Entries from May 2008 ↓

Fridays (or, in the case of the last few weeks, weekends) are Food For Thought Days. On these days, I drop the normal “here’s a solution” standard and instead write a “here’s an interesting question” post. My goal in these posts is hence not to provide answers, but to introduce good questions.

I have had several comments here recently about the “new focus” or the content on my “new blog.” This seems strange to me, for it feels like I’m writing about the same stuff I’ve always been writing about in the same ways that I’ve always been writing about them.

But it’s also got me thinking more about The Ship of Theseus. The Ship of Theseus is a classical philosophical puzzle about identity. I’ll give the quick version. (Note: if you’re a professional philosopher, you will not be happy with the quick version. But you likely won’t be happy with much of anything I write here, anyway.)

Imagine you have a wooden ship in your backyard and decide that one day you want to take it apart piece by piece. You go about taking it apart, delicately removing each part as if you were going to use those same parts to rebuild it later (should you decide to do so) and storing it in your garage.

Now, here’s part of the problem. When you remove each piece, it still seems to be (intuitively) the same Ship. Removing one plank from the floor, for example, doesn’t seem to make it a different ship. However, if you keep up with the process, you will end up with all of the pieces of the Ship in your garage, but it will no longer be the Ship of Theseus, since, by hypothesization, you won’t have a ship - you’ll have a pile of wood that used to be a ship.

But at some point in your deconstruction, the Ship had to move from existence to non-existence, unless you want to say all the pieces in the garage is the ship. At what discrete point did the Ship cease being the Ship?

A further wrinkle: suppose that, rather than just tearing the Ship apart, you decide to replace every wooden piece you removed with an aluminum piece of the exact same dimensions. So, when you start, you have a completely wooden Ship, but at the end, you have a completely aluminum Ship. But, at each discrete stage of time, you only have a ship that is one piece different than it was in the previous moment.

An even further problem: suppose that you decide to use the wooden planks you removed in the case above to build another Ship which is materially identical to the original ship. At the end of that project, you’ll have two Ships, one aluminum and one wooden, that each have a claim to being the Ship of Theseus. They can’t both be THE Ship of Theseus, but it could be true that they both could NOT be the Ship of Theseus, but the problem becomes, when was the Ship of Theseus destroyed?

A few options:

• The Ship of Theseus is what it is by the individual parts that make it up.

In this case, the second you removed the first wooden plank from the Ship, it ceased to be. But the individual atoms in the wood are forever changing, with the result that the Ship is never itself.

• The Ship of Theseus is what it is because of its structure.

In this case, the Ship remains the same ship throughout the change from wood to aluminum, so you have the seemingly inconsistent result that the Ship of Theseus is both an aluminum and a wooden ship. Furthermore, when you have two ships (as in the last thought experiment), they both have identical structures, so you wind up with the result that both are THE Ship of Theseus - meaning that two discrete things are one numerical thing.

• The Ship of Theseus is what it is because of its history.

In this case, the Ship remains the same because of its particular role in the history of the world. Parts come and go, but the actor remains the same. You’ll still wind up with the problem in the case of Theseus duplicates, because each share a relevant history with the “original” ship.

Now, the real problem is not at all about ships, but instead about that that makes us who we are. We know that parts of who we are changes from year to year, but we still think we’re the same people.

Is it because of our parts - i.e. the individual matter that makes us up? Breathe, and you’re no longer the same you.

Is it because of our structure? Lose a limb, or cut your hair, and you’re no longer the same person.

Is it because of our history in the world? Were you to be duplicated, you’d either have a existential twin, or you’d cease to be.

Is it because of our thoughts, feelings, and all the other stuff that goes on in our heads? Lose your memories, and you’re no longer you. Have a radical change of heart, and the person you were once before is gone.

Is it because of our souls? Souls could logically be duplicated and would run the same risks of the Ships. (Sidebar: soul talk, in general, is a way to understand what it is that is us through time. Our physical bodies come to pass, and theories of identity that posit spiritual existence before and after physical existence have to have some device to allow for identity through the different phases of our existence.)

So, despite the fact that I changed blog domains, concepts, and taglines last month, the core parts remained the same. What, then, makes it a “new” blog? (Note the trick: the question is not about the blog.)

If some material, structural, historical, or spiritual part of you, at some particular time, enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my feed, commenting, or sharing it on StumbleUpon, del.i.cious, or Digg by using the handy form below. Thank you for your time and support!

Photo Credit: Maggie-Me

Spring is in the air, and it seems as if the blogosphere has been a bit more quiet than normal. While the quantity of writing is down, the quality seems to be better. Enjoy the roundup!

• Why Your Loved Ones Want You To Fail - IttyBiz

Why do your loved ones want you to fail? Shouldn’t they be rooting for your success? Naomi gives a lot of reasons why they want you to fail, with some tips on what to do about it.

• Ten Top Tops to Overcome Obstacles to Success - My Super-Charged Life

In my experience, people who are unsuccessful tend to think that those who are successful have had it easier than they have. The fact is that the successful people have just learned to overcome obstacles. Jeff gives ten tips to overcome obstacles to success.

• What Do You Do if You’re Satisfied? - Bloggrrl

I’ve been reading Michelle’s blog for a long time, and there’s a new wind in the air over there. At one point in time, she was writing to quit a job she hated. She no longer hates that job - so the question is what to do now. Why I find this interesting is that people on change in the face of two things: 1) discomfort, and 2) the desire to become better. But, the desire to become better, for a lot of people, doesn’t have a lot of motivational force. Or maybe people who have the desire to become better are not comfortable being less than they could be, so it’s still discomfort doing the work. Definitely something to think about.

• Your Mid-Life Crisis: The Rules - Dumb Little Man

Lori, who, as far as I can tell, is neither dumb nor a man (I haven’t ruled out little, yet) gives rules for managing the ole’ Mid-Life Crisis. I think it’s good information for managing radical change and aging, in general.

• 70 Simple Power Tao Secret Hacks to Writing the Perfect Productivity Article, Plus a Guide and System for Doing It - The Growing Life

I can’t write 90% of my posts now without thinking about Clay’s parody post. Parody is so effective when it’s so true. Thanks, Clay, for completely ruining my Friday Meditations, Planner Series, Virtue Series, and just about anything else I was going to write- oh, and ruining the chance to use a picture of me jumping…

• No One Is Good at Multitasking - Productivity Planner

Before my productivity engine came to a bloody, screeching halt, I used to believe that I needed to become better at multitasking. If I could do more tasks in the same amount of time, I thought, I could get more done in less time. Rubbish, lies, and deceptions. Chris’s post comes to the same conclusion, but his is backed by research.

• 16 Ways to Keep a Razor-Sharp Focus at Work - Zen Habits

Now you know that I think multitasking is bunk, and the opposite of multitasking is focusing on one task at a time. Glen’s great guest post on Zen Habits hits the spot on how to stay focused while you work.

• Offline Reading - Productivity 501

Part of my growing and learning process is to continually read offline material. Don’t get me wrong - I love a lot of the material written online, but Mark gives four downsides to online material that I find true. Of course, the hard part is finding time to get good reading time in for both mediums.

• How to Avoid Making Stupid Mistakes - Scott H Young

Part of life is knowing how to recover from stupid mistakes, but another, even more important part, is figuring out how to avoid them in the first place. Scott’s insightful post helps with the latter aspect. My favorite: “Metaphors are your intellectual weapons to prevent mistakes.” And I’ve made it known how I feel about metaphors.

• 5 Signs You’ve Married Your Problems (and how to divorce them) - Jonathan Mead

Having problems is bad enough. Being married to them is worse. Jonathan’s excellent post gives the five signs that you’ve married your problems - and ways to file for divorce. And these divorces won’t be so damned expensive.

• 10 Reasons to Use an Exercise Ball as Your Chair - GearFire

Our physical condition is an important aspect of our productivity, and I’m always looking for easy ways to exercise or condition my body, especially if I can do that while doing something else. I like sitting on my exercise ball instead of other chairs for many of the reasons Geoff lists. It’s a great way to exercise your core without actively thinking about it or trying to.

• Word Porn: Reader Challenge

Every Friday, Amy has a post on Word Pr0n, where she introduces cool words to use instead of our more mundane and hackneyed mutterings. I challenged her to find words to replace the overused “sweet” and “awesome.” She accepts the challenge and delivers with some august pickings with resplendent uses.

• Why Does the Thunder Hide The Rain - The Next 45 Years

I love personal development posts that come from deep within people. Alex’s post had me from hello with the quote from Socrates - but it went much further to talk about his relationship with his mother. Great honesty and sincerity in this one - thanks for sharing, Alex, and I hope you find peace through breaking the cycle.

If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to my feed. Thank you for your time and support!

I’m going on a limb here (again) and releasing the Weekly Productivity Planner (1186) in its draft form.  (Update on June 19: This planner has been redesigned. The link below will download the correct version, but I recommend you read the new post that highlights the changes to Productivity Planner series.)

Part of the reason I’ve been delaying the release of this aid is because the weekly planner is so important. Planning by weeks is just so much more effective because it allows you to capture both the big picture (what you need to do) and combine it with the little picture (the how and when you’ll do what you need to do.)

That said, a lot remained the same but was upgraded from the task level to the project level. The Projects in Focus block and Heatmap Block are the first places to start, for they just capture what you need to do and when you work well.

The Weekly Productivity Sorter functions in the same way as the productivity sorter from the Daily Productivity Planner. It’s meant to be the hub of the week - I’m torn between placing it at the top or leaving it where it is.

What I need the most feedback on is the duplication of the days of the week. The first instance of the days of the week are meant to be the more global list of things you need to do for that day. I didn’t want to derail the brainstorming and listing process by making the user decide when to do those projects at the same time they’re trying to figure out what they need to do.

This aid fits nicely with the Daily Productivity Planner (1478), and should make the daily planning go by much smoother and make the system more cohesive.

Let me know what you think, and I’ll do some more work on it Thursday. I will be completely offline tomorrow, as my lovely wife and I are celebrating our five year anniversary. Yes, folks, I’ve somehow managed to convince her that I’m not that bad after all and may be worth keeping around.

If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to my feed, commenting, or sharing it on StumbleUpon, del.i.cious, or Digg by using the handy form below. Thank you for your time and support!

Even though I was unable to post this or last Friday’s meditation, it’s still a goal of mine to write something that steps away from the standard topics on Productive Flourishing and instead just gives something to think about. For this week, it’s not a meditation, but instead an applied philosophical problem.

Before you run away thinking “Oh No! Charlie’s hitting us over the head with philosophy again!,” rest assured that we’ll not be talking about whether color exists in the universe or some such thing. The problem we’ll be talking about is the Problem of Dirty Hands and how it relates to personal development.

In short, the Problem of Dirty Hands is a recognition that sometimes, to do something good, you have to get your hands (morally) dirty. It’s often applied to the political spectrum, because the part of the art of politics is promoting positions you don’t agree with so that your other agendas can be pushed forward.

But we’re not talking about politics. What I’m talking about is our involvement in social organizations. What has prompted this for me personally is that the Boy Scouts of America have contacted me several times wanting me to take part in their national Eagle Scout registry.

I’ll not get into all of the details of Scouting, but needless to say, being an Eagle Scout is a great honor and is the highest rank that a Scout can achieve. I used to be proud of the fact that I’m an Eagle Scout - that is, until I found out that the Boy Scouts of America have an exclusive policy towards people of alternative sexual orientations, agnostics, and atheists. There are four categories of people that can be denied registration from the Boy Scouts of America, and the fourth type (the other three are previously listed) are felons. Felons, agnostics, atheists, and the GLBTQ community - what a motley crew!

(For more information, visit Scouting For All’s webpage. Also keep in mind that my main contention is not whether the BSA should have the right to exclude whoever they wish, but whether I should take part in such an organization.)

The problem is that I am the person that I am due in large part to the wonderful men and women of the Boy Scouts and the experiences that I’ve had through that community. I also think that I could and should give back and help mold the next generation of Scouts. If you’ve been reading this blog for a bit, you also know that groups can be very effective agents for personal development. Being involved in groups of people committed to excellence helps you excel.

But I’m very uncomfortable being part of an organization that I feel is bigoted and shameful. Sure, individual and regional organizations may have defied the National Council and produced their own inclusive policies, at risk of being banned and censured, but the root point for me is that, officially, the organization has a bigoted and shameful policy that I don’t want to be a part of.

I’ve hitherto decided that it’s not worth getting my hands dirty - my moral cleanliness is more important to me than the potential good I might do. But some of the stuff I’ve been working on for my dissertation is starting to make me feel less secure in that position. To make the point clearer, I’ll give some perspectives for thought:

• “The Keep Your Hands Clean” Perspective:

What’s important is that you choose your conduct based off of what you think is right or wrong. It may be unfortunate that there could more good advanced in the world by you choosing an alternative action, but choosing a bad means for a good end is never justified.

• “The Get Your Hands Dirty” Perspective:

What’s important is that you choose your conduct based off of what produces the most good. If you can make the world better, and don’t do it, you are at least minimally morally responsible for the world being less well off than it otherwise could have been. Whether you get your hands dirty to pursue a good end or not do something that would create a better situation, your hands are still dirty.

• “The Get Your Hands Dirty But Clean Up the Work” Perspective

nother option is to stay within the organization whilst trying to change it. This perspective acknowledges the obligation to help while not accepting the undesirable features, but I still have to wonder whether, by promoting the organization (via participation in the organization’s projects, etc.), I am also promoting the organization’s policies.

Of course, there are other alternatives, such as finding other organizations that pursue similar ends without having the undesired exclusivity, but the question is whether those organizations are as effective as the Boy Scouts of America due to its cultural entrenchment.

That’s my specific problem, but it’s obviously just a species of a general problem. People from certain religious communities have a similar problem: is it worth remaining part of a church that begins to take on exclusivist and bigoted policies, even though those organizations at the same time promote otherwise noble social ends? Is it better to remain clean or to promote the social good, when they are mutually exclusive?

People in activist organizations are also in the same boat. I personally don’t agree with all of the policies of the NAACP, NOW, or the Sierra Club - but, then again, I think there’s a qualitative difference between not agreeing with the NAACP’s stance on affirmative action and disagreeing with the BSA’s policies that categorically devalue certain types of people on indefensible grounds.

Helping others and promoting social goods in the world is both intrinsically good and good for personal development since we become better people by actively doing things that make us better. And the best way, often times, to help other people and promote social goods is through collective activity, but sometimes being involved in those collectives make us dirty.

No answers here…just food for thought. What do you think?

If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to my feed, commenting, or sharing it on StumbleUpon, del.i.cious, or Digg by using the handy form below. Thank you for your time and support!

Photo Credit: Photos By Rose