tisdag 19 augusti 2014

Weak is weak

A is A

It can hardly get any simpler than that. What is is and not something else.

So, e.g., weak is weak

Sometimes you hear people say that individuals who are obese or anorexic or depressed or suffer from other psychological or physical shortcomings actually "are not weak, they are too strong".

The reasoning goes something like this: "Person A is so strong that he/she has tried to shoulder all the troubles in the world... and failed. The depression is thus not a symptom of weakness, it is a symptom of being too strong"

When somebody claims "A" is at the same time "not A"

I don't think it is helpful to confuse notions that way. For any given area, either you are weak or you are strong. Full stop. If you are weak and want to get stronger, you need help or at least some kind of action, not some fuzzy, wishy washy, mumbo jumbo explaining how you are actually too strong and need to be less strong.

What you need is to face reality (that won't change) and adapt your actions to it (that you actually can change). Don't take on more than you can handle. That just means you are 1. Mentally too weak to correctly assess the situation and the requirements 2. Too weak to handle the situation once in it

If you can't cope by yourself, realize you are weak and get help, instead of lying to yourself or believing other people's delusional ideas about you actually being too strong.

P.S. If you can't deadlift a certain weight it's definitely not because you are too strong

2 kommentarer:

  1. Maybe you should give a bit of philosophical backstory to those who are not familar with Rand and Aristotle.

    For added credit, talk a bit about some thinkers who thought A was not A, and how they came to that conclusion.

    1. Maybe, but I won't :-).

      Suffice to say they both emphasize the importance of defining what is and what isn't. Rand, in particular, abhors compromise, since there can't be a compromise between is and isn't.

      Actually, if you don't base your philosophy on the axiom that A is A, it simply won't work practically. Hence all thinkers acknowledge that every term must have it's own distinct definition.

      However, there are a lot of non-thinkers with sloppy reasoning that don't know they violate this most fundamental of philosophical fundamentals. They are called "ordinary people at parties you wish you never went to" or "girlfriends that know mind reading is impossible but demand you read theirs".