I remember a conversation I had with a friend where it was pointed out to me that I was naive. It was spoken more elaborately, but the essential gist was that I saw things in absolutes whereas in reality, nothing was absolute. I have always believed that there is right and there is wrong and that every problem has a solution. If you disagree with this, then you might probably call me naive for thinking so.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone with an average intelligence that stupid people tend to oversimplify and overgeneralize in order to understand complex issues. If you do indeed see things in black and white, it’s easy to sort it all out in your head. Therefore, I must assume that my tendency to see right and wrong so clearly is just my brain being lazy. However, it could mean something different. A person’s tendency to see everything as complex and chaotic may be an inability of their own minds to find order and understanding. It’s said that Einstein had a way of connecting seemingly different ideas that allowed him to deduce his brilliant theories. Let’s face it, all knowledge is an ordering of information and if we don’t differentiate somewhere, then it’s all a big chaotic mess.
Personally, I believe in a unified philosophy. That is to say, all the different aspects of philosophy, be they ethics or politics or metaphysics, even art, are (or should be) related. If they aren’t, then they are in contradiction to each other. I don’t think this is a point of contention, but often people just simply ignore what underlies their philosophy, oblivious to the actual implications.
If the world works by natural laws in a predictable fashion, then why should our lives and problems be any different. Just because we don’t know why something happens right now doesn’t mean that some elegant solution doesn’t exist. Let’s take the judicial system, for example. Under normal circumstances, people who harm others are sent to prison. However, what about someone who advocates taking freedoms away from people who may potentially cause harm? You may argue that potential criminals deserve to have some freedoms taken away for the greater good. This implies an underlying philosophy that social rights are more important than individual rights. If that is allowed to permeate, then the spokespeople for society may well impose their will on individuals everywhere. A well-intentioned program to reduce crime has as it’s philosophical basis an idea which is in contradiction to the concept of individual rights as being the most important of any society. This looks like simplification, but I don’t think it is.
While simplifying and generalizing is a sign of mental laziness, it’s also the result of burrowing down to the philosophical roots of an issue in order to judge it’s validity. Notice how two people with different politics will argue. They will talk about the economy, about foreign policy, about birth control, about how the country should be run. What they won’t realize is that they simply disagree in some core assumption. Were they to contront those assumptions, their discussion would be relatively short. Yet there are few politicians who will base their arguments on an underlying philosophy. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Politicians will talk about good intentions, then blame complexity for the failures of their policies. What is usually lacking is a firm principle behind the policy. Principles are what connects your ideas to reality, to the real world around you. You may suppose that public transportation is a right that everyone must have access to, but this is just an assertion unless you can define a moral principle upon which to support it. Other than ”because free stuff is good”.
If the world works by certain rules, then why shouldn’t all the various aspects of our own lives work by similar rules? Psychology, economics, politics, society, relationships, our own bodies are all complex subjects. However, this just means that answers are harder to find. If it all is a bit much to deal with, well I’m sure a little bit of generalization will help you to get started.
Popularity: 2% [?]
