Zorro is here, and his real name is Sam Varghese
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kikinovak Nov 12, 2011 8:30 AM EDT |
Sam Varghese displays what one of my literature teachers here in France accurately called "le syndrome Zorro" (the Zorro syndrome). Which goes something like this: up until now, nobody has ever come close to the truth, despite numerous attempts by numerous people. Now here comes the "zorrauteur" (the Zorro-author), and everybody is suddenly blinded by the obvious truth of his statements. Now read the following paragraph: "The sense of entitlement that users of this kind feel is fed by the army of groupies who write about GNU/Linux. Many of them claim to be journalists but it is obvious that they have no idea what this profession is about." Not surprisingly, the subsequent paragraphs teach us what this profession really *is* about. Back in my University years, we used to hand out "Zorro points" to authors, mostly literary critics. |
| helios Nov 12, 2011 9:47 AM EDT |
I tend to be a cynic...many of us do, but what matters is how deep that cynicism runs and what colors it. FTA: Every human act, no matter how altruistic it may appear on the surface, is ultimately selfish. Sam appears never to have served in combat, nor has he watched Mother Theresa work 16 hour days on end in Calcutta, I can no longer feel anger toward Sam...only pity. What horrible thing happened in his life that would stain his belief system in such a manner? |
| linuxwriter Nov 13, 2011 5:06 AM EDT |
Strange. I read my own piece while writing it and proof-read it four times before posting it. Even after reading it once again just now, I cannot find a single place where I have laid claim to being the ultimate authority on anything. And, try as I might, I can't spot any other mention of journalism and what the craft means in this piece either. I should probably have mentioned that too - apart from the problem of groupies, a major additional problem one faces these days is people reading things in a hurry (or simply skimming through) and thinking they saw something which never exists. The internet has led to a tremendous growth of attention-deficit syndrome. Of course, it could be an inability to comprehend English too; no slur this, it is indeed a highly ambiguous language. Or since there is mention of a French connection, maybe translating the article into that language does provide an insight which I never did. One never knows. Sam Varghese |
| linuxwriter Nov 13, 2011 5:11 AM EDT |
One does not have to be a cynic to acknowledge reality. Every good deed one does, one gets that warm, fuzzy feeling - which is something that no amount of money can buy. Else, one wouldn't be doing anything for others. There is always payback for a human being. That's why people do good to others. It's got nothing to do with the individual; it's just how we humans are built. People who refuse to acknowledge this are deluding themselves, that's all. Sam Varghese |
| kikinovak Nov 13, 2011 7:35 AM EDT |
Dear Mister Varghese, It would seem to me that one of the basic rules for journalists and writers alike is never to be your own proof-reader, for the simple reason that usually you don't see your own mistakes. I do some proof-reading for my editor (Eyrolles, France), but only for fellow authors. When I submit a manuscript for my own book, I'll always have someone else do the proof-reading. So even after proof-reading yourself four times in a row, you "cannot find a single place where [you] have laid the claim to being the ultimate authority on anything". Then allow me to point it out for you. "Many of them claim to be journalists but it is obvious that they have no idea what this profession is about." Explicit = they have no idea. Implicit = you do, otherwise you couldn't state this. Although English is only my third language (German and French being the other two), I wouldn't think - as you suggest - it's a lack of linguistic competence on my side that makes me "see something which never exists". I can read Marlowe and Martin Amis in the original text without having to look things up in a dictionary, and I don't think I would have gotten my Literature and Classical Philology Degree while suffering from Attention Deficit Syndrome, as you suggest a little further. My English may be a little klutzy, but that's because I've only learnt it by reading books. I've never set foot in an english-speaking country. As for your curious assertion commented by Helios, "every human act, no matter how altruistic it may appear on the surface, is ultimately selfish", I wonder how you could explain the fact that I've just spent the best part of a sunny day putting together a full-blown desktop PC from spare parts in my office, install Ubuntu 10.04 on this machine and then give it away to my Moroccan neighbours, for the simple reason that their three kids are extremely gifted and they don't have the means to afford a computer? It's not my style to brag with this sort of thing, but reading your postulate about the Human Condition made me react. Just speak for yourself, Mister Varghese. |
| gus3 Nov 13, 2011 8:03 AM EDT |
/me is grinning widely (at Scott) |
| helios Nov 13, 2011 11:35 AM EDT |
Sam, absolute statements are most often inaccurate and more often overlooked by a lazy reader. This one wasn't. "There is always payback for a human being. That's why people do good to others." The use of "always" makes this an absolute statement. Where is the "payback" for these people Sam? "I bet they would love to have one more "warm, fuzzy feeling". http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0309_moh/presentat... If you want to speculate that many people have ulterior or selfish motives for doing good deeds, I won't argue with that point, But again, even with reducing the numbers, it is after all just speculation. I'm not going to allow you to boil down the actions of heros to a bio-chemical reward. Their reward should have been returning to their families and loved ones. Instead, choice and fate put them in the position to insure that others were allowed to do it in their stead. You tell the grieving mother or wife that their loved one did what they did for a momentary good feeling. I'd actually like to watch that exchange. |
| jdixon Nov 13, 2011 7:16 PM EDT |
Thanks Ken. I was going to respond similarly, but you did a much better job that I could have done. Simply put Sam, a person who gives his life for another or a group of others gets no "payback". In many cases, there isn't even time for that "warm, fuzzy feeling". Yet people do it. Your understanding of people, and why they take the actions they take, is sadly limited. |
| montezuma Nov 13, 2011 9:48 PM EDT |
Sam I disagree. Many people do things because of a moral code not to get a "warm fuzzy feeling". All actions are not motivated by a payback. That is a reductionist fantasy. There have been many things I have done such as getting up at 2am to change a dirty nappy that had no reward but were the right thing to do. You could say I did it because I wanted to feel proud of my child later on but that really wasn't the motivation. |
| tracyanne Nov 14, 2011 12:08 AM EDT |
Actally if you think about it Moral actions are motivated by payback. In the case of an Atheist it's about feeling good because one did something one would like done to or for oneself (or not doing something one would not like done to oneself). For a Theist is about doing that which one's deity approves, (or not disobeying the requirements of one's deity). So yes there is definately an case to be made that moral actions are motivated by payback. So basically I think this whole thread is a storm ina teacup, much ado about nothing. |
| skelband Nov 14, 2011 1:58 PM EDT |
@ta: At the very least, doing something for your community because you think the community benefits, is a payback of sorts. The payback doesn't necessarily have to be directly to the self. |
| tracyanne Nov 14, 2011 4:34 PM EDT |
@ skelbandQuoting:The payback doesn't necessarily have to be directly to the self. very true. |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2011 6:01 PM EDT |
> The payback doesn't necessarily have to be directly to the self. While true, that removes it as payback in the sense Sam uses the term. |
| tracyanne Nov 14, 2011 9:55 PM EDT |
From Sam's articleQuoting:Every human act, no matter how altruistic it may appear on the surface, is ultimately selfish. Skelband said Quoting:The payback doesn't necessarily have to be directly to the self. Jdixon said Quoting:While true, that removes it as payback in the sense Sam uses the term. Actually it doesn't, because what Skelband wrote is just another way of saying what Sam wrote. Ultimately everything we do boils down to what we know or think we will get out of it. A soldier goes to war to protect what he or she believes is important. A theist wants the approval of their deity. One does something for one's community because in the end if the community benefits, then so too does oneself.. because one os part of the community. They are all ultimately selfish acts. Many people think that is a bad thing. The bad thing is the selfish act that benefits no one else, or is even detrimental to others. |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2011 10:20 PM EDT |
> One does something for one's community because in the end if the community benefits, then so too does oneself.. because one os part of the community. Not everyone is a member of the community. Some people are loners. And yet they can still make such a choice, and have. Again, your explanation is incomplete. We like to think that everything has an explanation, that we can understand why things happen, but In some cases there is simply no rational explanation for why people do the things they do. |
| tracyanne Nov 14, 2011 11:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not everyone is a member of the community. Some people are loners. And yet they can still make such a choice, and have. because they are in fact members of a community. Being loners does not make them less members of a community, and their actions don't make it any less beneficial for them. Without the community there is nothing for them to be loners in. Again you want it to be something other than what it is... human nature, at the core of everything we do, is the benfit we derive, or what we think we will derive, from doing it. The approval of one's deity, the protection of what we hold dear, protecting our aloneness even. Everything does have an explanation, all one needs is the right information. There are always rational explanations for everything, especially for why people do what they do, all one deeds is the information necessary to make he rational explanation. To beleive otherwise is to stop using ones intelligence, something far too many people do far too often, and after far too little effort, because it's easier. Which is another thing about us, we are ultimately lazy. |
| gus3 Nov 14, 2011 11:27 PM EDT |
Caring for a child with severe retardation, or an elderly family member with Alzheimer's, will get no reward, only the avoidance of some cost. But love does not demand a reward. |
| jdixon Nov 14, 2011 11:45 PM EDT |
> Everything does have an explanation ... There are always rational explanations for everything, especially for why people do what they do. Keep on believing that T.A. Personally, I think the Bard said it best in Hamlet. > But love does not demand a reward. They'll simply say love is it's own reward, gus3. I've seen this discussion too many times. There's no way for either side to convince the other. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 14, 2011 11:51 PM EDT |
Quoting: Everything does have an explanation, all one needs is the right information. There are always rational explanations for everything, especially for why people do what they do, all one [n]eeds is the information necessary to make he rational explanation. Were you, by any chance ;-) an Economist in a previous life? |
| tracyanne Nov 15, 2011 12:03 AM EDT |
Love is it's own reward, because ultimately love is selfish. @Bernard, no but I was Cleoptra's hand maiden, the one that found her dead, King Henry's serving wench. I was almost famous right through out history. Sorry I thought we were doing past life regression. When we do that someone else always gets the famous people first, so I have to make do with the not famous ones. Question: what happens when more than 1 person remembers being someone famous? does that mean the famous person had multiple personality didsorder? |
| cr Nov 15, 2011 12:54 AM EDT |
Time-share? "And this is the soul of Napoleon as a young man." |
| Fettoosh Nov 15, 2011 10:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:Everything does have an explanation ... There are always rational explanations for everything, especially for why people do what they do. People have to think about a motive to have one before taking an action. But, how do you explain actions taken by people to save lives in a split second moment when they didn't have time think of a motive? Many people often take dangerous actions on the spare of a moment. And when asked why they did it, the reply almost always the same, "I wasn't thinking". |
| helios Nov 15, 2011 10:39 AM EDT |
"Many people often take dangerous actions on the spare of a moment. And when asked why they did it, the reply almost always the same, "I wasn't thinking". And many more don't have the opportunity to answer because they died saving people they either didn't know, or comrades who would die without some heroic act. I think it's fair to say that the realm of true heroism...and I'm talking about selfless, instantaneous and life-threatening heroism needs to be separated from the conversation. There is no "payback" for the individual in this instance and any inference that there is will be speculation, not fact. No one can know a person's true motive in cases like this. "There is always payback for a human being. That's why people do good to others." So we've come full circle. An absolute statement cannot be applied here because motive in such actions cannot be known or quantified. |
| mbaehrlxer Nov 15, 2011 10:56 AM EDT |
i believe that no one can know a person's true motive in any case unless they state it outright themselves.
related to this discussion is the issue with freeloaders. a freeloader supposedly takes advantage of something for free without giving anything back. however, what most people miss when they complain about freeloaders is that they do not know what the supposed freeloader does otherwise. helios for example could fit that picture. he is writing about linux. he is complaining about ubuntu and the gimp, and he is not giving back anything to either project. if i closed my eyes and ignore what else he is doing then i could call him a selfish freeloader. but just because i'd see it that way, doesn't make it the truth. and because i can not know what the true motivation for any act is, i have no right to call anyone a freeloader or selfish. greetings, eMBee. |
| Fettoosh Nov 15, 2011 11:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:but just because i'd see it that way, doesn't make it the truth. True, very true. Just because we can think up a reason, it is not enough to make it a fact of why some one does a deed. |
| linuxwriter Nov 15, 2011 8:44 PM EDT |
I know it's difficult for humans to stomach the fact that everything they do is ultimately selfish.
We'd all like to think that at least some of our actions are noble. Jut bear in mind that it does not
degrade us in any way to accept this inescapable fact. Whether we go undertake something with a motive or not is irrelevant. We only do things that are ultimately in our interest. Else, the human race would have died out a long time ago. Sam |
| linuxwriter Nov 15, 2011 8:55 PM EDT |
This is to the poster, kikinovak. I apologise if I offended you; it was not my intention at all. English is a third language for me, after my mother tongue (Malayalam) and my adopted language (Sinhalese). In these two languages, there are no articles (like in many others.) And these two are phonetic, both having roots in Sanskrit and Pali. I studied French up to the graduate level. I don't think in English. I think in another language and then translate it. As no doubt you do. There is a lot of scope for mistaking things in such a scenario. That's why I never leave much to inference when I write. I state what is even the bleeding obvious. If I had meant to say that I am the last word on journalism, I would have said it out straight. What you read into my writing is entirely of your own making, based on the programming of your past. As to your comment about human actions not being ultimately selfish and your little example - how did you feel after you had built that PC and given it to those kids? Did you feel lousy or was there that glowing feeling that comes when one feels one has done good for the human race at large? I rest my case. Sam |
| jdixon Nov 15, 2011 9:11 PM EDT |
> Jut bear in mind that it does not degrade us in any way to accept this inescapable fact. You have pitiful powers of escape, Sam. Most of us can escape that "fact" with ease. > Else, the human race would have died out a long time ago. At least one scientific study says that altruistic behavior does more to preserve the race than selfish behavior, and is therefore a survival trait for the species and bred for accordingly. No, I'm not going to do your research for you. You're the one making the original (unsupported) assertion. > What you read into my writing is entirely of your own making, What he read into your writing is the clear meaning of the words. If that's not the meaning you intended, then you're the one at fault, no him. |
| tracyanne Nov 15, 2011 9:41 PM EDT |
you miss the point jd, altruism is ultimately selfish. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 15, 2011 9:44 PM EDT |
Nothing we do is selfish -- it's all for the benefit of our genes. |
| gus3 Nov 15, 2011 9:48 PM EDT |
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Dawkins or Hitchens yet. |
| jdixon Nov 15, 2011 10:12 PM EDT |
> ...altruism is ultimately selfish. WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. You've been anticipated, TA. Altruism is ultimately to the benefit of the group, and therefore the species. That does not make it "selfish". When your argument devolves to claiming two contradictory definitions are the same thing, it may be time to re-evaluate your position. Not that I have any expectation of that. |
| skelband Nov 15, 2011 10:33 PM EDT |
You are all mistaken in the belief that we have self-will. Self-will is a prerequisite for non-deterministic behaviour. Self-will is an illusion. Therefore the motivation for what we do is defined by our environment and our internal state. We don't ultimately have any control over our actions since we are mere automata, carrying out the Universe's predestined "plan" (for want of a better word). It only remains for us to discuss the biological imperative which is the cause for our effect. Here endeth the lesson. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 15, 2011 10:43 PM EDT |
@gus3 Doesn't my remark count? |
| tracyanne Nov 15, 2011 11:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Altruism is ultimately to the benefit of the group, and therefore the species. That does not make it "selfish". But of course it is. Who do you think 'the group consists of' if not also those who are atruistic. Ultimately anything done that benefits the group can and often does benefit the one who is ultruistic. Quoting:Nothing we do is selfish -- it's all for the benefit of our genes. but of course. it is not we who are selfish, but our genes, which are programmed for survival, and in turn program us to ensure our genes are passed on to the next generation. That in the end is the point of it all. |
| gus3 Nov 15, 2011 11:40 PM EDT |
@Bernard: Only to ten. ;-) I just figured I'd point out the elephant in the room. |
| helios Nov 16, 2011 1:42 AM EDT |
Sam, the fact that you not only speak one additional language but another as well is truly impressive and I'm willing to back off a bit on my statements. Hell, most of us Americans do well to speak our own version of English, not to mention fluency in any others. The American language is full of rule contradictions and part time rules...Knowing that English isn't your mother tongue explains much and I now appreciate that fact. Just sayin'..... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!