Shokunin -noun Craftsman, artisan.

I’ve been reading Japanese Woodworking Tools: Their Tradition, Spirit, and Use and this has caused me to start thinking about the connection we have to the tools we use to live out lives. This post is a little jotting down of my current thoughts on the topic.

The author, Toshio Odate explains that a simple definition of the shokunin cannot express the deeper meaning of the word. The shokunin is much more than a exemplary artisan. Odate describes it as follows:

The Japanese apprentice is taught that shokunin means not only having technical skill, but also implies an attitude and social consciousness. [...] The shokunin demonstrates knowledge of tools and skill with them, the ability to create beauty and the capacity to work with incredible speed. The value of an object is dependent on a subtle combination of skill and speed [...] In short, the pride of the shokunin is the simultaneous achievement of skill and speed. One without the other is not shokunin.

Reading this book, I am slowly learning about the shokunin and the way they conduct themselves and their work. In light of this, as I reflect on my own work, I find it quite lacking in many areas. One of these is the connection we have with our tools.

Read more »

How else do you get a dog to do this? …

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziDeUbifKIM[/youtube]

Check out more of Tyson’s adventures.

The synoptic gospels are those of Matthew, Mark and Luke (John was written much later is very different in style and content.) Scholars generally agree that much of Matthew and Luke is derived from the earlier Mark gospel. Matthew and Luke also share some stories which are not found in Mark, pointing to a possible second source – Q.

This is what is called the “Synoptic Problem.” Where do each of these gospels derive their content? Which parts are shared, which parts are unique?

The solution

The age old problem of identifying the 2nd literary source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke has finally been solved. Visit Locusts & Honey for the answer.

Hat tip to Signposts.

In my previous post, we explored a pretty straight-forward scenario. The decision whether to sacrifice the one to save the many is a relatively simple one. When we come to more loaded issues such as abortion and euthanasia, the decision people make is highly polarised. It is usually heavily influenced on their religious beliefs.

A new scenario
So, to get away from the effects religion has on making moral decisions, a woman named Judy Thompson created the following scenario:

A woman wakes up one day and there’s a man lying in bed next to her. Another man walks up to her and says, “look I’m terribly sorry, we’re from The Society of Music Lovers, the man lying next to you in bed is a world famous violinist, he’s in kidney failure and I hope you don’t mind, we’ve plugged him into your kidney. If you stay plugged in for the next nine months he will survive and you will save the world’s greatest violinist.”

What would you do? Is it morally permissible for the woman to unplug herself from the violinist? Most people would agree that it is. The woman had no choice in the matter.

The similarity of this situation is similar to that of a pregnant woman where the violinist/fetus required the woman for it’s survival. The difference is that there is no commitment requirement from the “host”.

Let’s change the scenario slightly...

She says, “sure, let’s stay plugged in”. So for two months she makes the commitment. To make IT really like the abortion case, the violinist is unconscious, so her commitment is to the guy from The Society of Music Lovers. She stays plugged in for two months and after two months she goes, “this is a drag, I’m unplugging”. So she pulls the plug out and he dies.

Is it morally permissible for the woman to unplug herself from the violinist? Most people would disagree here specifically due to the commitment she made to stay connected.

Does it depend on your religious upbringing?
The interesting thing discussed on the show was that people who differ in their pro-choice/pro-life or religious beliefs did not differ in their judgment on the above situations.

So, why does religion play such a huge part in politics and debates where these scenarios are tested out? What is it about the terms “abortion” and “euthanasia” that cause people to change their moral judgments?

I was listening to an ABC podcast recently called “All In The Mind.” This week, they had an interesting topic on the evolution of human morality. I’ll be writing a little about this over the next few weeks.

Moral dilemma:

Denise is a passenger on an-out-of-control train or trolley. The conductor has fainted and the trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that they won’t be able to get off the track in time. The track has a side track leading off to the left and Denise can turn the trolley onto it. There is, however, one person on the left hand track, Denise can turn the trolley killing the one, or she can refrain from flipping the switch letting the five die.

What should she do? Is it morally permissible for Denise to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

Now consider this change:

There’s a man standing next to you who’s heavy, and if you push this man onto the track he’s heavy enough that he will stop the trolley, killing him but saving the five.

What do you do?
In the initial scenario, I chose what 90% of the population would also do – kill the one person to save the five.

If you opted to sacrifice the one to save the many, then the second scenario should pose no logical difference. Right? Well you’d be wrong. Interestingly, only 10% of people would push the guy out in this scenario. A complete turn-around.
What happened? Why would people act so differently given two scenarios which have exactly the same outcome?