I'm rarely surprised by the content of critiques of what I say, because I've already thought of it, heard it elsewhere, etc.

What usually surprises me is the rigidity of other people's opinions and the lack of coherent logic and evidence under the surface.

I feel like Socrates. Prod a little, and everyone's opinion crumbles to dust and they get angry. That's egotistical to say. But many people relate to Socrates, because many people still have his experience, because most people are still like the people he talked to in the famous dialogues. They think they're sure, but mainly they're sure because they're proud of having an opinion, and they really don't like to be challenged on it, despite what they say.

Now, we don't have to *enjoy* critique and the possibility that we've said something out loud that's just plain wrong.

Who actually enjoys that? Or much?

What matters is how we approach this, how we approach both sides of this coin when they arrive in conversation - when we should say something, when we should listen.

No one talks about the fact fairness is a ludic concept - a concept that depends on virtuality - yet I'm convinced of it. Until we apply a ruleset, "fair" is an opinion, just as "good" is an opinion before choosing a purpose. "Virtual" doesn't mean useless. Fairness is virtual.

-

If there's a gallon of water & 10 people are thirsty, it seems fair to give each person 1/10 gallon. Under that "ruleset" (breakdown of the scenario), this seems fairest. What if someone is dying of thirst? The calculation needs adjustment! But there's ALWAYS more detail.

--

Even if you completely describe the water and thirst situation, there are other considerations. Does the water "belong" to anyone? Is someone being a massive jerk? You can keep zooming in and also keep expanding the horizon. When does it stop? When can we agree on what's "fair"?

-

It isn't hopeless. But the fact IS, "fair" is virtual. It depends on how you analyze the situation. We have to agree on what the "game" is, and then we can agree on what's fair. That seems inherent to fairness. Doesn't it? It can only be analyzed from the POV of a ruleset.

-

No one talks about this. Either I'm mistaken, or that's potentially a big thing.

-

This also relates directly to "deserving" and "earning." Both these concepts refer to an assumption of fairness. What does it mean to earn or deserve, really? Depends on a ruleset.

-

That might sound like punting, or moral relativism. But I don't think it's either. Again, "virtual" is no more useless than "hypothetical," "planned," or "mathematical." The latter 3 are all virtual, in fact - yet critical.

-