mathoda.com - Latest Comments

Re: Painting: “the magnificent Lara”

Sanjay Aiyagari — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:38:55 -0000

Nice to see that you are doing more painting. This is really nice.

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:06:28 -0000

While one could interpret "the unexamined life is not worth living" as "the unexamined belief is worth examining" it strikes me as being pretty far from the literal meaning of the words. But I'm not sure that even "the unexamined belief is worth examining" is a true statement. Should a person consider whether their mother loves them, or should they just accept it unexamined? Certain unexamined beliefs may be useful to examine, but that doesn't mean they all must be examined, or that a person can't live a happy life without examining them. So even if we examine this interpretation, I'm not sure it is true.

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Jim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:28:15 -0000

I don't believe I've ever seen this statement used to judge another man's life as valueless, if you have seen it interpreted this way then you should definitely correct them. I have always understood the statement to mean that one should spend time exploring, understanding and arguing a belief before truly calling it your own, and not to go through life believing what has been spoon fed to you. This is also, I believe, the way it is commonly understood.

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

Ranjit Mathoda — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:37:36 -0000

to make water turn into hydrogen and oxygen you run electricity through the water. it usually takes lots of electricity, but that's what nuclear submarines do to get the oxygen that lets people stay alive on them even over a long period of submerged time. to make the process more efficient dissolve the right amount of cobalt and phosphate in water, put some platinum in the water, and then run electricity through the water... oxygen bubbles out of the water and hydrogen forms around the electrode. of course to get the set up exactly right you'll have to read the scientific paper

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

claire — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:40:52 -0000

please someone save me how the heck do you split hydrogen and oxegyn!!!!!!!!!

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

claire — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:39:55 -0000

i still dont get it

Re: poem: Victory is Mine Sayeth I

JuJuan Bolding — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:46:36 -0000

Beautiful Ranjit.

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

slim — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:31:41 -0000

lmsao.
wooow.
he said gosh(:

Re: Favorite Quote: Pickens Sr. on the importance of having a plan

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:05:00 -0000

Thanks Andrew! I started with Disqus, but Wordpress bought IntenseDebate so I bet that'd be better long term.

Re: Favorite Quote: Pickens Sr. on the importance of having a plan

Andrew Warner — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:53:27 -0000

By the way, I like the design of your site.

Why'd you go with intensedebate over disqus?

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:56:44 -0000

Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living? Do you have to be happy to have had a life worth living?

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:46:49 -0000

Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors.

I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach.

That sentiment I find interesting, kind of a judo move on the society in which he lived that has lasted in the minds of philosophers ever since. But the actual statement that the "unexamined life is not worth living" I don't think is right, for all of its resonance through the ages. I think that just because a statement resonates with our minds doesn't make it true. In fact I'd argue that a lot of great ideas that have resonated at times in history have been fundamentally flawed.

Arguably Socrates also understood this point, as he saw his understanding of his own ignorance as the source of his wisdom. Which is why I've always thought it strange that the statement "the unexamined life is not worth living" is translated in that fashion, attributed to him and itself left unexamined.

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:20:18 -0000

Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who are friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Philosophy, if it is anything, should be exact in its use of words. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living?

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

SchwingBlade — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:25:32 -0000

Ranjit -

Damn, Dude, you hit it right on the head. Life IS always worth living. Who the h3ll says Socrates gets to decide the worth of a life?

Clearly Anita and others have completely missed the moral dilemma you've uncovered. "A life not worth living", as you point out, is really just a different way of saying "it would be better if that life had never been lived at all". The question is...why would Socrates say such a thing?

Well, maybe the answer to that question also answers your dilemma....it's possible that Socrates never said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Another English translation is "The unexamined life is not to be lived". Read that way, you could interpret more of a "Repent!" than "Damnation!" intent, couldn't you? I know I can.

So, if you believe that Socrates was a decent, moral human being...as you and I clearly do...then this alternative translation is a little easier to swallow, no? Otherwise, we're all left rationalizing the "better off dead" implication, which does nothing but lead us all out into the tall weeds where we're left to wander aimlessly about with Anita, Nietzsche and the rest of the Immoral Elitists.

Great job, I love that a guy from India has no compunction about throwing huge haymakers at one of Philosophy's most Sacred Cows...Socrates the Martyr. Kudos!

BTW...if you're interested, here's a paper written by a scary-smart philosophy guy with a bunch of Ph.D.s who delves into the same muck and seems to strike serious pay dirt:
Richard Kraut
"A companion to Socrates"
Chapter 14, page 228
"The Examined Life Examined"
you can find and read a free preview here online:
http://books.google.com

Cool blog, thanks for the interesting read.

Regards,

SchwingBlade

Re: A very brief history of sushi

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:19:11 -0000

Yes, my blog post was based on the Trevor Corson book The Zen of Fish, The Story of Sushi, from Samurai to Supermarket

Re: A very brief history of sushi

entick — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:44:09 -0000

was that in a book?

Re: Incorporating your business should be vastly simpler

nakliyat — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:24:19 -0000

Gov. Break out your Chemerinsky, hello Supreme Court...
ps - company.gov is nothing right now. Hurry up!

Re: On buying land (my 9/21/05 thoughts on whether there was a real estate bubble)

alex t — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:25:32 -0000

man, o, man, were you ever wrong ranjit...

my rent is still the same price

real estate bubble, whatever...

Re: Is Walmart really more evil than Google?

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:50:18 -0000

The discussion of how medical services should be funded (private by wealth and desire, public by majority rule coercing resources from all, some hybrid or out of the box approach) and delivered (competitive providers, monopoly provider, etc.) often does involve a discussion of whether capitalism or socialism or something else is better, but to my mind those terms are fairly crude and vague, and really are about how you organize the effort to get to the goal, rather than a goal itself. The goal, what I called the just society, is for everyone to be healthy, which surely includes receiving a certain amount of basic services. How that can best be created is worth discussing.

Re: Is Walmart really more evil than Google?

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:06:07 -0000

It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to.

In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google.

With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably.

I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of skill, which I hope my essay makes clear.

Re: Is Walmart really more evil than Google?

juandos — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:44:38 -0000

" In a just society, everyone clearly should have a certain amount of basic services, including healthcare"...

WRONG! That ISN'T a just society you are describing, its a socialist society...

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Paul — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:41:43 -0000

Socrates statement can be summed up like this: If you don't truly know anything, do you think you can be happy? Take something much less complicated than philosophy. Say, friendship. If you don't know who your friends truly are, do you think you'd be happy? The statement is the opposite of the poor sentiment "Ignorance is bliss."

Re: When humans become flying squirrels

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:05:31 -0000

Some people do seem to get bored by their loving relationships, and craving excitement, do self harmful things... I suppose it varies by individual and context how much "novelty" matters.

Re: When humans become flying squirrels

Lola — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:55:04 -0000

"Humanity is remarkably able to get bored by things that are ridiculously cool"

Like love?

Re: Incorporating your business should be vastly simpler

evden eve nakliyat — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:02:52 -0000

good article.