Thought: Episode 2

2. What is worse, failing or never trying?

This questions sucks and has an obvious answer. But despite the obviousness of the answer, it raises the point of why do people not try?

When reading this question, I sort of responded as I would to an interview question, which is: what is the answer that they want to hear? It seems as though there is only one 'correct' option, which is saying that never trying is worse. But people still do it. Failing is hard, it's true, but it has to be seen as an inevitable part of life. I think I struggle with this too, I mean, there are lots of things I'm no good at. but because I'm good at things, I tend to avoid the other things I can't do... which is equivalent to never trying. Arguably I've failed at them in the past and therefore have done my trying, and am in the region of 'failing' in the venn diagram of this question, but I don't think knowing my limits makes me a worse person.

I'm sure I always try my hardest. Whoever wrote this question definitely meant it to convince people, or make them convince themselves, that they should not be afraid of failure because even thogh it has more immediate, direct consequences, the consequences of never trying are worse.

Thought: Episode 1

I don't think I think enough. I want to remedy this.

I found a blog that claims it contains '50 questions to free your mind', and so I want to blog an answer to each of them. Well, not an answer, but my thoughts. You see? So let's begin. I'm kind of nervous!

1. How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you are?

Okay, my initial though is that you would be as old as you feel. But I now remember that everyone feels like they are about 18, and that they never age. So you'd have to take a look at yourself and guess based on how you look. If you didn't know how old you were, I'm assuming it would have to be because of amnesia because otherwise you'd have a vague idea based on how many years you remember living, along with people you grew up with maybe being able to help you. Age is a fact, because you can't change how old you are (other than ageing)- that is to say that you can't change your reference point; your birthday. It would also depend on your units.

If you don't know when you were born, ergo how old you are, it would only matter if you cared about it, or if other people cared about it, otherwise you're just an entity. Age is one of the least important aspects of a person, as it is just a scalar quantity. It doesn't have any meaning. It has the implied meaning of experience, but that's a different quantity. It is logical that the longer you have lived, the more you learn, so if you know a lot, then you must be older than someone who has not learned very much. A similar quality would be naivety. Having said this, I am sure it is possible to learn very little. But I refuse to believe that people can grow up and learn nothing, even if they learn about mundane things, like the names of characters in TV programmes, or what days the rubbish is cleared out. What you know is not significant in an age sense. It's the depth to which you know it.

So my answer to this question would be: you are as old as the knowledge you have accumulated.

I wonder where this view stands?