On Mon, Jul 14, 2003, Eli Billauer wrote about "[Haifux] Linus about ideology":
> Hello all,
>
> This is a bit old, but anyhow:
>
> Linus Torvalds, about Linux, on Apr 2002:
>
> > Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
> > I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
> > had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
> > because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
>
> I think this is an interesting thought.
It is indeed an interesting quote.
But don't build too much theory on top of this quote - philosophers debated
this issue for a long time, and some of them were actually better at
philosophy than Linus ;)
The issue in question is: Should I do whatever is fun for me now, or should
I choose principles and stick with them for longer periods? Either method
gives you choice, but which gives you more freedom? Kierkegaard (the Danish
philosopher, probably the first existentialist) argued that surprisingly,
the latter - adhering to principles you choose - gives you more freedom.
Later existentialist philosophers described the constant need to decide
what to do now because it's fun or useful now as "Nausea".
If the above paragraph strikes you odd or even absurd, let me give you
a parable (mashal): Imagine you are sitting in a tiny rowboat far from
shore. The ocean waves near you change direction often and strike your boat
all around you, moving your little boat randomly in the ocean. There are
two courses of action you can take right now:
1. Enjoy yourself: when the waves make it easy to go south, you go
south. When the waves make it easier to go west, you go west. Rowing
is easy and fun, and you bask in the sun (until you die of thirst?)
2. Choose a path in advance: decide that you want to go south and steadily
row in that direction. Sometimes rowing will be easy, sometimes you'll
be fighting against the directions of the waves. But after a while
you'll arrive at your destination and be saved.
On first glance, method #1 might seem like it gives you more freedom,
because every minute you get to make a decision to relax and have fun.
But this is false freedom - using method #1 has only one unavoidable (and
dire) consequence. It never actually gives you choice - you simply accept
the choices made by outside elements without questioning their wisdom.
Method #2, on the other hand, let's you make just one choice, in advance
(the choice of a path to take), but it let's you take that choice to its
successful ending.
Another view on the same basic question: if I do choose principles on which
to base my life, should they be utilitarian (principles designed to bring
me or others maxium fun and usefulness) or are there "higher" principles
which I should not neglect even if they don't bring maximum utility?
Philosophers have studied Ethics (the theory of morality) for ages with
no clear conclusions on this question.
--
Nadav Har'El | Monday, Jul 14 2003, 15 Tammuz 5763
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |This signature was intentionally left
http://nadav.harel.org.il |boring.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://www.haifux.org)
To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
