Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey there INTJ typed people,

If you have both within your means to do, would you rather:
A) endure a system that fails to function (achieve meaningful success) due to politics, stupidity and people problems, or
B) design and implement a system that escapes all the myriad of terminal cancers of the old system (depart the old, create the new) even if it meant more work for you?

I ask because some people consider themselves too indispensable to be avoided or managed, and I wonder how you would want to generally react to that sort of problem. Or those sort of people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
No system is free of "cancer", inefficiencies, or the creation and replication of power relationships. What you want is situation where these things do not impair the functioning of the system to the extent that it fails big time, or fails in a myriad of small ways often enough that the structure overloads.

Sometimes, a "revolution" is necessary to wipe out moribund institutions--which is fine, because even invisible technologies sometimes outdate and require replacement. But for me, there would have to be a very, very good reason to choose revolution over evolution. I would only support systemic change when it's clear that the other options for reform are non-viable.

As for the spoilers--they are always with us. And I don't think you could point to any structure involving power at any time in human history that didn't involve the machinations of an arrogant jackass or two. When old structures get cleared away, new jackasses arise to assert their influence. A good system limits the amount of damage they can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
A) endure a system that fails to function (achieve meaningful success) due to politics, stupidity and people problems
This is called state.

B) design and implement a system that escapes all the myriad of terminal cancers of the old system (depart the old, create the new) even if it meant more work for you?
This is called business strategy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
It very much depends on how much you value the people this problem affects. Here are some scenarios.

Say you're selfish. People of all sorts disgust you. Choose option A. I'm NOT saying that if you choose option A you're selfish and hate people, but if you are that kind of person, it makes this choice easy.

If the system is bad enough to need the change, someone will change it. This person may or may not be you. You can make the system work for you, and it's unfortunate other people can't; Option A. On the other hand, you feel people deserve to have the best opportunity possible, and you care about their betterment enough to overhaul the system; Option B.

If option B is chosen, a new plan will need to be made before the old system goes away. If this new plan does not directly solve the problems which caused the need for a change in the old system, it will fail. If it does not fully account for any errors that may cause this new plan to descend into a level of error which will require a future change, it will fail. That being said, choose option A if no plan can be made that will be more than marginally better than the old system.

Say option B will provide you with the same success as option A. If the results impact you the same, it becomes a matter of public service/charity. If the old system is not terribly flawed and change is not necessary, choose option A. You COULD choose option B, but I feel like it would be a waste of time and effort to fix something that accomplishes its goal and does so well (i.e. without fatal errors).

I feel like those scenarios don't directly answer the question, so while its two in the morning, let's churn out a few more!

Option B depends on what system it is that needs to be replaced. If it is only you designing and executing it, it will need to be a small system to ensure a smaller chance of fatal simple mistakes. If it is such a small system, it wouldn't be so much work to replace it; therefore, I would choose option B.

If option B is a large system and I alone work on it, in order for me to choose option B it would have to be a hobby; it couldn't be anything that required it to be done immediately. Consequently, if I was working on a team, much more could be accomplished for the same amount of effort. If it was a large team (thereby putting less work on individuals), I would likely choose option B.

I'm getting sleepy tired now.

If option A does not directly impact me and I would make a profit (monetarily, etc.) with significantly less effort than option B, I would likely choose option A. Politics (in my opinion) are screwed up to the point of no return (unless this is option B) and I would abuse the system willingly, as long as it were legal. I've learned to accept stupidity as a large part of life (I've been to high school). As for the people problems, if they're scuzbags and you're smart, discretely screw with them until they (what they think is of their own accord) leave. Option A. Much more easy. Much more fun.

If option A DOES directly impact you (e.g. you're a manager in the workplace) and there is a certain unknown factor of profit, more analysis is required. If this new system will NOT benefit you in any way or even potentially harm you, a judgement call must be made by you because I'm too tired to write more hypotheticals. If this new system will benefit you (not including potential profit or loss thereof), how will it do so? If it improves your employess (I'm sticking with the workplace metaphor) and thereby making your job easier, do it. If you have a people problem (possibly a single person) which is the source of the stupidity, maybe producing a new system will fix this. I'm sorry. I'm kaput. I'm done. My side hurts. Good night. I have to go pass out. Pardon my flatulence. a sg G][ H h][a gh][b[a
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Read Plato's "The Republic" for details on the production of a system to govern a city/state which has escaped the "myriad of terminal cancers of the old system" you mentioned earlier. Also, do you really think that any one of the problems with out current governing system are "terminal" meaning that they WILL cause the downfall of society? I submit that there is too much stupidity to be exploited by those who would keep the system to preserve their power. Every week there is a new discussion in the news that draws away from the political problems that plague us. Also, no one here is willing to put in the effort otherwise they would already be too distracted by their endeavours to be posting these frivolities online.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
B) is the correct answer with the highest odds of system stability and progression in stages,but most certainly wouldn't be a panacea.
Just a temporary solution until it essentially takes the place of A) and must be replaced by B) again for an infinite number of times.
For,B) will create new cancers A) hath not knownst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Read Plato's "The Republic" for details on the production of a system to govern a city/state which has escaped the "myriad of terminal cancers of the old system" you mentioned earlier. Also, do you really think that any one of the problems with out current governing system are "terminal" meaning that they WILL cause the downfall of society? I submit that there is too much stupidity to be exploited by those who would keep the system to preserve their power. Every week there is a new discussion in the news that draws away from the political problems that plague us. Also, no one here is willing to put in the effort otherwise they would already be too distracted by their endeavours to be posting these frivolities online.
Plato's republic escapes the cancers of the old system by departing the old one in order to bring in a fresh lot of brand new cancers. While failing to address the problems outside of the systems that carry over none the less.

Yay.

How about a Plato's republic where everyone is a golden soul except Plato? I guess he wouldn't be keen on that. How about a Plato's republic where the enlightened golden souls are better than Plato, disagree with everything he says, and are so great relative to him that they demote him to bronze status? Haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Plato's republic escapes the cancers of the old system by departing the old one in order to bring in a fresh lot of brand new cancers. While failing to address the problems outside of the systems that carry over none the less.

Yay.

How about a Plato's republic where everyone is a golden soul except Plato? I guess he wouldn't be keen on that. How about a Plato's republic where the enlightened golden souls are better than Plato, disagree with everything he says, and are so great relative to him that they demote him to bronze status? Haha.
I think you missed the point in The Republic. It was that an ideal state could be made but at the sacrifice of the souls of all those in it. It would be a lie and a deception. Second, Plato speaks in The Republic as if his words were those of Socrates. Plato didn't supposed the perfect state, he just observed Socrates lay the whole thing on the table for Polemarchus. The final conclusion is that making a system which leaves the "old states cancers" is beyond Socrates. If it was beyond a powerfully brilliant man like Socrates in a far more simple time than ours, it will likely be far beyond everyone for hundreds of generations to come, if not forever.

My last point, if anyone is trying to change the way society works either on a moral, systematic, political or ethical level, that's what you just proposed when you had supposed another state where everyone was a "golden soul" excepting Plato. Surely someone trying to overthrow the system we have now would be met with prejudice and hostility. After all, no one likes a critic. In stances of this can be found throughout history. Nelson Mandela faced incarceration, Mahatma Ghandi the same, and regardless of belief, even Jesus Christ was crucified and killed for trying to fight the established systems and that's only a few notable mentions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I think you missed the point in The Republic. It was that an ideal state could be made but at the sacrifice of the souls of all those in it. It would be a lie and a deception. Second, Plato speaks in The Republic as if his words were those of Socrates. Plato didn't supposed the perfect state, he just observed Socrates lay the whole thing on the table for Polemarchus. The final conclusion is that making a system which leaves the "old states cancers" is beyond Socrates. If it was beyond a powerfully brilliant man like Socrates in a far more simple time than ours, it will likely be far beyond everyone for hundreds of generations to come, if not forever.

My last point, if anyone is trying to change the way society works either on a moral, systematic, political or ethical level, that's what you just proposed when you had supposed another state where everyone was a "golden soul" excepting Plato. Surely someone trying to overthrow the system we have now would be met with prejudice and hostility. After all, no one likes a critic. In stances of this can be found throughout history. Nelson Mandela faced incarceration, Mahatma Ghandi the same, and regardless of belief, even Jesus Christ was crucified and killed for trying to fight the established systems and that's only a few notable mentions.
What makes it ideal? Plato's word? What if he was wrong? What if he was ignorant to the issues that plagued the old system, and thus never actually dealt with them in his new system?

As for Plato being the voice of Socrates... I'd wager Plato's Socrates and the real Socrates are intellectually and philosophically different entities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
What makes it ideal? Plato's word? What if he was wrong? What if he was ignorant to the issues that plagued the old system, and thus never actually dealt with them in his new system?

As for Plato being the voice of Socrates... I'd wager Plato's Socrates and the real Socrates are intellectually and philosophically different entities.
And I'd wager Socrates was far more intelligent than anyone who subscribes to this forum today, regardless of how Plato would have people think of him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
And I'd wager Socrates was far more intelligent than anyone who subscribes to this forum today, regardless of how Plato would have people think of him.
You think the idea Plato relayed was Socrates' sole conception, or was a Plato interpreted version of Socrates' vision?

An intelligent person does not make for an intelligent idea, particularly if the idea did not originate with them or if merely the fallacy of authority is employed.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top