Re: [Israel.pm] Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [Israel.pm] [hackers-il] Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> If a contractor STFWes me, or even just visit my personal web-site (URL at the 
> bottom of every message I write) he'll find much more things due to which to 
> reject me:
> 
> 1. http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/TheEnemy/ - offensive to many Arabs, 
> left-wingers, anti-Libertarians, pro-Israelis, etc.
> 
> 2. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/ - offensive to 
> right-winged Israelis, and practicall every "humanitarian" people.

This is all irrelevant. No right-winged employer can realistically expect
all his employees to be right-winged (and vice versa), unless he's a total
fanatic. No employer that I ever worked ever for cared about my political
position.

> 3. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/ - offensive to 
> all "IP-Nazis" and ultra-right-winged people.

Again, irrelevant, unless you try working for RIAA - which I know you wouldn't
want to anyway.

> And there are more. I'm not optimising to make myself look good to potential 
> employers or commisioners. Instead, I'm trying to be the best possible man I 
> can be. And that means being the best possible philosopher[1]. And that means 
> speaking your mind.

The philosopher Peter Singer wrote a section (quoted in his "greatest hits"
book, "Writings on an Ethical Life") on why we should listen (on ethical
questions) to philosophers, rather than to the ramblings of any random
person, or a person from a different profession (e.g., a priest, doctor,
or in your case, a programmer ;-)).

One of the points he made was that it is professional philosophers who can
devote all their time to thinking about the issues being discussed (in his
case, ethics), and their opinions were formed after a lot of thinking, and
are (usually) not just something they wrote down after an afternoon of
basking in the sun. These philosophers have time not just to think, but also
to read other people's opinions, and more importantly (as he sees it) - to
check the facts.

So if you want to be the "best possible philosopher", you need to devote your
time to it. Have you considered getting a degree in philosophy? Perhaps
getting a job in philosophy (in the academia, writing books that will be
sold, etc.?) Or at least devoting all your free time to philosophy (and not
to other hobbies like programming)? Because if you don't, you can hardly become
the "best possible philosopher". All you can perhaps aspire to is to be
someone interested in philosophy (like I consider myself).

"Speaking your mind" doesn't make you a philosopher - it depends what you
say, and to whom. Speaking your mind when what you have to say is not well
thought out or stupid (and I'm not suggesting that what you say is like that!),
or when you speak out your mind to the wrong people, can make you a nudnik
or spammer, not a philosopher.

> If I claim that Kant was a brilliant applied logician and 
> history's greatest practical joker, many philosophy professors will think I'm 
> talking non-sense. But I can prove that most of what he said was wrong, and 
> given his false reasoning show the problems with it. (And no, I haven't read 
> Kant yet - I was told it's incredibly inaccessible).

Ah? How can you prove that somebody was wrong without reading what he read???

I'm not saying you should read Kant's original works - I also didn't - but
at least don't claim you can prove them wrong unless you did.

> I believe in speaking my mind regardless of what the majority may think. At 
> ancient times people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. If we still 
> believed that today, then we wouldn't have landed on the moon. Similarly, 
> many or even most people believe that illegal narcotics should be illegal. 
> This is also wrong, and I can prove it. 

Very well, speak your mind. I'm all for it. But like Comedians and DJs know,
and you should too, you need to know your crowd. Feel free to preach smoking
pot to your friends, but you wouldn't really want to do it to a group of angry
cops you see on the street, or to a group of school children for that matter.
Similarly, you can be 100% for free software, without preaching to your boss
all the time. When asked, always give the pro-free-software answer, but when
you're not asked, don't "preach". Your boss is paying you to do what he asked,
not to preach to him. And it goes both ways - you're working for him because
you want his money - not because you agree with everything he thinks.

> Hopefully, I will eventually become independent by becoming an 
> essayist/blogger and a FOSS developer and consultant. This will enable me to 
> get money for doing the things I'd like to do in my free time.[3]

Good luck (and I'm not saying this cynically).

> It is possible many workplaces believe they are run in the best way possible, 
> and that employees should just shut up, be micro-managed and do as they told 
> and nothing more. However, there's no way I'd like working there, even if 
> they paid me a lot of money. And I believe clueful people who are looking for 
> consultants will be impressed that I'm familiar with "Joel on Software", Paul 
> Graham, ESR, etc. and may actually prefer me over someone else. 

If you believe your job sucks, go out and look for a better one, but try to
hold on to the one you have in the meanwhile - both because I supposed that
you (like most us mortals) need the money to live, and because it's easier
to get a job while you already have one (employers are always suspicious of
people who got fired - it sounds like an anti-recommendation).


-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Apr 12 2007, 24 Nisan 5767
nyh-TS7m/[email protected]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Promises are like babies: fun to make,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |but hell to deliver.