I wound up going off on a tangent about moral relativism so deleted it.
Which was unfortunate, because now you're going to have to type it all back in again :-p
We agree, I think - 'superior' and 'better' are meaningless terms when applied to a person's skills base. But this, it seems to me, is the undercurrent of much of the commentary to which Niall linked.
Yes, I think we are agreeing. Skills, knowledge, etc are essentially value-neutral. It's what you do, not what you *can* do that counts. So where you originally answered "context", I would have answered "motivation, intention, action, reaction, instinct", more or less in that order. But probably at more length. [1] I did notice that much of right-wing reaction that Niall linked to was overly concerned with the "if everybody is special, then no-one is" discussion. I have to say, I find this to be an entirely specious argument. The basis would seem to be that all "specialness" is the same; that to tend to the dying, or write beutiful poetry, or achieve sporting greatness, or to help someone across the road are all indistinguishable. That each act devalues the others; that each peron who is special makes everyone else that bit less special. I just wish that some of these people would realise that life is not a competition - there's no prize at the end. Whoever has the most toys still dies. Striving to be the best "you" is still a worthwhile goal [2], regardless of whether other people are better or not. This "someone has to be identifiably the best" attitude diminshes us all, and my heartfelt reaction to those who believe it is "fuck you" (and not in the nice squishy way).
[1] *snerk* [2] I'm making myself feel nauseous here
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-08 10:55 am (UTC)Which was unfortunate, because now you're going to have to type it all back in again :-p
We agree, I think - 'superior' and 'better' are meaningless terms when applied to a person's skills base. But this, it seems to me, is the undercurrent of much of the commentary to which Niall linked.
Yes, I think we are agreeing. Skills, knowledge, etc are essentially value-neutral. It's what you do, not what you *can* do that counts. So where you originally answered "context", I would have answered "motivation, intention, action, reaction, instinct", more or less in that order. But probably at more length. [1]
I did notice that much of right-wing reaction that Niall linked to was overly concerned with the "if everybody is special, then no-one is" discussion. I have to say, I find this to be an entirely specious argument. The basis would seem to be that all "specialness" is the same; that to tend to the dying, or write beutiful poetry, or achieve sporting greatness, or to help someone across the road are all indistinguishable. That each act devalues the others; that each peron who is special makes everyone else that bit less special. I just wish that some of these people would realise that life is not a competition - there's no prize at the end. Whoever has the most toys still dies. Striving to be the best "you" is still a worthwhile goal [2], regardless of whether other people are better or not. This "someone has to be identifiably the best" attitude diminshes us all, and my heartfelt reaction to those who believe it is "fuck you" (and not in the nice squishy way).
[1] *snerk*
[2] I'm making myself feel nauseous here