posted
No, no, no, Survivor. I said loyal 'antagonist', not loyal oppositionist. Someone to challenge you, not someone to oppose you. You're absolutely correct, a loyal oppositionist wouldn't do anything for you, whereas an antagonist could.
quote:By the way, mm, you need to define "antagonist" as you're using it here, because what you just said made no sense at all given my current understanding of the term. You also might want to clarify how an "oppositionist" differs from an opponent.
Here's how I understand it:
I use antagonist here to mean a person who regularly challenges you, perhaps on more than one issue, but who does not necessarily oppose you on all fronts, all the time. Nor does that person regularly agree with you.
An opponent is a person who temporarily takes a role to oppose you on a given issue. Your loyal antagonist can temporarily oppose you on an issue, and act as an oponent. An oppositionist is a person who regularly opposes just for the sake of opposing. The loyal opposition, as I understand it, is a political term for those people who feel it is their role both to support an elected official, and to "keep him honest".
My fault for not being more clear.
[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited December 15, 2004).]
posted
I have an idea which probably will need some refinement, but I thought I'd throw it out. What if we tried an experiment. Take maybe 5 willing people who have shown a dedication to writing, and make them a group leader. They would come up with the "rules" for their group. They would put up thier rules: schedule, what constitutes a critique, and other little details. Kathleen would still need to approve the rules so they don't end up unfair. Then people would request to join whichever group fit thier needs. The leader would still have the choice for who to accept. The leader would also have the choice for dropping people who fail to meet the requirements of the group.
This would remove part of the burden from Kathleen who works so hard to keep groups going. The responsibility of the group is on the leader. This concept would require some form of participation here, even if most of it is in the FF section. If a new person wishes to be in a group, they can ask. The leader can spend some time communicating with the person to find out if they understand the requirements that will be expected of them. This also gives the leader a chance to explain the things which can get them dropped from the group.
I think this would work for more serious writers, but wouldn't address the people who fall into the "needy" not dedicated category. The "out of the blue" people shouldn't be left out, but I doubt that most would last long. So what if we had a larger group that consisted of a handfull of more experienced people that would help in working with new people. Working with the larger group(s) would be mostly one way since newer people don't always critique, or know how to critique. A side benifit would be that those helping could assist main group leaders by informing them of prommising dedicated new people.
I know that FF is designed for the purpose of requesting critiques. Sad thing is, if the fragment doesn't appeal to anyone it will never be critiqued. I would think most people who are not participants here, that want to join a group, might be doing it for the wrong reasons. I would bet many of them would vanish right after seeing a critique that didn't praise their writing. The mass group could serve as a filtering system for new people that would give them something of value, while letting those not serious leave without causing problems for a real group.
Ok, that is my wild idea.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited December 14, 2004).]
posted
Virtually all the great tragedies of human history are the result of misguided altruism. No great tragedy has ever come out of intelligent pursuit of self-interest.
Which is why "intelligent altruism" is simply to espose a system where intelligent self-interest is the guiding principle of every individual.
By the way, mm, you need to define "antagonist" as you're using it here, because what you just said made no sense at all given my current understanding of the term. You also might want to clarify how an "oppositionist" differs from an opponent.
posted
<Virtually all the great tragedies of human history are the result of misguided altruism. No great tragedy has ever come out of intelligent pursuit of self-interest.>
Sounds binary. Either thier is a "misguided" love of neighbor, or a selfish love of self.
Millions die needlesly every year because of such self interest. That is great tragedy.
No, I believe some of the greatest acts came from those acting outside the realm of self-interest. Those who loved thier neighbors as themselves, those who even loved thier enemies, those who followed the golden rule.
Whether something is considered intelligent or not depends on hindsight. If it does not work you will say it was unintelligent, if it works you will say it was intelligent.
History written by the victor.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 14, 2004).]
posted
Do we all not act out of selfish motives, even if we convince ourselves differently. Even to invest time in your family and neighbours is selfish, because, consciously or unconsciously, we know the rewards of such behaviour.
Anyway, such drags us away from the main arguments of this thread. I am not sure about the group leader thing, as those who regularly contribute to this site should be rewarded by being allowed to get on with their writing and not interviewing every newbie. The points systems may seem cold, but at least they reward those who participate, and do not take time from those who are here to develop their writing.
That is just my opinion, anyway. Perhaps I should let the potential group leaders speak for themselves.
posted
I would say that "selfish" is distinct in meaning from "self-interested". To say that they are the same is to strawman both.
We all usually define "altruism" in terms of what we think another person should have, be, do, etc., rather than in terms of what that other person chooses to have, be, do, and so forth. Intelligent altruism recognizes that the best gift for all is the freedom for others to do as they please.
Yes, that freedom causes many instances of harm, but to take it away from enough people to make a difference, you must do massive harm yourself.
Anyway, to get back to the point I was making, I used "misguided altruism" to refer to the action of a "loyal opponent". In other words, I was talking about the sort of busybodys who imagine that they know what is good for me better than I know and therefore oppose what I actually want to do in favor of trying to force me to do what they think I ought to want to do.
On the other hand, when others act intelligently to pursue their self-interest, I can cooperate with them whenever it serves our mutual interests and even when our interests are dis-similar but non-exclusive, as long as we can make use of our disparate relative efficiencies intelligently.
I didn't really intend to get into a moral debate, I just meant to say that I don't need a loyal opposition.
As for a "loyal antagonist", I still think the only role of such a person would be to warn me when I haven't thought things through enough and could be making a mistake. But for that role, being intelligent and self-interested would be more useful than being loyal and "antagonistic" (it it's special new and somewhat confusing sense).
Usually, I can tell when I'm not ready to proceed with something a lot better than anyone else can tell, after all. And as for the flip side, I find that people pushing me to do things I'm really not feeling ready to do always end up causing me to make mistakes. And people dragging at my heels when I've determined that something is the correct course of action are never right either (though they do force me to give up on a lot of things once it becomes clear that they intend to interfere no matter what).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
