>>24702620
Integrity to me means abiding by what is acceptable (to me) and what isn't. Humans are all hypocrites when it comes to what is acceptable to them even though we like to pretend we're rational, and systematizers are even bigger hypocrites because rather than accepting that some of their values may not make systematic sense--and who says they have to?--they become so infatuated with their precious systems that they (try to) bend their values to fit it. They end up saying things they don't agree with, or denying things they do, all because it fits their system. Is that not the height of dishonesty? Twitter "tradcaths" are one example; self-reliance for thee, bailouts for me "conservatives" are another; and gay/feminist "muslims" are another. Now you may argue that the fault lies not in systems as a concept, but in specific flawed instances of systems. I'd disagree, to me anything real--the will, one's unique and innate sense of integrity--can't be captured by any logical system, simply because our own philosophies are not systematic nor logical. It's like translating between two very different languages, any translation made will always misrepresent what's there. You can try to torture reality to fit your translation, your system, but it's doomed to be dishonest right from the start.
Put simply, when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
