Another entry already?!
Please ignore the fact that every post I seem to make is 2am or later! I do truly appreciate those of you who keep up with my seemingly sporadic blog updates. I do intend to post more regularly. So that's that. Let's get you lovely people thinking about something!
Have you ever had a moment where you were really sure about something, only to find out that you never understood it in the first place? That realization can either be a really amazing eye opening experience, or make you feel like a total idiot. Sometimes you aren't even really sure which one it is right away.
To give you a really dumb example of this...I thought the word 'definite' was spelled 'definATE' for the longest time! The damn spellchecker tried to correct what was clearly in my mind to be the correct spelling of the word. Sometime last year, it was brought to my attention via a friend proofreading my essay that it was in fact spelled 'definite'. I might have even looked it up on wikipedia to be sure. Sadly, I was wrong.
Why is it so hard to admit when we are wrong anyway? There is so much we don't know about one another, the world around us, even ourselves that surely it must be more likely that we are wrong than right to begin with! Then there is that small issue of the relativity of truth. Based on exactly the same information, someone might look someone else in the eye and say "this is how it is!". The other person might see what the person's point was, but say "well, for me it is like this..." Who is right and who is wrong? Does it really matter?
I guess it comes down to whether or not the two individual truths in this scenario are ultimately conflictual with each other. If a person shares a similar viewpoint with another, they are less likely to feel as passionately about the acceptance of one truth over another. Then again, due to any past experiences the two individuals have shared, truth might become part of a larger context that has little to do with the current circumstances. The acceptance of one truth over another could become more important, more conflictual then the isolated incident itself.
Where people draw the line between examination of the dispute of truth within the current context versus an influential past experience really determines the strength or weakness of someone's character. If the past experience is simply too strong for whatever reason, fear of its repitition through the current debate of truth will probably mean the person is unable to accept that current situation. You could either view this as a rather selfish self-defense methodology that excludes past bias, or a strong upholding of one's convictions and recognizing a need to move away from the past experience through refusing to submit to similar future confrontations.
Settling simple differences in opinion is something that most people are not very good at(myself included). So what do we do? One solution could be the acceptance that there is no ultimate truth; to submit to the rule of truth's relativity. In the process, we must give up the idea that our truth can be held above anyone else's. Not an easy thing to do! It also means that everyone's construction of truth could be considered equal. This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. It is a slipperly slope that leads to the possible justification of truly terrible things: such as the greatness of STATS.
Another possible solution could be the partial universalization of truth(much like the idea of universal human rights. Handy dandy connection there eh?) As per usual, there are also oh so many limitations to this idea as well. Who decides where relative truth should be deemed inappropriate in favour of a universal truth? You have to truly question the existence of such a position of power. In the wrong hands, we are pretty much fucked. You could also say that maybe people have too much control over the conceptualization of truth. Given the heartbreaking events that occur daily(AIDS crisis, genocide, STATS, etc) The world might benefit from a little less freedom of thought.
I guess that explains why people often just can't get along. It's hard enough to figure out how that would actually be possible. I mean, how scary does "The world might benefit from a little less freedom thought" sound? Reminds me of the idea that you can only do so much to protect people from themselves. I think that people will never really learn about truth, unless they experience its conceptualization, free from any outside interference, but I mean is that really possible? All we can do is try and reconcile viewpoints that differ from our's. Sometimes, no matter how hard we try, that just can't be done.
...but hey, I could be wrong!
Have you ever had a moment where you were really sure about something, only to find out that you never understood it in the first place? That realization can either be a really amazing eye opening experience, or make you feel like a total idiot. Sometimes you aren't even really sure which one it is right away.
To give you a really dumb example of this...I thought the word 'definite' was spelled 'definATE' for the longest time! The damn spellchecker tried to correct what was clearly in my mind to be the correct spelling of the word. Sometime last year, it was brought to my attention via a friend proofreading my essay that it was in fact spelled 'definite'. I might have even looked it up on wikipedia to be sure. Sadly, I was wrong.
Why is it so hard to admit when we are wrong anyway? There is so much we don't know about one another, the world around us, even ourselves that surely it must be more likely that we are wrong than right to begin with! Then there is that small issue of the relativity of truth. Based on exactly the same information, someone might look someone else in the eye and say "this is how it is!". The other person might see what the person's point was, but say "well, for me it is like this..." Who is right and who is wrong? Does it really matter?
I guess it comes down to whether or not the two individual truths in this scenario are ultimately conflictual with each other. If a person shares a similar viewpoint with another, they are less likely to feel as passionately about the acceptance of one truth over another. Then again, due to any past experiences the two individuals have shared, truth might become part of a larger context that has little to do with the current circumstances. The acceptance of one truth over another could become more important, more conflictual then the isolated incident itself.
Where people draw the line between examination of the dispute of truth within the current context versus an influential past experience really determines the strength or weakness of someone's character. If the past experience is simply too strong for whatever reason, fear of its repitition through the current debate of truth will probably mean the person is unable to accept that current situation. You could either view this as a rather selfish self-defense methodology that excludes past bias, or a strong upholding of one's convictions and recognizing a need to move away from the past experience through refusing to submit to similar future confrontations.
Settling simple differences in opinion is something that most people are not very good at(myself included). So what do we do? One solution could be the acceptance that there is no ultimate truth; to submit to the rule of truth's relativity. In the process, we must give up the idea that our truth can be held above anyone else's. Not an easy thing to do! It also means that everyone's construction of truth could be considered equal. This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. It is a slipperly slope that leads to the possible justification of truly terrible things: such as the greatness of STATS.
Another possible solution could be the partial universalization of truth(much like the idea of universal human rights. Handy dandy connection there eh?) As per usual, there are also oh so many limitations to this idea as well. Who decides where relative truth should be deemed inappropriate in favour of a universal truth? You have to truly question the existence of such a position of power. In the wrong hands, we are pretty much fucked. You could also say that maybe people have too much control over the conceptualization of truth. Given the heartbreaking events that occur daily(AIDS crisis, genocide, STATS, etc) The world might benefit from a little less freedom of thought.
I guess that explains why people often just can't get along. It's hard enough to figure out how that would actually be possible. I mean, how scary does "The world might benefit from a little less freedom thought" sound? Reminds me of the idea that you can only do so much to protect people from themselves. I think that people will never really learn about truth, unless they experience its conceptualization, free from any outside interference, but I mean is that really possible? All we can do is try and reconcile viewpoints that differ from our's. Sometimes, no matter how hard we try, that just can't be done.
...but hey, I could be wrong!
posted by Ianis Maximus at 2:40 AM
1 Comments:
Thats a pretty good article, Ian, and it hits a good note that one sees in both of my areas of study - psyc and philosophy - that both extremes of an issue are potentially dangerous, and it is pretty hard to figure out where to draw the line betweem them, to make a nice, clean balance. Of course, you can't please everyone. I think the PROBLEM, however, comes when we sit here in our wealthy countries, making broad, sweeping claims about the nature of human morality. Before I would ever be comfortable accepting these things, I think you need to SEE the world in all its highs and its lows - experience a few other cultures, especially the Islamic ones, and the less than wealthy African ones - then you can get an understanding about what people value, and how they come to the very conclusions that its a great idea to have a genocide, and then start to figure out how to convince people NOT to follow these lunatics
That said, I think a starting place is education - if I could convince everyone in the world (people with certain SEVERE psychological problems aside) that human beings were PEOPLE just like them, I think it would be a lot harder to commit these genocides. Its when the guy holding the gun sees his/her victim as an animal, or in general inferior that you get them even able to conceive of torturing them. That's why the Americans like dropping bombs on people, rather than looking them in the eye as they kill them.
- Andrew-behind-Ian's-wall
Post a Comment
<< Home