Why is it considered OK to flaunt hard work? Will there come a time when it might be more prudent to mask long hours of work behind a finished product and instead behave as if the object was conceived with less work and more skill and intelligence?
Is it because hard work is considered a fundamental opportunity given all humankind?
But just the possession of will and spirit deep within doesn't mean it has to be used, to be exhausted in the pursuit of success, albeit its exhaustion be accompanied with praise. Why is that praise justified?
"He worked hard and long, I worked not half-as-hard and not for half-as-long, and I give you something better": With this example in mind, is hard work considered a nullifier, a currency that translates all forms of luck, ill-luck, opportunity and accident into the form of perspiration and blood? Why should it be?
Moreover, the tendency exists, too, that recognizes, nay, yearns that, the capacity for honest work is somehow more innate than the capacity to fool, trick, spy on, defame, slander, and kill, that honest work is more human than the capacity for all these traits.
Is it really?
Who deigned that work would be that nullifier, a currency, and not intelligence? Is hard-work "more" fundamental than intelligence? Why is the flaunting of intelligence considered impudent while the flaunting of work a sign of the presence of humility? Is the capacity for work less volatile than the capacity to think smart? Is one acquired and the other only delivered at the time of birth?
Will a day come when the flaunting of hard-work is considered a sign of impudence and the flaunting of intelligence a sign of the presence of humility? Or - alas! - is it the implied notion of superiority that so scares us, that keeps us from acknowledging publicly that superior intelligence does imply a form of success, perhaps similar to the success implied by the capacity to work hard?
What sacrifice does one represent that the other, seemingly, rejects? Why does only intelligence suffer the curse of bigotry while honest work retains the privilege to socially unfettered use?
Showing posts with label opportunity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opportunity. Show all posts
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Tragic words
I don't usually distance myself from the work of a group I belong to irrespective of how bad its product has come out to be. I might not take it well, but I don't dissociate. Second, if my work is going to appear in a publication—like a magazine or a newspaper—and if I'm working to give it a measure of quality that reflects how important it is to me, then I'm going to expect that those who are working to get their work published in the same forum respect my work for what it is and ensure that their product is just as good. Third—and I simply don't get why some people think this is unimportant—professionalism matters a lot.
Which is why when I read SS's piece in this week's 'The Word', I was pushed to dissociate myself from it, I was ready to not receive any feedback (that I'd been hoping for) on my analytical piece that I really enjoyed writing, and I decided that professionalism, unfortunately, couldn't be taught to some people. Have a look at it. In fact, you could spend some time finding the various errors on it - including plagiarism (Errors, not mistakes. Mistakes are not made habitually, whereas errors, by comparison, are irreparably systematic).
I understand it's an in-house publication, but that's no excuse to begin Hazarika's obituary with a lead that is colloquial enough to point at the goings-on in the Asian College of Journalism, to take up an informal tone in the same neighbourhood as other works that fight to show off purpose and dedication. I can only hope that in future editions of 'The Word', the editing process is more transparent and accountable, and that the editors themselves are mindful of how important such opportunities are.
Which is why when I read SS's piece in this week's 'The Word', I was pushed to dissociate myself from it, I was ready to not receive any feedback (that I'd been hoping for) on my analytical piece that I really enjoyed writing, and I decided that professionalism, unfortunately, couldn't be taught to some people. Have a look at it. In fact, you could spend some time finding the various errors on it - including plagiarism (Errors, not mistakes. Mistakes are not made habitually, whereas errors, by comparison, are irreparably systematic).
I understand it's an in-house publication, but that's no excuse to begin Hazarika's obituary with a lead that is colloquial enough to point at the goings-on in the Asian College of Journalism, to take up an informal tone in the same neighbourhood as other works that fight to show off purpose and dedication. I can only hope that in future editions of 'The Word', the editing process is more transparent and accountable, and that the editors themselves are mindful of how important such opportunities are.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Reflections on mad intellectualism
The following are half-formed reflections on a lecture on the history of the Indian media delivered by V. Krishna Ananth at the Asian College of Journalism on the 24th day of July, 2011.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
Reflections on mad intellectualism
The following are half-formed reflections on a lecture on the history of the Indian media delivered by V. Krishna Ananth at the Asian College of Journalism on the 24th day of July, 2011.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
--
Capitalist endeavourism
Capitalism is each man to himself according to the opportunities available to him, his access to them and the quantity of his investment. While constantly derided as the single biggest opposition to the progress of the marginalized, and the politically and economically deprived, only the endeavourism encouraged by capitalism is capable of batch and mass production – not just of goods but also of ideas, of opportunities and resources. Without such goods, services and commodities, aspirations become meaningless and, for another, a decline in the consumptive power of the people causes a decline in the strength of the economic system ruling the nation.
About a certain “stratum”, it becomes meaningless to discourage capitalist endeavourism and instead prescribe retardation in the accumulation of personal wealth just so the weakest link in the social system is well-fed.
Beyond that same “stratum” lies the prima facie failure of the government to make opportunities equally available and equally accessible to the public. The only instance in which capitalist endeavourism becomes detrimental to any nationalist cause is when the availability of an opportunity to produce a service or commodity is tied in with an (unethical) alteration of persisting social and/or economic contracts, i.e., abuse.
At that juncture, it becomes the sole responsibility of the capitalist endeavourist (henceforth abbreviated as C.E.) to abide by the laws set forth by the government and not transgress into illegal territory. At the same time, when the government has not achieved the complete delocalization of opportunities and yet still attempts to persecute those CEs that have not abided by the law (whilst in pursuit of their individual business goals), then it is unfair of the government to expect any growth if it refuses to share the moral responsibility for such a failure.
Sola fide
In any scenario, would it be fair to say that the law is “stupid”? For example, is it fair to permit clinical depression as a defence during the process of judicial review against an accusation of culpable homicide (amounting to murder)? The law exists to prevent accidents. Period. Beyond that, to contend that the law in question must not ever allow for the admission of an unreasonable argument is unreasonable in itself: such a contention only addresses individual issues of disagreement.
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20
Let’s cast aside “God” for a moment and address a pervasive insistence on righteousness. When ruled by a democratically elected state, apart from those duties laid down constitutionally, how does a judiciary address the subject of duteousness? Is it condemnable that a citizen of the state chooses to flout solely-ethically mandated rules simply because the law of the land dictates no punishments against them? If yes: why?
Just as the law allows for interpretations in cases wherein the statement of the law does not address any mitigating circumstances, the law disallows interpretations that result in an extra-constitutional allotment of powers. Where then does extra-constitutional duteousness arise from? Yes, the individual does constitute the state, and yes, it would seem that any requirements of the state must only and will always be met by the individual, but do there exist needs for the state beyond the directives laid down constitutionally? What does it mean to be “righteous as a matter of duty” in such an environment, controlled and non-anarchic as it is?
Disestablishment and its goals
There isn’t much to be said on this topic beyond a question: what is the goal of disestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a few more lectures focusing on the necessity of neutrality in journalism – provoked as they were by cynicism more than driven as they should have been by cynosure – will lay out for me the importance of being a cynic. However, at no point of time does disestablishment constitute an agreeable proposition under any circumstances.
--
Note: these points of view are mine alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)