Good judgment

The toughest call for a leader is judging people. If you do not want to die of stress, you need to know who to give a job to AND not worry yourself into an early grave about whether it will be messed up after you hand over the responsibility. You cannot do it all yourself either; not unless your leadership role is merely honorary. To trust people's sense of responsibility, to trust people's integrity, to trust people's abilities, to trust...you get the picture. You first understand that 'Do you trust me?' IS the most idiotic (OR manipulative) question because it begs the question 'Trust what? Your discretion, your integrity, your loyalty to me, your abilities,...?' AND you have to assess people on what they can be trusted with and what not.

Tiru has this to say about judging people.

Gunam naadi kutramum naadi avatrul migai naadi mikka kolal - Tirukkural

Assess the virtues and faults of each man, and assess him on the basis of the excess of one over the other - Loose Translation

It is a sad fact of life that no person is perfect. We are all a mixture of various virtues and faults. Nor, indeed, is the definition of a virtue and a fault static. I mean, meticulous attention to detail may be a virtue on an assembly line; but has ANYONE lauded it when their medical advance request is being processed for approval? Dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' while sanctioning money for an emergency operation is unlikely to be considered a virtue. So, yes, circumstances also determine what is a virtue and what a fault.

Tiru is no fan of the sort of leader who seeks perfection. 'One fault and the guy is out' is not his favorite credo. (AND if, indeed, there is any leader who believes in that credo, he will cease to be a leader in jig time unless he is leading an army of drones.) Which does not mean that you should be blind to the faults of the person. Tiru expects you to take on board all his virtues and all his faults; assess whether the virtues outweigh the flaws or not; and THEN assess the person's worth.

You could be a genius and still be considered unworthy as per Tiru's dictum because you are undependable, arrogant and a disruptor. You could be not so intelligent but dependable, meticulous, and dedicated which could make you worthy if you go by Tiru's dictum. So, the assessment of a person is on the balance of his virtues and faults; not on the ABSENCE of faults.

AND, yes, it does not mean that you FORGET the faults even after assessing the person as worthy.You need to keep them in mind while allocating tasks to them. I mean, what's the point in entrusting an R&D job to a person whose strength is meticulously following routine and weakness is in thinking outside the box? OR, for that matter, putting on the assembly line this genius with the attention span of a butterfly?

To lead is to know the worth of people; including a clear idea of what they can be trusted with. And THAT is why you need to know how to judge people.

Companion effects

It is not like you believe - that your beliefs are all your own. I mean, like, who really has the time to learn everything about everything. So, most of what you think you know are things that you have picked up from what those around you state that they know. AND...well, it is not as though THEY have the time to learn everything about everything. And so...

Tiru has this to say about it.

Nilatthiyalbaal neer thirindratthagum maandharkku inaththiyalba dhaagum arivu - Tirukkural

Just as water takes on the qualities of the land it flows through, people take on the knowledge/attitudes/beliefs of their associates - Loose Translation

You can see that clearly demonstrated in the world at large. Like, take education for example. You'll find that some people seem to overrate it and some underrate it. AND it will be a community thing. Like, in the US, Indians (and Chinese?) push their children to heights in education but not the native westerners. The community values education and, as people who like being respected in their society, the members of the community follow suit. Attitudes being driven by the community.

Beliefs are the most common thing that society pushes on you. Religion, for example. THAT's driven into you from birth. So strongly that, later in life, some are willing even to take the lives of followers of other 'false' religions. Despite the fact that the belief did not start out as their own choice. You are born in a certain family, belonging to a certain community and, presto. Take beliefs about whole other communities - as cunning, cruel, whatever - with no personal experience of the same. Are they yours completely by your choice?

The strange thing is that knowledge itself is dependent on associates. I mean, it is not like you support the Pythagoras theorem or oppose it based on who you associate with. When it comes to things like 'Did the Mughals oppress the Hindus?' OR 'Does the US deep state influence Indian elections?' or some such, what are the 'facts' that you know? Yeah, right! Most of what you know is what is being discussed among your associates, none of whom has the time and energy to learn history or analyse geopolitics or whatever is needed for an understanding of that question. And, thus, most of those opinions are likely to be ill-informed opinions. Not to mention the fact that the selection and interpretation of facts is also subject to bias.

Or, in other words, over a period you and your associates end up creating an echo chamber of your own. Now, echo chambers may have existed from the times of Tiru but it is only now, in the times of Social Media, that the echo chambers have been fully proofed against external influences - including facts and concepts - that may interfere with the echoes that you so love in that chamber. Perfection, at last!

Useless knowledge?

The problem with dealing with philosophers is that they set high standards for everything. There you are, complacent in the thought that your intelligence is enough to make you seem a shining light to the world. The philosophers pooh-pooh the idea of mere intelligence being enough unless it has been deployed to, at least, acquire knowledge. THEN you flaunt the fact that you have acquired knowledge - and the philosophers get into the act, differentiating between whether you only have information or you have knowledge. At last you HAVE acquired knowledge and THAT's the time they come and tell you why they said 'at least' when they talked of using your intelligence!

So, yes, Tiru has not been left behind in telling you why mere knowledge may be considered useless. As in this...

Arivinaan aaguva dhundo piridhin noi than noi pol potrakkadai - Tirukkural

What use is knowledge if you know not to empathise with other people's suffering? - Loose Translation

So there! But, first, let us get that translation of 'arivu' out of the way. 'Arivu' is a word that CAN translate to just intelligence; can translate to intelligence+knowledge+competence; can translate even to wisdom. Depending on the context. Here, the second translation seems most appropriate to the context.

The obvious understanding of the Kural is that it says that knowledge that does not serve others, and is merely self-serving, is useless. Useless to whom is normally the question and the answer IS useless to society.

In fact, knowledge that is put to the sole use of serving one's own self is actively harmful to society, Adam Smith notwithstanding. Because, those conditions of free markets - one of the MAIN ones being that the players in the markets do not have the power to set and modify the rules by which they play - are too Utopian to achieve in the real world.

Note that I speak of 'sole use of serving one's own interests'. People like that gravitate generally to the rent-seeking end of the economy. You know, like buying up resources cheap due to inside information about value-enhancing govt. action; insider trading etc and so forth. Anyone who does legitimate business has ALSO to think of legitimate needs of Society to address...after all, they need to put out a product or a service.

In addition to that, it is ONLY the knowledgeable people who CAN think of the sufferings of others in quite a few cases. I mean, it is easy enough to know that what the suffering of the other would be if you cheat your neighbor. But, in quite a few things, it is not that easy. When you participate in a stock market scam, it is difficult to visualise the losers and the possible impact on them, right? When you default on a loan, deliberately sometimes, you really do not think of the bank as a sufferer and you have no idea about other sufferers, true? If you grant a subsidy as a politician and, because of that, slow down or stop development, are there sufferers and who are they?

You see, the PURPOSE of a lot of knowledge IS to identify suffering where it is not readily visible, avoid actions leading to that suffering or take action to redress that suffering. If knowledge is not deployed accordingly that knowledge itself may be considered to be useless.

Who said life is easy? Certainly not Tiru!

Lasting Fame

The problem with fame is that it is not easy to get it; it is even tougher to keep it. It is a funny thing with the world that it first pushes you to reach the top. THEN you need to keep running all the time to stay in the same place! It is as though you are in a race up a descending escalator. The moment you stop running you start descending.

Not that it is something new...or so it appears from the fact that Tiru sets tough conditions for clinging on to fame. Like this...

Niraiudaimai neengaamai vendin poraiyudaimai potri ozhugappadum - Tirukkural

If you wish for everlasting fame you need undaunted patience - Loose Translation.

There are a lot of reasons one may need to take recourse to patience. Patience for your work to be rewarded, patience for your work to get DONE by others, patience when DOING the work when haste will make waste, yada yada. The context in which Tiru is talking of patience...as derived from the kurals preceding...is among the toughest of all.

Tiru is talking of patience in dealing with those who would pull you down, who demean you, who hold your ideas and abilities in contempt, who...in short, 90% of the rest of humanity which envies your success or wishes to obstruct it. To deal with those calumnies with tact requires patience; to react with rage puts off others and makes them think that you lack gravitas. I mean, look on ANY interaction between any two people where one is redfaced and screaming while the other is calmly reasoning...which of the two do you respect? (Oh, yes, IF the screamer is your boss OR the boss of the other guy, you may respect him...or, at least pretend to...but that is not on ACCOUNT of the screaming.)

To think that Tiru gave this advice in the days when Social Media was not even a thing! The best way to deal with trolls on SM is not to engage with them...unless you engage with them with humor WHICH requires the aforesaid patience. If you cannot keep your cool when you read troll messages, you will soon lose respect. Because when you see TWO people screaming, you hardly take the time out to verify who started it; you tend to disrespect them both.

There you are. There is no rest for the wicked...OR the famous. You need to keep running all the time. Patiently!