5 most common mistakes of men - Introduction

Introduction

Confucius in his “Analects” wrote 500 years before Christ that we should recover the meaning of the words.

Indeed. Words are arbitrary representations of things, ideas, etc. thus a word is more useful when its meaning, the “concept” it represents, is more clear.

Take by example the word “fascism” which was born as a definition for a left-wing collectivistic form of government leaded by dictator Benito Mussolini around the 1930’s Italy. Today this word is used (specially by left-wing and/or progressive people) to design almost the opposite: Their enemies on the right-wing, or whatever the occasional user of the word happens to intent.

The word “fascism” has become some obscure synonym of evil. And evil is an opinion. The word lost its original meaning into multiple, even opposite concepts, and meaning too much is often meaning nothing.

We have to recover the meaning and clarity of the words, which means recover the meaning and clarity of our minds.

If everything is the same in the muddy clouds inside your head, it is easy for your mind to get bored and go to sleep, forever…

(For and Objectivist definition of what “concept” is please refer to Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”)

In five following topics I will try to analyze what I consider the 5 most common mistakes of men:

Mistake # 1

“Mistake Compassion with Pity”

(The ugliness of pity-based altruism)

Mistake # 2

“Mistake Rule with Exception”

(The most used strategy to hide one’s own laziness)

Mistake # 3

“Mistake Facts with Opinions”

(Failing to difference oneself from reality)

Mistake # 4

“Mistake Cause with Effect”

(The stupidity of pretending being by having)

Mistake # 5

“Mistake Individualism with Arrogance”

(Avoiding the mirror of the best)

While I think the essays will be interesting, I’m a little confused as to why they are in the debate forum?

While I think the essays will be interesting, I’m a little confused as to why they are in the debate forum?

This introduction is perhaps not very polemical but probably the articles themselves will (hopefully) :slight_smile: