Monday, March 18, 2024

Good and Wealthy?

One sort of assumes that philosophers tend to be down on the wealthy. You know 'Easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than for the wealthy to enter Heaven' and all that. It is, therefore, surprising that ANY philosopher can be in favor of wealth, more especially from India where anything to do with the world at large is supposed to be considered illusory. (AND, yes, I have differed with the identification of 'Maya' with 'Illusion' in the past, if you really want to know. In 'Theory of Maya - Is it all illusion?')

Tiru flies in the face of all philosophers when he says this:

Payanmaram ullur pazhuthattraal selvam nayanudaiyaan kan padin - Tirukkural

Wealth in the hands of the benevolent is akin to a fruitful tree in the middle of a town - Loose Translation

Tiru, here, means that such wealth shall be useful to everyone in society much like the fruits of such a tree are available to everyone in town. Of course, his were more benevolent times. So much so that the idea of a powerful man building a wall around such a tree and claiming it as his own never even crossed his mind while THAT is the first thing that crosses ours. (IF, of course, there is no intent of cutting down the tree and building a shopping complex there!)

The truth, though, is that most people in the world do not really understand the meaning of wealth. I mean, you talk of wealth and people immediately think in terms of yachts, private jets, million-dollar mansions and the like. True, all those ARE possible uses of wealth, but do you stop to think a step further?

The wealthy also have need to invest their surpluses, right? Now where exactly they invest those surpluses would depend on their morality, no? I mean, you could have people who invest in exploitative companies chasing huge returns or, on the opposite end, in what are social impact investing. (Yes, they could also put their money into charity but, at the moment, I was discussing INVESTING the money, meaning that they intend to earn a return from that money.)

AND, you see, ownership of shares or land etc. is also wealth. IF you have a company owner who takes good care of all stakeholders - employees, shareholders, lenders, customers and community - you would say that wealth in HIS hands is better than the same company's ownership being transferred to a less responsible consortium.

Benevolence, as in Tiru's words, need not necessarily mean that the person distributes largesse from out of his wealth. Even a responsible handling of wealth could well count as benevolence and wealth in such hands is of more use to society than otherwise. (One needs mention that if those benevolent hands are also capable hands, which create more value addition THEN the case for such wealth is inviolable.)

Of course, it would be icing on the cake if that person exhibits true benevolence by way of also doing charity.

Tiru, thus, does not seem like he is a blind votary of Communism! Before you start redistributing wealth in Society, he would have you check on whether the wealth is doing more good where it is!

Monday, March 11, 2024

Win the world?

This thing about timing is something every philosopher goes gaga about. Call it timing, call it luck, it seems all the same. The guy who loses out calls it bad luck that his timing was off. (You know, the product was ahead of its time and all that.) The guy who wind lauds his own ability to time his actions. Luck? There's no such thing like luck in the lexicon of he who succeeds! Even Billy the bard adds his couple of words to this timing thing with his "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune" thus mixing up action and luck all in one quote allowing you to pick what you choose to do...whether it is luck that caused the tide in your affairs OR your super-ability to take it at the flood which lead on to fortune.

Well, you cannot expect Tiru to not put his oar in on timing. After all, the chap IS a philosopher, and it is de rigueur for philosophers to talk of timing.

Gnaalam karudhinum kaikoodum kaalam karudhi idatthaar seyin - Tirukkural

You can even conquer the world if you attempt at the right time and right place - Loose Translation

As a piece of advice that says 'Nothing is impossible' I'd say that this couplet is useful. It is also true that to attempt anything one needs to ensure that the timing of your actions is right and, perhaps, in a a lot of cases, you also need to ensure that the place where you act needs to be right as well. (I mean, like, you'd not be trying to be the King of Fertilizers by opening your first retail shop in Delhi's Connaught Place OR Mumbai's Marine Drive, now, would you?) So far so good.

The problem is that you cannot take this world domination theme very seriously, in my opinion. THAT part is more like economics. AFTER someone achieved world dominion, be it Alexander or Jeff Bezos, you can dissect his success and find why it was right timing and placement that got him there. The problem is that you cannot PLAN it. When you assess success your sample size is those of the winners and it seems like they all managed to time their actions well. The number of people who failed at the same thing earlier tends to get obscured and, if taken into account, would underscore the difficulty of achieving that timing so well.

Which is not to say that you should never try anything big; or to say that it is impossible to get proper timing and placement in ANYTHING. The fact is that, in most things it IS possible with some thought to time things so that you maximize your chances of success (Like, if you can, timing your travel during the day could get you across Bangalore without getting stuck in a traffic jam :) ). AND, when you are attempting something big, it is advisable to keep an eye out to check whether the time is not favoring your action and be ready with course correction plans.

The point IS that timing and placement are important. To the extent possible, you need to get them right. AND be prepared to course correct in case it seems that you got them wrong. THEN you could possibly win the world!

Monday, March 4, 2024

Blemishless?

You know, it's a rather tempting thing for people to think that a leader is someone who can do no wrong. Leaders, too, would love to consider someone - a friend, a follower or a trusted adviser - who can be trusted to always be right in what they say. It is such a stress to always to assessing issues, weighing one person's opinion versus another's and so on. Much easier to be able to vest the burden of your decision-making on the judgment of one person and leave it at that.

Tiru, though, does not allow you that luxury. Here he goes with his couplet against the idea: 

Ariya kattru Aasattraar kannum theriumkaal inmain aridhe veliru - Tirukkural

Even he who is learned in even the rare scriptures and is free from faults, when carefully examined, will not prove totally free of ignorance - Loose Translation

There you go. Essentially, perfection is not given to mortals. The point that Tiru is making here is not merely that. It is, quite likely, a cautionary statement about the fact that the most learned and trustworthy of your advisers can be wrong at times.

Which, essentially, means that you SHOULD take advice from multiple sources anyway and not rely on only one adviser. IF, perchance, he IS the only person who can advise you on a certain issue, you SHOULD filter even his advice through your own judgment. AND, when you have acted on the advice, you need to still take routine feedback on the results of the actions and be prepared to change course if necessary. In other words, no matter how much you trust the adviser, your attitude cannot be one of taking a decision with certainty merely because of who you got you advice from; you CAN take the decision in accordance to the advice but you should also take all the precautions that you would take for a decision taken in uncertain circumstances.

The same applies if YOU are the follower. Blind obedience to a leader can lead to the downfall of both you and your leader. More often than not, only you! Even your leader, no matter how great, can be wrong at times and it behooves you to be aware of the possibility.

Perfection is not given to mortals, yes. But you CAN be a perfect idiot especially when you trust someone else to BE perfect!

Monday, February 26, 2024

Listen well, speak well?

It's a rather archaic thing to be speaking of listening these days, I know. I mean, we are all engaged in shouting as loud as we can, expecting to go viral, that we hardly have time to listen to anyone. I mean, it's hard enough to hear yourself think above the din of your own shouting so where's the scope to listen to anyone else? So, yes, this is one of those pieces where we can all go, "So that's how people lived in the old days! How quaint!"

So, what Tiru says in this Kural probably made more sense in his times.

Nunangiya kelviyarallaar vanangiya vaayinar aadhal aridhu - Tirukkural

He who is not a discerning listener very seldom manages to be a polite speaker - Loose Translation

You know, it's very tempting to just understand it as 'You cannot be a capable speaker if you do not have the habit of listening', which is ONE way to interpret this couplet. I mean, after all, if you are being a convincing speaker and are being listened to with respect, you have no need to yell and shout and call people names, all of which will be counter-productive, so you WILL be polite. AND to be a such a speaker you need to have the habit of listening with discernment to all that you hear so that you can not only learn well from what people say but can also understand what they are saying. Including the discernment of what is right in it and what is wrong.

You can see it the other way. IF you are incapable of discernment while listening, you truly do not understand what is being said. In that case, and especially if you are in a debate or argument, you cannot speak politely because the hollowness of your argument is more clearly visible in calm discussions. You tend to bluster and yell so that you can win your point by the sheer volume of your voice. So, yes, if you are not a discerning listener, it is tough to be a polite speaker.

Of course, there is this problem as well of not truly understanding what the other person has said, because you did not properly listen, and getting angry because you misunderstand his position totally and go into a screaming fit. More often than not, discussions turn into screaming matches because one person fails to listen to the other properly and starts attacking him personally (what we call ad hominem attacks) because he cannot attack the other guy's points since he did not even understand them. (Oh, yeah, I AM talking about well-meaning discussions. Ad hominem attacks CAN also happen because the listener understood the point all too well, has no counter to it, and tries to win the discussion by converting the debate into a quarrel!)

So, you see, Tiru can convey too many things with just a couple of lines. Though, yes, about archaic abilities like listening which, apparently, Homo Sapiens once had!