Monday Blues
Hypothetically, If one were to point out that the idea of a Gandhi like figure (whose ideology was anything but self-centred) to advance notion of a society based on self - interest is a contradiction in terms, what fallacy one would be committing ?
PS And no the argument that this notion (that is of someone selling the reforms) has nothing to do with end which Mahatma sought does not stand. His ends and his means justified each other.
PPS. I wonder wouldn't it be better if instead of indulging in messianism and ,one takes initiative himself. Instead of pining for Gandhi, why doesn't one become Gandhi himself?
Related Since I am talking about initiative, where is my initiative and what I have done.
Answer, nothing. I prefer comfort of my cubicle and assured salary at the month in comparison to arduous and thankless task of enlightening others (assuming I have the capacity intellect wise and communication wise, in itself a doubtful proposition). This makes me a hypocrite.
6 comments:
I think the path is sakAma karma -> niShkAma karma -> naiShkarmya -> mOkSha.
Having a self-centered society where things actually happen is better according to vEdAnta than a society steeped in tamas. Not everyone is spiritually as mature as gAndhiji is, so even for the common people freedom which can allow their self-interest to goad them into action, should be the good for them. Why would gAndhiji disagree with that?
Frog,
Actually point was if the sole motivation of a person is assumed to be self interest, why should he work for others.
Regards
Which is quite possibly why libertarians don't work towards educating others ( still, establishing a libertarian society would well be within the interest of libertarians ). I was meaning that a person like gAndhi ji could well go about trying to educate others about libertarianism, though
the "run of the mill" libertarian wouldn't do that. I am impressed by Gaurav Sabnis' enthusiasm in holding dialogue with the cab driver, which again I doubt if a typical libertarian will do ( may be they will, it just doesn't seem likely ).
Frog,
I agree.
My point is IMO libertarianism is
1. Not the basic principle behind civilization.
2. At best it is a partial political theory because it concerns itself only with state and individual. It gives society a go by either because it is out of its scope or it complicates the field.
Frankly speaking convincing others requires education and intellect, which unfortunately I do not posses. Well as they say what is in name.
Regards
PS. In one way it was related to rationalism vs superrationalism dilemma.
What is the rationalism vs. superrationalism dilemma?
Frog,
I am not sure but it is some chestnut in economics. Wiki may help
Regards
Post a Comment