This is a report of the philosophy café session on 17 February 2010. The question for the evening is: “Is patience a waste of time?”
What is patience? An online dictionary defines it as: “suffering delay, pain, irritation etc quietly and without complaint”. What is waste? The definition is: “fail to use [blank: which we fill with the word “time”] fully or in the correct or most useful way.”
Consider gardening. We cannot do anything but wait for the plants to grow. Not true, we have to add fertilizer, water the plants etc. Consider construction. Things must move according to a determined timeline, waiting for events to move according to this timeline cannot be considered “waste”.
So it is not waste if there is a result. If there is no delay, patience is not called for.
What about patience as a virtue? Even if there is no result, character building can occur. This makes patience not a waste of time.
Hence:
If (either result or character building), then not-(waste of time); and
If not-(either result or character building), then (waste of time)
Patience is considered a virtue because we do not know the future eg. a farmer waiting for his plants to grow. Anything can happen.
We suggest a metaphor. We lean a ladder against a tree (apple, pear etc) to pluck its fruits. If we lean it against the correct tree, and get the fruits, it is not a waste of time. If we lean it against the wrong tree, and do not get the fruits, it is a waste of time. But what if we carry the ladder into an orchard, and do not know which is the right tree, leaving us no choice but to try many trees, is that a waste of time? Well, in the same way as Edison discovered many ways in which electricity cannot generate light, we gain knowledge by climbing up many wrong trees. Since our patience in climbing many wrong trees allows us to gain knowledge, it is not a waste of time.
Gaining knowledge is not character building. It is a result.
What about doomsday cults waiting for the end of the world? The end of the world is an event not likely to happen anytime in the near future. Is their patience then a waste of time? Well, we do not know that the end of the world is an event not likely to happen anytime in the near future.
Waiting in ignorance is a waste of time. No, because the future is always unknown, so it is not a waste of time. Thus, because the future is always unknown, it is not the case that:
If not-(either result or character building), then (waste of time).
We had earlier established that:
If (either result or character building), then not-(waste of time)
We now establish that:
If not-(either result or character building), then not-(waste of time)
But, it must be either:
(either result or character building) or not-(either result or character building)
Thus, patience is never a waste of time.
We can say the future is never known only when we look ahead in time. However, when we engage hindsight, we are able to say that “there is no result, or there is a bad result, or no character development occurred”, and hence that “patience was a waste of time”.
What if we had pessimistic foresight? This yields only an anticipated waste of time, rather than an actual waste of time.
We refer back to the definition of patience. It involves complaint. If we have a pessimistic foresight, and we complain about it, we do not have patience. The question dissolves. If we have pessimistic foresight and we do not complain about it, we are patient, but we are still dealing with anticipated waste of time rather than actual waste of time.
The word “patience” is used only in foresight. Judgement is exercised only in hindsight. In foresight, patience is never a waste of time. Hence, patience is not a waste of time.
What about procrastination? So far, we have been discussing patience in terms of passively waiting for some event to occur. Procrastination is also a kind of patience, waiting to perform some action.
We note the pejorative flavour of the word “procrastination”, which will bias the discussion. We decide to ignore this pejorative flavour, and focus only on the literal meaning of the word: “to delay action”.
Is procrastination (as a form of patience) a waste of time?
If procrastination leads to a result, then it is not a waste of time. But this is known only in hindsight. When we procrastinate, we are necessarily looking ahead, but because the future is always unknown, such patience is never a waste of time.
In conclusion, however we look at it, patience is never a waste of time.
It has been an extremely productive discussion.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All enquiring minds are welcome, there is no other prerequisite. It's free parking and free admission, with personal expense for food and drink. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 March 2010. Hope to see you there.
Thursday 18 February 2010
Saturday 13 February 2010
Is having a child important in a marriage?
This is a report of the second question attempted at philosophy cafe's first commercial outing -- on 12 February 2010 -- as an event organised by a dating agency (www.champagnejsg.com).
Only if one is prepared to be responsible for a child should one have a child.
Whether or not this is true, the claim does not address the question, which is about the importance of a child in a marriage.
Marriage is defined as heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that this is the only kind of marriage that can produce children.
What does the word "important" mean? It means "to produce children". No, that would mean that a childless couple in their 80s are then by definition not married. That cannot be right. This understanding of the word "important" does not work.
What is marriage? It's a question discussed in the philosophy cafe session of 18 November 2009. It so happens I have the notes from that evening with me. We take the conclusion from that evening's discussion. Marriage is a man-made construct with no intrinsic value. This means that marriage has no value in and of itself. This does not mean that marriage has no value at all. It remains possible for individuals or couples to impose value upon it. Having a child can be one such imposed value.
Perhaps the preposition in the question is important. Is there a difference between asking "Is having a child important in a marriage" and "Is having a child important to a marriage"?
Phrased with an "in", the question relates to the species, as "does the species find it important?" Whereas, phrased with a "to", the question relates to a specific couple, as "does this, or any, couple (but not species) find it important?"
We run out of time. Discussion of this question ends here.
END
Only if one is prepared to be responsible for a child should one have a child.
Whether or not this is true, the claim does not address the question, which is about the importance of a child in a marriage.
Marriage is defined as heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that this is the only kind of marriage that can produce children.
What does the word "important" mean? It means "to produce children". No, that would mean that a childless couple in their 80s are then by definition not married. That cannot be right. This understanding of the word "important" does not work.
What is marriage? It's a question discussed in the philosophy cafe session of 18 November 2009. It so happens I have the notes from that evening with me. We take the conclusion from that evening's discussion. Marriage is a man-made construct with no intrinsic value. This means that marriage has no value in and of itself. This does not mean that marriage has no value at all. It remains possible for individuals or couples to impose value upon it. Having a child can be one such imposed value.
Perhaps the preposition in the question is important. Is there a difference between asking "Is having a child important in a marriage" and "Is having a child important to a marriage"?
Phrased with an "in", the question relates to the species, as "does the species find it important?" Whereas, phrased with a "to", the question relates to a specific couple, as "does this, or any, couple (but not species) find it important?"
We run out of time. Discussion of this question ends here.
END
Can we change to be different?
Philosophy cafe has its first commercial outing on 12 February 2010, on the eve of the eve of Chinese New Year. It is used as an event in the calendar of a local dating agency (www.champagnejsg.com).
The question for the evening is, as usual, suggested and chosen by the participants in a popular vote. It is: "Can we change to be different?"
"Different" is defined as "not alike in character or quality". This definition is obtained from an online dictionary. Definition via dictionary is, in philosophy, known as "lexical definition". [This is an effective but little used method of definition in philosophy, with many philosophers preferring to write entire books on "The meaning of difference" etc.]
What is the "we" in the question? It refers to some basic nature, some essence. This is to be distinguished from an attribute eg. someone wearing a red or grey shirt.
Someone offers this argument: "I do not observe that my basic nature has changed, nor do I observe that my nephews' basic nature has changed. Therefore, basic nature does not change. We cannot change to be different." We point out that just a few individuals do not constitute a representative sample. We cannot generalise from this.
We need to exclude the natural maturity process from the word "change". This is because if we do not do this, then the question becomes entirely trivial: We all of us undergo the natural maturing process as part of growing up. We cannot not change.
An analogy from physics applies. An object continues in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This is from Newton's laws of motion. In the same way, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience (external force) causes a change in us. For example, a patient hears a diagnosis of cancer, and a bleak prognosis for his expected remaining lifespan. This big experience can cause a change in the patient to the point of being different.
But there are instances also of criminals who enter and leave prison many times with no change in their criminal tendencies. This recidivism shows that so-called big experiences may not cause change.
The question is: "Can we change to be different?", not "Must we change to be different?" The fact of hardcore criminals does not detract from the fact that big experiences can change people to be different.
A different slant on the question: Can people change by choice to be different?, as opposed to some big experience forcing a change upon them?
We return to the cancer patient and the bleak prognosis. The bleak prognosis cannot be said to inevitably cause a change to a more depressed attitude towards life. It is possible that such news may provoke the patient into consciously choosing to grab life by the horns instead. Or, more mundanely, one can choose to stop smoking, lose weight etc.
To sum up: The answer to the evening's question is: Yes, we can change to be different. We can think of two ways in which this occurs. One, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience causes us to change to be different. Two, we consciously choose the manner of our difference, and then work towards that.
We have answered the question for the evening.
The event still has some time to run. We decide to embark on our second choice question for the evening: Is having a child important in a marriage? [See other post]
END
The question for the evening is, as usual, suggested and chosen by the participants in a popular vote. It is: "Can we change to be different?"
"Different" is defined as "not alike in character or quality". This definition is obtained from an online dictionary. Definition via dictionary is, in philosophy, known as "lexical definition". [This is an effective but little used method of definition in philosophy, with many philosophers preferring to write entire books on "The meaning of difference" etc.]
What is the "we" in the question? It refers to some basic nature, some essence. This is to be distinguished from an attribute eg. someone wearing a red or grey shirt.
Someone offers this argument: "I do not observe that my basic nature has changed, nor do I observe that my nephews' basic nature has changed. Therefore, basic nature does not change. We cannot change to be different." We point out that just a few individuals do not constitute a representative sample. We cannot generalise from this.
We need to exclude the natural maturity process from the word "change". This is because if we do not do this, then the question becomes entirely trivial: We all of us undergo the natural maturing process as part of growing up. We cannot not change.
An analogy from physics applies. An object continues in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This is from Newton's laws of motion. In the same way, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience (external force) causes a change in us. For example, a patient hears a diagnosis of cancer, and a bleak prognosis for his expected remaining lifespan. This big experience can cause a change in the patient to the point of being different.
But there are instances also of criminals who enter and leave prison many times with no change in their criminal tendencies. This recidivism shows that so-called big experiences may not cause change.
The question is: "Can we change to be different?", not "Must we change to be different?" The fact of hardcore criminals does not detract from the fact that big experiences can change people to be different.
A different slant on the question: Can people change by choice to be different?, as opposed to some big experience forcing a change upon them?
We return to the cancer patient and the bleak prognosis. The bleak prognosis cannot be said to inevitably cause a change to a more depressed attitude towards life. It is possible that such news may provoke the patient into consciously choosing to grab life by the horns instead. Or, more mundanely, one can choose to stop smoking, lose weight etc.
To sum up: The answer to the evening's question is: Yes, we can change to be different. We can think of two ways in which this occurs. One, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience causes us to change to be different. Two, we consciously choose the manner of our difference, and then work towards that.
We have answered the question for the evening.
The event still has some time to run. We decide to embark on our second choice question for the evening: Is having a child important in a marriage? [See other post]
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)