| Our love of things of the mind does not make us soft. | |
| — Aristotle | |
| . | |
| On This Day In: | |
| 2013 | Because I Can |
| Eloquence, n. | |
| 2012 | Why Bother? |
| 2011 | Peculiar Notions |
Well Hard
June 2, 2014 by kmabarrett
4 Responses
Leave a Reply
Ripple’s In Time…
Translate
Look For Stuff…
Ripple Crests
-
Recent Ripples In The Continuum
Older Ripples In The Continuum
Ripplets (Tags)
Ripple Riders
Ripple Stats
- 240,013 hits
Since knowledge is of the mind and can (or should) lead to wisdom, I would say that Aristotle was a very smart man. What is it, do you think, that leads some to denigrate the ‘thinker’? .
Hi Marie,
Thanks for the comment!
I think that, mainly, emotions are fast and easy while “considered” thought is hard and takes time (and resources), so there are far more folks who will react without thinking than there ever will be of those who will pause to consider before acting.
I believe we (Americans) have a cultural bias towards action and against thought. “Action” is considered “manly”; while “thoughtfulness” and “bookishness” are considered “effeminate”.
It is almost a given that leaders do, while scholars consider.
None of which is remotely true or more than anecdotally accurate, but the perception remains.
I hadn’t considered it in that light but I’m sure to an extent you are correct. I think in today’s world, leaders don’t necessarily consider the ‘outcome’ of their decisions which would come later and would have less to do with them personally than has the moment. Leadership today (perhaps always) is a matter of power rather than substance.
I think what you’re describing is the difference between a politician and a statesman.
Giving them (today’s leaders) the benefit of the doubt, they must make their decisions at the moment and like all of humanity have little sense for the “law of unintended consequences”. They are simply trying to solve today’s problem.
I agree with you that leadership is “always” about power. I think “substance” is relative and can only be judged by history when context is provided by the decision maker (they tell us why they thought they were doing something, and what they hoped to accomplish) AND by historians (after the fact analysis of if the action solved the problem and if there were unintended consequences which were “better or worse” than the initial cause). Without the context we can only judge the action, by history (which may not be fair). With context but no analysis, we are left with Churchill’s statement that he anticipated history would be fair to him because he intended to write it (in other words biased).
Thank you for the follow-up comment!