Ah, well, this is a question that, on the surface, leads to the latter choice as an answer. But that assumes honest mistakes, made with the intention the results would be beneficial without harm to others. . A life of not learning from mistakes is a mistake itself. Then there are personalities that produce urges to do things one knows are not wise, but force themselves out. (A Tourette-type nastiness? A serial troublemaker?) Suppose Hitler had done nothing. Or Stalin. Or school-age bullies?
I just finished reading the Freeh Statement concerning PSU. The report condemns PSU authorities for 14 years of doing nothing which totaled to an all-encompassing mistake in each of their individual lifetimes. I can only wonder what other times these men in authority did nothing.
Rethinking the i original quote/question, I suppose it was intended to be a restatement of the philosophy that it is better to try than to sit back and let life flow around you - to participate in living. I'm pretty certain Teddy Roosevelt talked about this. While the men at Penn State did not take part in reporting the situation, I don't know if this, though reprehensible, constitutes doing nothing. Presented with a situation, they made a decision to actively keep quiet.
Ack! I have fallen into the sterile world of debate semantics - definitions of terms and all that. It is an entertaining exercise, but one that can take the focus off of reality.
Interesting. The men of Penn State did do something by chosing to do nothing. In this case making a mistake was doing nothing. In the case of Hitler, doing nothing would have saved millions of lives by not making what we, not he, see as a mistake.
This could become very convoluted. Don't you just love semantics. Cause of more international disputes than anything else....
Comments (5)
Ah, well, this is a question that, on the surface, leads to the latter choice as an answer. But that assumes honest mistakes, made with the intention the results would be beneficial without harm to others. . A life of not learning from mistakes is a mistake itself. Then there are personalities that produce urges to do things one knows are not wise, but force themselves out. (A Tourette-type nastiness? A serial troublemaker?) Suppose Hitler had done nothing. Or Stalin. Or school-age bullies?
I just finished reading the Freeh Statement concerning PSU. The report condemns PSU authorities for 14 years of doing nothing which totaled to an all-encompassing mistake in each of their individual lifetimes. I can only wonder what other times these men in authority did nothing.
Rethinking the i original quote/question, I suppose it was intended to be a restatement of the philosophy that it is better to try than to sit back and let life flow around you - to participate in living. I'm pretty certain Teddy Roosevelt talked about this. While the men at Penn State did not take part in reporting the situation, I don't know if this, though reprehensible, constitutes doing nothing. Presented with a situation, they made a decision to actively keep quiet.
Ack! I have fallen into the sterile world of debate semantics - definitions of terms and all that. It is an entertaining exercise, but one that can take the focus off of reality.
Interesting. The men of Penn State did do something by chosing to do nothing. In this case making a mistake was doing nothing. In the case of Hitler, doing nothing would have saved millions of lives by not making what we, not he, see as a mistake.
This could become very convoluted. Don't you just love semantics. Cause of more international disputes than anything else....
Thanks for the thought-filled comments!
Comments are closed.