impossible perfectibility still moralism

One of these days i was arguing with my friend Marcio Shimabukuro about technology and money. Shimabukuro’s perspective was somewhat like this: we have to use currently surpassed technology because they want more money. Current selling products in Brazil are equivalent to products from 5 years ago in Japan (but this difference used to be 12 years), and the same goes for most other “First World” countries, and the reason for this lateness is that companies can make more money selling products that use an already old technology but still has a better profit margin than the newest thing. As an example, if you can make an walkman for 10$ and sell it at 189$ and you can make an iPod for 120$ and sell it at 220$, you will prefer to sell the walkman even if the iPod is better.

What i wanted to say to this was: this is a moral argument, even if in hiding.

power and meaning

A long time ago, arguing about theory and practice, and specifically defending that you can’t say “practice of practice”, i got to the awful feeling that something was being left out. My friend and i were not getting any closer to agreement, and i was guessing that was because we were not really discussing the values that made us believe in our arguments.

So, i came up with another dilemma. Instead of theory VS practice…

MEANING vs POWER

the problem with Brasil’s politicians

The problem with politics, at least in Brazil, is definitely a terrible lack of corruption.

(Yes, i say those things just to shock, but let me rephrase…)

Politicians are supposed to exercise power but not use it for their own good. But this does not make any sense. If you have power, you should be using it to please yourself. Just as much as, if you have intelligence you should be using it to make a better living or if you have money you should buy the stuff you want. It’s, like, common sense.

The idea that politicians should somehow isolate their persons from their public role is either naive or crazy.

might makes right part 1

Who makes the book? The bookmaker. And who makes the bookmaker? The bookmaker’s family. And who makes the family? Society. And who makes society? God

One might conduct this dialogue in various ways. Say bread → flour → wheat → earth → Land → Nation! Or maybe shoe → leather → cow → Life → Nature.

Each of those conducting to different Gods — different indisputable limits.

And i guess people choose “what they want to be” based on the endpoint they feel is the only one.

But maybe it’s best to ask: what makes a person believe she got to the end of the line?