I am quite impressed by this sentence, by Hitler.
Many times in our life, we intend to do something. We plan for it, and we try to execute our plan to realize the goal that we set. At the end, it does not matter how you start it, how you go through it; what matters is whether the goal is reached.
There is another kind of saying that we should enjoy the process instead of the result. I like the concept also, but, is it an excuse for those who fail to achieve the set goal?
There is an action implied by Hitler in this sentence: Keep silent and not to explain. For him, it seems that words do not mean anything. Win means win, lose means lose; attempts to justify the works are meaningless. So, does this mean that explanation of works are useless, as the works should have been manifested by themselves?
Personally, I am getting more and more inclined to this direction. I believe more in works, rather than in words. Afterall, it is the works that produce result, not the words. Unless, the words that we speak can bring in some result.
Perhaps, this is the reason why testimony is so important. If you have it, you don't have to explain, and people get convinced. If you don't have it, no matter how hard you try to explain, that will be to no avail.
But then, what is the use of explanation? What is the use of justification over a failure? For me, the answer is-- confidence.
When I was told that surd 2 is not a rational number, I didn't believe it. Even when I told others about this, I didn't have confidence until I PROVE it. That proof is an explanation.
When I was told that integrating 1/x dx yields log x, I didn't believe it. It was the book Calculus that taught me how they arrive at this result. The teaching is an explanation.
Now, you are told that E = mc^2. Empirically, the equation holds, but, how do you know that there is no counterexample? Yet, why are people believing that the equation is true? Eistein did not prove it, did he? Does it mean that, his equation holds, so he wins, he doesn't need to explain (prove)? We believe that it is true, because of our confidence in Einstein's brilliance?
Another one, financial model. Black Scholes formula values the options using six estimated parameters. When the valued option is not equivalent to the market price, the analysts claim that it is because of the volatility; the volatility used in the market is different from the volatility that we use. We should use "implied volatility" in the market to price the option. O, well, if this is the case, how is the market price of option firstly derived then? While there is no explanation, everybody is using it blindly? Does it mean that, as long as the pricing doesn't cause any problem SO FAR, then it shouldn't be explored any further? If this is the case, what is Black Scholes formula for? To serve as... benchmark? Is benchmark not for confidence?
In actuarial jobs, an actuary might apply a model. There are basically hundreds of models. So, the actuary "randomly" select a model. The boss asks him, why this model? He craps for hours, and the boss is convinced. What has actually happened? Is model a prediction of the future? If not, then why is the boss convinced? I guess, because of the hours of craps, the boss has gained confidence?
Another one, even physical model used by engineers. When a civil engineer builds a model for a house, they calculate the weight, the stress, the pressure, the heat limit, the sheer force, etc. If after 10 years, the building is still standing firmly, does it mean that the engineer has calculated everything rightly? Or, if a building falls because of an earthquake, that says that the engineer has done the calculation wrongly? If it would fall, why then was the building approved to be constructed in the first place? Was it not because that the government was confident in the works of the engineer?
It is all about confidence. When we have explanation, we are confident, although the explanation might have some errors also. This leads to another problem: an explanation is no longer an explanation, instead, it becomes a justification.
"Why are you late?" "Because I didn't feel well this morning. I had a 'morning sickness' ".
"Why are you late?" "Because I am lazy and I wanted to sleep a bit longer".
What is the difference? Explanation? Or justification? If you are the boss, and you hold what Hitler said, you would punish this person. But if you do not hold his concept, then how do you discern explanation and justification? Are you confident (Do you believe) in the words of your worker? So, regardless of whether or not it is an explanation or justification, you believe it or not, the fact remains the same: He is late, and his job is left undone.
Well, from romance comics or novel, the woman likes to ask the man, do you love me? Will you [fill in the blank] when [fill in the blank] if [fill in the blank]? Well, sometimes, the guy doesn't have to think so much. Why? Because these words are just for confident-building purpose! That "ifs" and "whens" might not happen at all! But for girls, how much confidence do you gain from his "I am willing"? Does his saying of those words actually imply that he will really do that if the "ifs" and "whens" happen? (if no... then why you ask? =.=|| ) Again, it is because of confidence. Man says it to build the confidence of the girl toward the guy; girl asks (and listens) to build her own confidence to the guy. Anything happen? Nothing. Just an exchange of few words.
What am I doing here? Explaining the words of Hitler? Am I giving anyone more confidence toward his words?