Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: philosophy

40 things I’ve learned in 40 years.

Signpost showing the number 40

I turn forty years old today. Some people will be surprised at this, as my hair has been turning grey for the last 15 years!

A decade ago, I wrote a post entitled 30 things I’ve learned in 30 years. While I still agree with most of that, on reflection it just doesn’t seem particularly… deep? So, here, in no particular order are 40 things I’ve learned in 40 years:

  1. There are things you can control and things you cannot. There is no point in worrying about the latter.
  2. Inspire other people to be inspired yourself.
  3. Most people care less than you think about almost everything that you deem important.
  4. Get some therapy, even if you don’t think you need it. Especially if you don’t think you need it.
  5. Keep your options open.
  6. Sometimes it’s OK to burn your bridges and to do so in a way that other people notice.
  7. Resist the urge to suppress randomness.
  8. Nobody knows what goes on inside your head until you say it or write it down.
  9. Happiness is not something that you can find, but rather is something that you discover when you stop looking for it.
  10. Organisations are groups of people that can have a positive or negative effect on the world. Do not work with or for the latter.
  11. Money can only buy choices, not happiness, time, or anything which constitutes human flourishing.
  12. Life is too short to deal with adults who display little in the way of emotional intelligence.
  13. Listen to what people actually say.
  14. Read inspirational things often, especially quotations and proverbs. Dwell upon them.
  15. Education is not the same as learning. Nor are qualifications the same as real-world knowledge, skills, and experience.
  16. Focus on routines and rituals. Nail these and you’re (mostly) sorted.
  17. Practice eloquence. People like listening to those who have a way with words.
  18. At the end of it all, the only person who stops you doing something is yourself. Confidence is a preference.
  19. Stand for something bigger.
  20. Find somewhere that is completely quiet and you can be undisturbed. Visit it often.
  21. Ask. People can only say no.
  22. You are a human, not a machine. You don’t need to sound grown up, or professional, or ‘respectable’.
  23. Money is important only in the way that it flows (both in society, and at family/individual level).
  24. 90% of ‘success’ (as other people define it) is being in the right place at the right time, the other 10% is extremely hard work.
  25. Perfect is the enemy of done.
  26. How you do something is as important as what you say or what you do.
  27. Transparency is the best policy.
  28. Exercise more than you think you need to. When you’re young you think your body will be in peak condition forever. It won’t.
  29. Endeavour to be the least knowledgeable person in the room at any given time.
  30. There is no final authority. Seniority is a mindset.
  31. Try and explain complex things to other people as often as you can. It’s a valuable process for both parties.
  32. Travel, both literally and metaphorically. Go on journeys and adventures by yourself and with others.
  33. Let other people boast and do your PR (but don’t believe everything you see/read/hear)
  34. Writing is a form of thinking
  35. Know what you like, but don’t get stale; mix things up sometimes.
  36. Habits can make or break you, so create positive ones.
  37. Avoidance is rarely the correct option.
  38. Technology can free people or it can enslave them, so work to give as many people as much freedom as possible.
  39. Removing ego from the equation gets things done.
  40. We all will die and don’t know when, so act today in a way whereby people will remember you well.

Much of these come through my daily(ish) reading of Stoic philosophers but also come via therapy sessions, Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s rules for living an antifragile life, Buster Benson’s Live like a hydra, and Dancing Fox’s Inappropriate Guidelines for Unacceptable Behaviour.


Image CC BY-NC-ND Jeronimo G+E

Free Software and two forms of liberty

Somehow, I missed a BBC Radio 4 series on A History of Ideas, both when it originally aired (2014-15) and then when it was repeated a couple of years ago. The ‘history of ideas’ is, of course, another name for the study of Philosophy, the subject of my first degree, and something which remains a lifelong interest of mine.

Starting with the beginning of the BBC series, I’ve begun listening to a philosopher, neuropsychologist, theologian, and lawyer debate what it means to be ‘free’.


There are fundamentally two types of freedom, as defined by great thinkers: freedom from and freedom to. Some people frame this as ‘negative’ liberty (i.e. freedom from) and ‘positive’ liberty (i.e. freedom to).

In general, I would say that it’s negative liberty that most of us mean when we talk about freedom. That’s the freedom from coercion, so that you can do what you like with your time, your body, or your possessions. This is different to positive liberty, which can be thought of as the freedom to participate in society on your own terms.


The question of technology is an interesting one to consider here, as I’ve always understood negative liberty to be the main driver behind the Free Software movement:

Free software (or libre software) is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price: all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed “free” if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

Wikipedia

Interestingly, although the Four Freedoms talk about ‘freedom to‘ they’re actually, to my mind at least, all couched in terms of negative liberty. For example, the first of these is “The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose”. This could perhaps be more accurately be rendered: “The freedom from being prevented from running the program as you wish, for any purpose.”

In short, we in the Free Software community often miss the importance of positive liberty. While negative liberty frees us from the constraints of others, positive liberty allows us to act upon our free will, something that’s (sadly) often still a lot easier with well-designed proprietary services.


Ben Werdmuller, who has spent his career trying to push forward easy-to-use Free Software, said recently:

The only real way to avoid tracking and surveillance is to host things yourself, but that’s not an option because hosting things yourself is still too hard for most people and it’s easy to compromise on security. We need the iPhone of self-hosting.

Twitter

In other words, when it comes to technology, most people have the freedom to do things but not the freedom from some of consequences of using proprietary services. For example, it’s easy to express a controversial political opinion using Facebook, but not to avoid being tracked and surveilled on that platform.

I think we’re at a bit of an inflection point. There are those of us who have enough technical skills to be able to self-host and spin up a VPS to run Free Software. We can experiment and express ourselves however we wish. And then, sadly, there’s everyone else.

We Free Software enthusiasts value our negative liberty and use it to promote our positive liberty. Less technical people have only the amount of positive liberty allowed by proprietary services under capitalism. I believe we need to focus on enabling that positive liberty with Free Software under socialism, even if that means compromising a bit of negative liberty.


This post is Day 77 of my #100DaysToOffload challenge. Want to get involved? Find out more at 100daystooffload.com.

The cash value of truth

However we grow up, no matter what environment we develop in, there are certain mental models we develop about the way the world works.

Eventually, like fish not noticing the water in which they swim, we take these models as being objective truth. We don’t question them. But question them we must.

The only cure for what ails you is to start getting over your delusions and start adjusting your mental models to come up with a more accurate understanding of reality.

Street Life Solutions

For me, the road to some form of ‘enlightenment’ here involves holding simultaneously two contradictory thoughts:

  • There is no objective reality
  • There is no ‘view from nowhere’

The first of these is straightforward: whether we’re talking about perception, belief systems, or mental models, there is no single one objective reality.

The second is more nuanced. Simply put, we still have to make a choice: we can’t fail to have perception, a belief system, or employ mental models. (Even ‘not believing’ is a belief system.)

The best approach I’ve come across to reconcile these two positions comes from Pragmatism.

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

Wikipedia

William James, for example, talked about the “cash value” of truth which was a shorthand way of explaining that terms like real or true have no meaning outside of a specific environment.

One thing that makes me both roll my eyes and throw my hands up in despair is when I see people talking about their experience in a very narrow context, and try to use it as an appeal to some kind of transcendental ‘truth’.

What we all need to realise is that (i) our environment encourages us to see the world a particular way, (ii) we have to take a position in order to give us agency, but (iii) this does not give us any insight outside of our environment.

So perhaps Wittgenstein was right:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


This post is Day 72 of my #100DaysToOffload challenge. Want to get involved? Find out more at 100daystooffload.com

css.php