en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/7764 Comments by Ranjit Mathoda http://mathoda.com/2009/04/favorite-quote-pickens-sr-on-the-importance-of-having-a-plan#IDComment18325587 Thanks Andrew! I started with Disqus, but Wordpress bought IntenseDebate so I bet that'd be better long term. Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:11:35 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2009/04/favorite-quote-pickens-sr-on-the-importance-of-having-a-plan#IDComment18325587 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment17842414 Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors. I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach. That sentiment I find interesting, kind of a judo move on the society in which he lived that has lasted in the minds of philosophers ever since. But the actual statement that the "unexamined life is not worth living" I don't think is right, for all of its resonance through the ages. I think that just because a statement resonates with our minds doesn't make it true. In fact I'd argue that a lot of great ideas that have resonated at times in history have been fundamentally flawed. Arguably Socrates also understood this point, as he saw his understanding of his own ignorance as the source of his wisdom. Which is why I've always thought it strange that the statement "the unexamined life is not worth living" is translated in that fashion, attributed to him and itself left unexamined. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:40:05 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment17842414 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment17839597 Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living? Do you have to be happy to have had a life worth living? Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:20:17 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment17839597 http://mathoda.com/2007/06/a-very-brief-history-of-sushi#IDComment17076809 Yes, my blog post was based on the Trevor Corson book The Zen of Fish, The Story of Sushi, from Samurai to Supermarket Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:19:11 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2007/06/a-very-brief-history-of-sushi#IDComment17076809 http://mathoda.com/2008/03/is-walmart-really-more-evil-than-google#IDComment14957187 The discussion of how medical services should be funded (private by wealth and desire, public by majority rule coercing resources from all, some hybrid or out of the box approach) and delivered (competitive providers, monopoly provider, etc.) often does involve a discussion of whether capitalism or socialism or something else is better, but to my mind those terms are fairly crude and vague, and really are about how you organize the effort to get to the goal, rather than a goal itself. The goal, what I called the just society, is for everyone to be healthy, which surely includes receiving a certain amount of basic services. How that can best be created is worth discussing. Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:50:18 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/03/is-walmart-really-more-evil-than-google#IDComment14957187 http://mathoda.com/2008/03/is-walmart-really-more-evil-than-google#IDComment14733788 It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to. In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google. With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably. I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of skill, which I hope my essay makes clear. Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:06:07 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/03/is-walmart-really-more-evil-than-google#IDComment14733788 http://mathoda.com/archives/549#IDComment14391191 Some people do seem to get bored by their loving relationships, and craving excitement, do self harmful things... I suppose it varies by individual and context how much "novelty" matters. Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:05:31 +0000 http://mathoda.com/archives/549#IDComment14391191 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment13650040 Thanks for your extensive thoughts Anita. There's two issues I'll tackle. The first is what Socrates really chose between. The second is what role examination has in determining worth. As you mention, what Socrates really chose was death via hemlock over exile. Arguably he saw exile as being deprived of the right to teach the examination of life in the manner he thought wise to the community he wanted to belong to, and saw this as worse than choosing death. By choosing death he could transform himself in the minds of his philosopher student community into the protector of the community's ideals. He would also be proving to his society and all future persons the strength of his conviction. The small irony is he could still have examined his life all he wanted, while in exile. He would have lost the ability to teach his current students in his current society. He would also have lost his halo of respect to the like minded community of philosophers that have followed him in time. To Socrates staying loyal to his community was very important, even at the cost of death. I think that's the real choice Socrates made. To my mind, worth is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't examine yourself at all, you could assume your self worth and you could have worth to other people in your life. What Socrates said wasn't "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret or you may not have as rich a life." What he said (according to Plato) is "The unexamined life is not worth living." It seems to me some people examine their lives hardly at all, but still have worth to their families, their friends, themselves. Many animals don't appear to examine their own lives, but they are ascribed worth by others. A plant doesn't appear to examine its life, but it is ascribed worth. Socrates statement has a potent ring, but its vagueness has left it open to a myriad of interpretations. Self examination is how we may define self worth, but a person may define great self worth with even a cursory self examination or an unexamined belief. We may feel they are wrong, but that's our judgment of their worth. The point I'm making is that worth is not defined just by self examination. It can actually be assumed without any examination at all. To pretend that it requires great self examination is really an unexamined statement put forth by philosophers. I do think unexamined statements may have worth. They could have worth because they are actually right or because they have meaning to those who fail to examine them. The point I'm making is that worth is a value judgment, so the statement "The unexamined life is not worth living" is only true to those who want it to be true. To everyone else, it's false. Philosophers have interpreted Socrates' statement as if it is universally true, and that can't be right. To them it has worth, and to me it doesn't. Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:26:43 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment13650040 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment13650012 If Socrates said "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret" I would agree with your interpretation of his statement. On the other hand if someone doesn't examine their life at all perhaps their life has more worth to them then if they do start examining it. If someone is unwise in how they approach examining it perhaps they'd be better off not starting on such an examination. A flaw in what Socrates said is that every human life is examined to some extent. What I really think he meant was "If I am not allowed to teach the examination of life in the manner I consider wise then my life is not worth living." If that is what he meant, the statement is definitely vague and ill written in terms of communicating an idea. Vague statements are fodder for scholars to ponder, so it certainly hasn't hurt his brand any. But as I suggest that may have more to do with philosopher's receptivity to the statement then its actual truth. Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:24:41 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/04/socrates-was-wrong-to-state-the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living#IDComment13650012 http://mathoda.com/2008/07/finally-an-answer-to-an-amazingly-important-question-how-do-plants-create-hydrogen#IDComment13647630 burning hydrogen in the sense you're using it (eg, not referring to reactions inside a star) is another name for oxydization. so you burn hydrogen by adding adding oxygen to it, forming water. this releases some energy. splitting water also takes energy, which for plants comes from light (photons). the point of this blog post is that you can use less energy than before by using a catalyst. the amount of energy obtained from burning hydrogen or used up in splitting water depends on the specifics of how each is done. notice that according to the law of conservation of energy, the energy doesn't disappear... it always goes somewhere, just perhaps in a different form. Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:27:45 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/07/finally-an-answer-to-an-amazingly-important-question-how-do-plants-create-hydrogen#IDComment13647630 http://mathoda.com/2008/07/finally-an-answer-to-an-amazingly-important-question-how-do-plants-create-hydrogen#IDComment13647373 assuming there's an available oxygen atom and nothing else for two hydrogen atoms to bond to, i'd say the number of times you can split the H20 is equal to the lifespan of the universe divided by the time it takes to split and recombine once Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:02:59 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/07/finally-an-answer-to-an-amazingly-important-question-how-do-plants-create-hydrogen#IDComment13647373 http://mathoda.com/2008/07/finally-an-answer-to-an-amazingly-important-question-how-do-plants-create-hydrogen#IDComment13646584 what is it you're trying to do in your project? Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:54:50 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/07/finally-an-answer-to-an-amazingly-important-question-how-do-plants-create-hydrogen#IDComment13646584 http://mathoda.com/2008/12/favorite-quote-shackletons-ad#IDComment13024812 Nice! I've always liked this quote about journeys: "We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T.S. Eliot Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:05:00 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/12/favorite-quote-shackletons-ad#IDComment13024812 http://mathoda.com/2007/12/book-review-the-audacity-of-hope-by-barack-obama#IDComment11763793 as i recall it took me about 6 hours to read Obama's Audacity of Hope because i took notes while reading the book, and then it took me about an hour and a half to put the notes into book review form. while that may not seem like a long time a fair amount of my review just reiterates what was in my notes and i tend to not rewrite. Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:42:37 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2007/12/book-review-the-audacity-of-hope-by-barack-obama#IDComment11763793 http://mathoda.com/2008/03/the-coming-digital-presidency#IDComment10642669 Thanks Drew. I think you're right that Barack has demonstrated considerable vision in using such technologies. And how Barack uses such technology may also have significant effects on how states and municipalities use it. Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:39:03 +0000 http://mathoda.com/2008/03/the-coming-digital-presidency#IDComment10642669 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/05/a_tale_of_three_1.html#IDComment588521 If Ballmer is taking his management cues from stock price movements he does deserve to be fired. Mon, 5 May 2008 14:48:40 +0000 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/05/a_tale_of_three_1.html#IDComment588521 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/03/first_ticktock.html#IDComment564831 I think GOOG would have benefited most from a MSFT hostile takeover of YHOO. Both MSFT and YHOO would have been in hell and GOOG might even have gotten revenue from YHOO outsourcing ads to it. I don't think it's possible to tell whether GOOG would have benefited more from a merger or the status quo. What really matters is who solves the customer's problem, and it's hard to figure out whether MSFT and YHOO do that better apart or together (the managements of both companies disagree). Sat, 3 May 2008 21:27:33 +0000 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/03/first_ticktock.html#IDComment564831 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/analysis_of_the.html#IDComment564781 Any acquisition offer creates worries, but generally far less at the acquirer than at its target. MSN/Windows Live has been disrupted for years due to its nonperformance. That's the real issue, and I simply don't see Ballmer's offer to Yahoo as a big negative to Microsoft. The real issue is the greater usefulness of Google and Apple products. That's what Ballmer should be criticized for, not for a week or two of (activity filled) delay on a Yahoo offer. Sat, 3 May 2008 20:58:10 +0000 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/analysis_of_the.html#IDComment564781 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/analysis_of_the.html#IDComment564291 My point is even if Ballmer vacillated, how does that hurt his company? During the time he spent exploring whether a deal could be done, I could see how Yahoo recruitment might be severely negatively impacted, how Yahoo morale may be hit, but I'm not so sure about the negative effects on Microsoft. I can see that Yahoo's shareholders may be furious at their management for giving up a 70% premium offer, depending on what happens to Yahoo's stock price on Monday morning, but I'm pretty sure Microsoft stock will go up a bit. If I were a Microsoft shareholder I'd be far more concerned with Apple and Google than with Ballmer's negotiation tactics with Yahoo. Sat, 3 May 2008 18:58:38 +0000 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/analysis_of_the.html#IDComment564291 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/analysis_of_the.html#IDComment564191 What did Ballmer do wrong? Sat, 3 May 2008 18:41:47 +0000 http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/05/analysis_of_the.html#IDComment564191