Ole D.

 I disagree with the message of never giving up. I do this primarily because their messages are based on their experience instead of reason. Their conclusions are articulated to be communicated, but the messenger rarely includes supporting premises. Never do they include opposing reasons. Secondly, their ends are almost always superficial. Superficial goals are common because they are highly exposed. Superficiality misguides us to be productively and emotionally impotent. With time comes the hindsight to see the lost potential, deepening the tragedy. An unargued goal may accidentally be good, but considering the number of resources and strain on yourself and others, it rarely equilibrates.  The means of argument is rarely practiced, few ever read books on logic, rhetoric, or grammar, and rarely do they read anything at all. The primacy of emotional appeal and persuasion based on power also means our lives are not dominated by critical thinking. This is our primary source of wa...

 There is honorable competition and dishonorable competition. By honorable, I here mean a good utilitarian action - one that produces the most good for the most people. By competition, I'll mean action with unequal outcomes sought by more than one person. Honorable businesses often win, but not always. An appropriate term for business is something that serves products, under this term criminal enterprise is hereto included. A factor thus is legality vs illegality. Criminality and the law are opposing forces, therefore the other is good/bad because of the other. We here assume the law is mostly, though not universally, good. Have we then sufficiently discovered dishonorable competition? No, we have only covered the criminally dishonorable competition. Is only that which is legal good? To assert that means we believe the law is omnipotent and omnipresent, where the law doesn't exist there can be no discernment of criminality. As we stated the law is not always good, this may be d...

Spør vi dette for andre, oss selv, individer eller grupper? Kroppslig sett kan du ikke leve godt om du sulter, fryser eller trues fysisk. Det gode liv baserte seg på naturens premisser, i dag baserer den seg på sosiale premisser. Samfunnet utstrekker seg til å løse våre problemer, den gjør det til såpass grad at 'naturlige problemer' er i dag samfunnsproblemer. Sykdom? Lege. Sult? Matbutikk. Emosjonsproblemer? Psykiater. Alt kommer av naturen, men er løst av samfunnet. Men samfunnet er komplisert, å manøvrere det risikerer både gleder og smerter. Å falle ut er derfor farlig, dette gjør sosiale konflikter til de mest stikkende. Å minimere lidelse krever da et godt oppgjør med vårt samfunnsforhold. Om ikke låses vi til noe ugunstig eller utestøtt. Våre grunleggende problemer takles med samfunnsadferd.