Posted on numerous fences around the world are the all-too-familiar words that forbid entrance: “No Trespassing”. These words apply not only to physically fenced in areas but also to abstract areas including personal space (private possessions, clothing, devices), commerce (copyrights, patents, trademarks), and social space (friendship circles, homes, social classes). The words restrict the freedom of outsiders while establishing what seem to be beneficial boundaries for the occupants.
Today has been quite inspiring for a number of reasons, but the fun started happening with a really good (albeit 10+ year old) TED Talk by Ken Robinson regarding creativity and education. As you may well know with internet exploration, I was not searching at all for this TED Talk, but happened to stumble upon its mention in an article about techies homeschooling their kids that I was given among my lousy search engine results. Randomness is it’s own form of creativity, and that’s one of the things that makes certain fractals so delightful. But rather than the computer generating all the wild creativity and fun, it can be much more enjoyable to do it yourself.
Bishop Robert Barron is a Catholic ministerial priest who has set out on a quest to show the legitimacy and relevance of authentic Catholic Christian teaching in people’s lives.
Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist from the University of Toronto.
The two of them have made significant ripples in the water, attracting audiences of millions – both religious and non-religious, Catholic, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, and so on – for their remarkable insights and thought-provoking arguments on the human condition.
Followers of both men have encouraged the two great minds to meet and have a dialogue, so in March of this year, Jordan Peterson interviewed Bishop Barron for his podcast. The result was nearly two hours of polite, fantastic intellectual conversation… and the potential for more.
Originally composed May 1, 2019.
I have taught many people over the years, both old and young. Teaching ability seems to come naturally to me. I love the truth and want to convey it, thus teaching can often be a great joy. I prefer tutoring one-on-one over teaching a class for a number of reasons, the least of which is that I prefer intimate settings so that my brain can focus on joust one individual, which is easier to handle than more than one individual. When my brain can focus, I can provide the best teaching I have to offer.
Another reason tutoring is preferred is that it is better for the student. First, a student sees that attention is on them and therefore they are more willing to ask questions, which in turn facilitates learning. When attention is on their needs, they feel more comfortable expressing them. Furthermore, they don’t have the fear of being embarrassed in front of their peers. Such fear can keep them silent, leaving them with unanswered questions and forcing the student to find answers for these questions in other perhaps less effective or less accurate ways.
Let’s begin by defining the word “fantasy” since obviously there are many usages of it these days and while all of them may have a similar thread, I think you’ll agree the word itself conjures up a particular idea. Fantasy refers to a dream world, an imaginary universe in which various things – from physics to personal relationships, from creatures to economies – are all set to the liking or interest of the dreamer. In many people’s minds, fantasy worlds often placed in a Medieval setting, have dragons and great treasures to be found, and physics is sometimes influenced or dictated by unexplanably simple mechanics called “magic”. Not all fantasy worlds are limited to this realm. Some take place in outerspace, some in the future, and some in a galaxy far, far away. In every case, all of them differ significantly from current human history (even if they “take place” in the real world at a certain historic time, such as yesterday).
Suppose you have an nagging person in your life. They bug you, they irritate you, but they never hit you. Now and then they mock you. If you respond to them in anger, it may start a greater argument, and you might end up being the one criticized by others even though all you wanted to do was defend yourself. Still, if you do nothing, the problem within you only gets worse until you become very angry.
Not too long ago, medical and European ethics entered the global spotlight when a boy named Charlie was denied experimental treatment that had a possible chance to cure him. Since the boy was too little to decide for himself, the parents were attempting to take action. However, the state denied their request for treatment and even went so far as to deny them the opportunity to see their child.
Every man has his own language. He should speak it. Programming is similar. If you don’t have a language you like, keep looking. Something out there will have most of what you want out of a language, and maybe one day, someone will invent a similar one that has even more of what you want. But please don’t believe all programming has to be like C.
In a previous post, I spoke about the nature of the term “right” and why it isn’t the appropriate word for conveying our freedoms and responsibilities we innately believe others should respect. In this post, I continue with that in mind, arguing in favor of privacy but without following the misguided cultural trend of using the word “right”. I begin by listing three types of reasons for privacy, one per section, and conclude with an argument based on my aforementioned article.
Table of Contents
- The Religious Reason – Privacy Stemming from Being a Gift
- The Social Reason – Society and Privacy
- The Personality Reason – Psychological Requirement
- The Right, or Loving, Response – Endowing Privacy
Each section is rather short and should serve to stimulate ideas rather than be a comprehensive proof of the need for privacy.
An analogy I often use to demonstrate the term “rhetoric” is to say “ice cubes are cool, therefore ice cubes are awesome”. What is going on here is the alteration of an idea based on the abstracting of an original idea. Certainly ice cubes can be awesome, and the appreciation of ice cubes being cool makes them awesome (subjectively speaking), but the coolness alone does not make the ice cube awesome. Yet this change in an idea often goes unnoticed when the word attempts to describe a more complex framework. In short, we may find ourselves applying rhetoric without even realizing it. The word we are actually searching for may be more limited in scope and definition but be supported by reality. Let us start with an analogy.