In modeling the behavior of the coolness-seekers, you put them in a less cool position.
It might be a good move in some contexts, but I feel resistant to taking on this picture, or recommending others take it on. It seems like making the same mistake. Focusing on the object level because you want to be [cool in that you focus on the object level], that does has the positive effect of focusing on the object level, but I think also can just as well have all the bad effects of trying to be in the Inner Ring. If there’s something good about getting into the Inner Ring, it should be unpacked, IMO. On the face of it, it seems like mistakenly putting faith in there being an Inner Ring that has things under control / knows what’s going on / is oriented to what matters. If there were such a group it would make sense to apprentice yourself to them, not try to trick your way in.
Exactly this. The whole point of the Inner Ring (which I did not read, but judging by the review and my knowledge of Lewis/Christian thought and virtue ethic) is that you should aim at the goods that are inherent to your trade or activity (i.e., if you are a coder, writing good code), and not care about social goods that are associated with the activity. Lewis then makes a second claim (which is really a different claim) that you will also reach social goods through sincerely pursuing the inherent goods of your activity.
You can write the best code in the world, but the Wikipedia page for “people who write the best code in the world” will only mention the members of the Inner Ring.
Unless you are of course so good that everyone knows you, in which case they will add you to that Wikipedia page. They will however not add the person who is the second best coder in the world. The list of “top five coders in the world” will include you, plus four Inner Ring members.
So the second claim is kinda yes, kinda no—yes, you can reach the social goods exclusively through sincerely pursuing the inherent goods, but you must work twice as hard.
It might be a good move in some contexts, but I feel resistant to taking on this picture, or recommending others take it on. It seems like making the same mistake. Focusing on the object level because you want to be [cool in that you focus on the object level], that does has the positive effect of focusing on the object level, but I think also can just as well have all the bad effects of trying to be in the Inner Ring. If there’s something good about getting into the Inner Ring, it should be unpacked, IMO. On the face of it, it seems like mistakenly putting faith in there being an Inner Ring that has things under control / knows what’s going on / is oriented to what matters. If there were such a group it would make sense to apprentice yourself to them, not try to trick your way in.
Exactly this. The whole point of the Inner Ring (which I did not read, but judging by the review and my knowledge of Lewis/Christian thought and virtue ethic) is that you should aim at the goods that are inherent to your trade or activity (i.e., if you are a coder, writing good code), and not care about social goods that are associated with the activity. Lewis then makes a second claim (which is really a different claim) that you will also reach social goods through sincerely pursuing the inherent goods of your activity.
You can write the best code in the world, but the Wikipedia page for “people who write the best code in the world” will only mention the members of the Inner Ring.
Unless you are of course so good that everyone knows you, in which case they will add you to that Wikipedia page. They will however not add the person who is the second best coder in the world. The list of “top five coders in the world” will include you, plus four Inner Ring members.
So the second claim is kinda yes, kinda no—yes, you can reach the social goods exclusively through sincerely pursuing the inherent goods, but you must work twice as hard.