Dear Ben,
To me one of the things that distinguishes "philosophical questions" (your
examples are cited below) is that they tend not to have easy right or
wrong, true or false answers. That is why generations of thinkers pursue
such questions from different perspectives for centuries.
>1. Inequality in ability is a natural state of existence? True or false?
>
>2. An employees value is, to a large extent, determined by their
>performance? True or false?
>
>3. Not all employee are equally valuable to their employer? True or false?
>
>4. Each person is ultimately responsible for their own competency and
>their own learning? True or false?
In contrast, the way you have framed the questions above tends to shut
down, rather than open up further discussion. In contradistinction to
what has been the historical approach to philosophical questions, you ask
for up front T/F answers. I don't think this is helpful for a number of
reasons.
Firstly, because I don't believe these questions can be given true or
false replies as the answer one might give is dependent on a number of
variables and issues that are not stated or defined in the question.
Perhaps it would have been better to say "please discuss" rather than
"true or false."
You clearly state: "All I'm doing is pointing out some facts" but are they
facts and why? You might more constructively say "these are my beliefs"
then the discussion could continue.
Secondly, you put us your fellow list members in a bind which seems to
force us into supporting your view because if we do not refute you on your
own terms, you "win", as you have framed the questions and thus control
the types of answers elicited.
Thirdly, if we take an evasive, round about approach to answering your
questions, such as I am doing, you can say we are avoiding giving simple
answers to simple questions.
Finally, if nobody answers your post you can say "silence proves me
right."
It seems to me the game is weighted in your favour...could we change the
rules?
[Host's Note: Philip, or anyone else, do you want to propose a different
set of philisophical questions? ...Rick]
Philip
Philip Pogson
Manager Organisation Development Unit
University of Sydney
Margaret Telfer Building, K07
NSW 2006 Australia
ph: +61 2 9351 4218
+61 2 9351 3177 (direct)
fax: +61 2 9351 4951
Training Program URL:- http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/stafdev/
"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied
in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly,
affects all indirectly."
Martin Luther King Jnr
--Philip Pogson <P.Pogson@perspolicy.usyd.edu.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>