Circle of honesty
Taking the World philosophy day, as an excuse, I am translating some thoughts into words.
Philosophy, is probably an under-rated science today and science, an over-rated philosophy. But a balance of both is perhaps what we ought to look for.
On these lines, i share my philosophy of dealing with people. I tend to trust people. Putting trust is my way of putting responsibility on people. But to complete the cycle, I need to act retrospectively. (turning to third person singular now, since too much of first person sounds snobbish). One must align his/her actions by assuming that all people around himself/herself are honest. Waht this would lead to is actions supposedly for the better-ment of others. At any rate, actions which wont be objected by others. At any rate, no objection can be shoved at you in first-person, 'cause he/she can repudiate using an honest argument. What this does is to cultivate a circle of honesty.
As with any argument, let us perturb the system. Supposing that someone is dishonest, our first-person would still act assuming honesty. Somewhere down the line, actions interacting with actions lead to heart-burn for the dishonest one. And there-in lies the root of this argument. So in a nutshell - 'honesty is the best policy'.
For lack of space/time, I (from now on, myself) zoom down to the parameters involved in this process. Somewhere i mentioned 'trust'. Now how much of it ?. Science tells us that evrything has a critical value to it. So also with trust - too much of it and the cycle will break down and ditto with too little.
That much for now ..
[Disclaimer: An unwritten axiom of philosophy is that the world is rational]
Philosophy, is probably an under-rated science today and science, an over-rated philosophy. But a balance of both is perhaps what we ought to look for.
On these lines, i share my philosophy of dealing with people. I tend to trust people. Putting trust is my way of putting responsibility on people. But to complete the cycle, I need to act retrospectively. (turning to third person singular now, since too much of first person sounds snobbish). One must align his/her actions by assuming that all people around himself/herself are honest. Waht this would lead to is actions supposedly for the better-ment of others. At any rate, actions which wont be objected by others. At any rate, no objection can be shoved at you in first-person, 'cause he/she can repudiate using an honest argument. What this does is to cultivate a circle of honesty.
As with any argument, let us perturb the system. Supposing that someone is dishonest, our first-person would still act assuming honesty. Somewhere down the line, actions interacting with actions lead to heart-burn for the dishonest one. And there-in lies the root of this argument. So in a nutshell - 'honesty is the best policy'.
For lack of space/time, I (from now on, myself) zoom down to the parameters involved in this process. Somewhere i mentioned 'trust'. Now how much of it ?. Science tells us that evrything has a critical value to it. So also with trust - too much of it and the cycle will break down and ditto with too little.
That much for now ..
[Disclaimer: An unwritten axiom of philosophy is that the world is rational]
Comments