just be yourself and life will be that much simpler.
Sure, it's a good lesson and all, but my friend Timmy pointed out an interesting question: What does it mean to be yourself? Some of you may think this is a rather simple question, but it actually struck me as quite interesting as well... Let's try to clear up this situation with an example. Imagine that you meet someone that is quite outgoing. They have all the same interests, hobbies, etc. that you do. Yet, after hanging out with this person for a while, you realize that he changes depending on each person he meets. It seems as if he has a different mask to associate with each person, but doesn't have one true face that he seems to stick to. What does it then mean for him to be himself?
Some of you may simply think that his nature is that of being two-faced, to say the least. On one had, that seems rather harsh, for a sociable nature isn't exactly a bad thing. Maybe having multiple faces is, but then how do you qualify his true face? If his true face is being two-faced (wow, this is getting odd), then is that something that he should actually "be" then? How do you discover what your true nature is? For, one would think that it's not one's actual nature to have a negative character trait, or maybe that's just my own thoughts...
Well, maybe a better way to look at things is what if one's inherent nature is that of a negative character? Should you really "be yourself" then? It would seem like not the best thing to be constantly reinforcing questionable behavior...
Hmm, perhaps a better way to look at one's nature is to divide it up. Even though there's probably multiple ways to do this, let's take a shot in the dark and say a human can have an innate moral nature and in an innate personality nature. When people say "be yourself," they mean that you are supposed to be your innate personality nature (hmm, that sounds awkwardly worded), and not actually your innate moral nature, for most people believe that humans are sinful by nature, to say the least. That way, people can still be themselves while reconciling with other differences...
Yet, this definition seems to be kinda off... Sure, not being yourself morally can be a good interpretation, for it could be an indirect way to promote good moral behavior. Yet, it seems to beg the question in the sense that we still haven't established what one's personality nature is. It could just be overall personality, but that could be linked back to the idea of being two-faced, and all those problems come again. Also, those with abrasive and harsh personalities are not exactly popular, and thus you wouldn't want those people to exactly "be themselves." What to do what to do...
This always seems to bother me. I would want to say "being yourself" is a good idea, but we do have some troubles that we need to sort out first before we would think of advising it. Well, even though this sounds kinda stupid, maybe you just need to establish a personality, or simply change something to become "yourself." Like, let's say that you are one that does have an abrasive personality by nature or are very two-faced. Maybe the best way to be yourself is to change your personality by being nice or not two-faced. Yet, if we do change this, can one say that they are truly being themselves? I think it would depend on the level of change/how one deals with it before we could answer the question. Thus, it seems quite subjective, so to speak... Oh well, food for thought... It's just interesting how we use some phrases without really thinking about what they mean sometimes... Anyways, that's enough for now. Maybe if I think about anything better I'll put that down in a future post, but for now farewell...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
