on Valence

The miracle of optimism and pessimism, collectively, is that both of them work. Call it the self-fulfilling prophecy. The pessimist, when caught in a situation where he (or she) is called upon to rely upon others, will presume that the others in question will let him down. Perhaps the pessimist is self-serving in nature; then, he will think that others will be the same when he needs them. Or he is charitable by nature; then, he will assume a Nice Guys Finish Last philosophy. The pessimist is not looking through jaundiced eyes, as some may have you believe: he is looking upon the negative past experiences he has helped to create.

The optimist operates much in the same way. He will give his adversary the opportunity to do something good, and when faced with such an opportunity, one is more likely than not to take it. So, when faced with adversity, the optimist will often find a most positive result.

But the greatest Justice between the optimist and the pessimist comes when the two collide. We still live in an era of limited resources, and the vast majority of conflicts arise when we have more needs than resources. The optimist will, perhaps naively, stride forth with the expectation that the resources will be volunteered to him. The resources may not be there for the both of them but the pessimist, realizing this, will not compete for the resources, and will surrender them to the optimist.

The result is a win-win situation: the optimist gets the resources he needs, and the pessimist gets the results for which he aims.

on Grass

With the invisible hand comes the presumption that the ultimate goal of every individual is to obtain the most riches possible, but as more and more people find that they have all that they need, the economic model is collapsing. In the era of Adam Smith, each man was faced with shortage, and in the effort to meet their needs, it was essential that they pursued more wealth. But it is beyond the basic acquisition of resources, which modern technology has not only antiquated but proven wasteful and problematic, that the collection of riches becomes a burden instead of a gift.

One of the first riches (as I am defining it, as something of little to no practical value but of great monetary worth) was grass lawns. In a period of time where there was plenty of open land but all of it had to be used to feed the people, there was rarely a landowner who could spare much space for anything other than food. Eventually, the most powerful took enough land from the weak, that their land became so vast that the food on the fringes would rot even if they did harvest it. So, the strong and gluttonous would grow grass on this land, which was very pretty and felt good on the feet but was absolutely useless, while his weakened neighbors could only stare at the wasted land as their people went hungry.

In the 21st century, it is presumed that all people of worth will have a grass lawn surrounding their house. Apartments are reserved for the young and the poor, and condominiums are either second homes for wealthy travellers or include their own parks or community gardens. It is a signature of the impoverished homeowner to let their lawns die, leaving nothing but dirt where there one was a small but lush green. But as our cities grow to a size where land is appraised for hundreds of dollars per square foot, our lawns' main purpose remains: to be seen by our neighbors. And the sacrifice of our lawn is not one we are willing to make.

on Blame

Regardless of the crime, regardless of the circumstances, it has become a matter of course that the first question we ask is "who is at fault?" From this question, several other questions ask themselves, such as, who can we blame? And, how can we punish them?

An arguement is occassionally made that we have capital crimes and life sentences as a form of discouragement. Don't commit violent rape, or you will be sent to prison for life. Don't kill anyone, or you can be put to death. If that is indeed the intent, what then is our focus in court? Justice is served by the direct answer of one question, two parts. One: when you committed this crime, were you aware that the punishment for your actions is death? Two: Now that you have committed this action, are you prepared to accept your punishment?

Rather than judging the questions themselves, judge the possible answers. There is, admittedly, the occasional criminal who stands before the court and declares, "I know what I have done. I am a monster. I am truly sorry for the grief I have caused the family. I accept my punishment, whatever it may be." This is either a criminal taking one last shot at a mercy plea, or a man for whom the justice system was not designed.

The correct answers to the two part question are as follows, regardless of the crime: 1. when I committed the crime, the legality of my actions was the last thing on my mind. 2. Deep down inside, I like to think that I am the one who will be set free, probably on a technicality.

These are your answers. Now we return to the very original question: when this crime was committed, who was at fault? This is why blame matters: not all men take into consideration the pain and suffering of others. When pain is inflicted on us in a criminal fashion, we come to the realization that the perpetrator is not going to empathize with you. He is not going to feel your emotions unless he goes through his own ordeal.

The ultimate flaw is revealed in who benefits from retribution. The very worst of criminals, and only the very worst, commit their crimes because they enjoy seeing the pain and suffering of others. When a violent or heinous crime is committed, it is the heartless who are of the purest heart. But all criminals of the same crime are subject to the same penalties. Once they are dead, or condemned to life, the only benefit goes to the victims of the original crime. These victims see pain and suffering thrust onto the criminal, and they enjoy it.

on Chess Moves

In chess, one of the great mistakes is looking too far ahead. A good chess player will learn to predict their opponents' moves, and see what they can accomplish in the next two or three steps. A poor chess player trying to be great will try to predict their opponents' moves. They will decide what they want to accomplish, and see how they could accomplish it ten steps ahead, and will begin their plan of attack. They will, cunningly in their own mind, carefully move their pieces into position, eyeing their opponent's queen. They will set traps, spoil escapes, and anticipate their opponent's meager attempts at defense. Then, confident of the opponent's demise, they will move that one piece to the middle of the board, and their opponent will promptly slaughter all those pieces made vulnerable from the master plan.

We cannot predict what other people will do. Life is too complex. Life is too chaotic. We cannot expect our opponents to think like us- more often than not, it is the fact that they think so differently which has led to the opposition. We cannot plead to the perpitrator. Everything happens for a reason, and you cannot beat reason. You can only change the factors, and while reason will prevail, the damage of corrupted rationale can be extinguished. It is not necessary to always be on the defense- but in our attacks, all we can do is proceed carefully, cautiously, and prepare for any unexpected moves the opponent may take. With a little luck and a keen awareness, we will be able to spot their attack, and wait patiently for them to move their pieces to the middle of the board, leaving their heart and mind vulnerable to attack.

Your move.

on Sophism

This is not a website about chess. This is a website about thinking. Mankind has recently entered a new level of sophistication for which we aren't quite ready. There was a time when brutal honesty reigned supreme- when people could speak their minds freely under the belief that each was entitled to their own opinion. As we have become more sophisticated, however, we discovered that honesty was, in fact, not the ideal way to promote our opinions.

Since the golden era of philosophy, those with the proper level of self-importance have learned not to promote their ideas from their own point of view, but from the point of view of their opponent. What once was simply the Devil's work became sanctity of marriage, preservation of the children, defense of democracy, freedom of speech, or the preservation of life. "We're not doing this to achieve power, we're doing this for the good of the common man." Protecting doctors became protecting the patient, protecting corporations became protecting the customer, protecting the government became protecting the people. Somehow.

While justice remains nothing more than power to the stronger, the strong have learned to convince the weak that they are being protected. But if the strong are protecting the weak, who are they being protected from? The other weak. Young married couples are protected from homosexuals, children are protected from pornography and obscenity, the sick are protected from frivolous malpractice suits. The unborn are protected from pro-choicers, while women are protected from pro-lifers. Liberals are protected from the religious right, while the honest working man is protected from knee-jerk regulations. Somehow, differing opinions share the same dysphemism, while those in power are simply the innocent arbitrators.

This is not a political website. This is an attempt to look at modern philosophy, much in the way we addressed issues thousands of years ago. No man can express his opinion without being held accountable. And so, the opinion hides, for fear of crushing the man who carries it. No opinion is a philosophy; no perspective is truth. When all opinions are considered, truth can be found. When more opinions are discovered, truth can be challenged. When knowledge changes our opinions, what we once considered truth can be destroyed. This is not a website about truth. This is a website about thinking.