Homeless Man

Homeless Man:

Quote:

But speaking hypothetically, given the option, I would choose to leave my life as a successful software developer. I would do so willingly in order to give more than a small portion of my time to defending human rights against the threats posed by ruthless, ideologically motivated governments. I do not see any value in worrying about a bit more money, or whether people call me a genius. There are many things more important than achieving wealth, and I know which of them I would give up in order to stand up for oppressed people like me.

If I had the chance to teach any other important subject to a few hundred other people, like classical ethics or how to think about questions like these, I would do so.

I would teach people how to think critically, how to express their ideas and how to debate them, and how to better understand the situations they face in their daily lives. I would not attempt to say what is right or wrong, but would try to explain situations, and give reasons for judgment calls and decisions, or give a debate about some contemporary phenomenon. In other words, I would answer questions, and not attempt to make them. I would expect my students to take this seriously, and defend these opinions against the growing tide of censorship, claiming and displaying the right to criticize even people who do not attempt to teach you anything.

If I had the opportunity to debate some well-known moralist and explain why my position is superior to his or hers, I would gladly defend it. As I said, I would be happy to teach.

This is all hypothetical, however. I would have to give it some thought, and have more than a few spare hours to research different situations and discuss what I would teach.

People:

I would not spend my days trying to convince others to agree with me. I would not bring situations to people, or force them to explain their decisions or discuss their opinions, unless I found some advantage in explaining those situations and offering reasons for those decisions and opinions. If my argument was weak, or my situation had not been explained adequately, or I thought the situation was urgent, or I thought people would understand, I would explain my situation to others. I would explain the situation to others in order to establish that we are on the same ground, and we could work together to learn, to develop our thinking, and in some cases to get to know each other better.

If I were helping people to find solutions to difficult situations, and helping them understand their issues more, I would find a way to explain the situation to others. I would explain that I understood that the situation I faced was difficult, and that I had learned something about situations and feelings from my experiences. If I had no experiences, or if I were able to talk to people only in passing, I would explain the situation using anecdotal evidence, showing that I had never faced this problem before, and that I had not formed any ideas or opinions about the situation until I encountered it.

If I could not give the problem clear and concise, succinct reasons, I would explain that the situation was difficult, and I had a difficult time understanding it. I would not claim any great insight, or any great solution, or any solution that was superior to others. If I were able to understand something about the situation, or if I had some insight about it, I would explain that to other people, explaining how I arrived at my understanding. If my solution was superior to others, I would defend it in good faith, and not claim that other solutions are inferior. If I was unable to explain anything, or if my argument was weak or the situation was poorly explained, I would find some other way to help people understand the situation.

People who told me that something I said or did was wrong or incorrect, or if they had some evidence that I was wrong or incorrect, and wanted to convince me of their point of view, I would not attempt to change my mind. I would explain my point of view and my reasoning in an effort to help people understand me and my position.

If a friend of mine asked me how I felt about some situation, and I had no opinion, I would explain that.

Some people, and I would like to say that this is not so often, often feel that I express my opinions without really thinking them through. I try not to feel that way, and if I did, I would probably find another way to express my opinions, such as writing them down.

I would try to express my opinions and explanations as clearly and concisely as possible. This is because I think that people should be able to understand my position. I would not let people misinterpret what I wrote, or think that I intended to argue in a way that I did not intend to argue. If I was worried about a misinterpretation of my position, or a misinterpretation of my writing, I would explain what I meant, or write what I meant again. If I were able to express my ideas clearly and concisely, I would want other people to understand them, even if they were not my friend, or my professor.

I would be prepared to admit when I was wrong. I would not demand that people, including friends and professors, share my opinions, or assume that people would be persuaded to share my opinions, if I were not convinced of their truth or the validity of my position. I would not spend days and weeks arguing with people, with uncertain results. I would either drop the topic, and maybe try to get a new understanding about it, or I would acknowledge that there was a misunderstanding, and try to find a way to bring the two sides of the debate together, rather than arguing my side again. If people asked for clarifications, I would try to provide them. If people asked for more details, I would provide them. If a person claimed that I was not being clear enough, I would explain my thought process. If I found myself in a disagreement, or if I was convinced that my position was sound, I would share my position.

If someone expressed a view that was contrary to my own, or a claim that contradicted mine, I would at least listen to what the person had to say. If there was some evidence that they were right or wrong, or if there was some good reason to think that their view was valid, I would listen to what they had to say. If my first thought about the person or the situation was wrong, I would try to find out why that was. If there was evidence to support or deny my first thought, I would take it into consideration. If I had a counter-argument, or if I had a coherent reason to believe that the person had made a mistake, I would explain it to the person. If a person was able to tell me why I was mistaken, I would listen.

Some people say that they like me, or they respect me, or they think that I'm a good person. That's nice, but it's not really necessary, if I've earned their respect and trust, or if I've earned their trust and respect. I will try to listen to their side, even if I don't agree. If there's some good reason to believe that they are right, and I believe that they're wrong, or if they believe that I am right, and I believe that they're wrong, I will try to get their side of the argument straight. If people told me that they were sure that I was wrong or incorrect, or that I had made some mistake, I would try to work with them to get their side of the argument straight. If there was some good reason to believe that their view was valid, or that they were right, or that there was a legitimate dispute, I would listen. If someone told me that they were certain that I was not right or not wrong, or that I had made a mistake, I would try to get their side of the argument straight. If there was...