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.
As a young child growing up, the world is new, and that’s probably the closest most people will ever be to seeing things how they truly are in an objective – as opposed to subjective – sense. That is not to say they will not view things in a subjective sense, only that this is as close as they will be to both the objective perspective and to the unbiased perspective. I refer specifically to the earliest of ages, before one has enough experience to have an opinion.
Man has a problem: He does not know how to value himself.
Table of Contents
- Aspects of a Song
- Our Reaction
- Music for Different Settings
This past Thursday, my blog received 48 views in one day – 3 away from the most ever – from 17 visitors (2.82 views per visitor). That can be taken as good news or slightly disappointing news. At this point, I could bring up the pessimist versus optimist topic. It reminds me of Voltaire, whose work “Candide or Optimism” was a counter to Leibniz’s statement that we live in the “best of all possible worlds”. Rather than go into some philosophical discussion about this (as I’m so inclined to do), let’s skip all that and focus on the straightforward fact: