I have opinions, some of them quite strong, about a wide variety of topics. I have never felt the need for my friends or family to share those opinions, possibly because I am generally acutely aware of the possibility that I might be WRONG. Many of my friends and family have opinions quite different from mine.
As I was growing up, I had one particular friend who had opinions pretty much opposite from me on most topics, yet we had very enjoyable, non-rancorous discussions on these topics. I look back on those discussions quite fondly. The thing that made our discussions so enjoyable, and possibly productive, was honesty, and the absence of "spin". Truth remains truth, whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Marxist, Vegan, or Philatelist. When one of us made a good point, the other would acknowledge that it was a good point. When one of us had a glaring weakness in our position, we would both acknowledge that it was a glaring weakness. When there were facts beyond reasonable dispute, we would both acknowledge that they were facts beyond reasonable dispute.
These characteristics are absent from too many discussions today, especially discussions regarding politics. In politics, both parties commonly mask the truth, and do everything possible to avoid acknowledging that anyone from "the other side" can ever be right about ANYTHING. In fact, people are sometimes reluctant to voice an opinion on an idea before learning the source of that idea -- if it came from someone on "our side", then it can be labeled a good idea; if it came from someone on "the other side", then it must be labeled a bad idea, or at least ignored.
I have strong opinions about politics, but am sometimes reluctant to state them, for fear that those who disagree with me on any one statement will feel compelled to automatically discount my ideas on every statement that follows.
Another problem in discussions is jumping from one topic to another, in an effort to "win" the discussion. For example, if I criticize a particular politician, the politician's defender may respond by criticizing a completely different politician, rather than defending the politician to which I am referring. BOTH politicians may be worthy of criticism, but this approach does little to advance communication. We should both discuss either politician "A" or politician "B". There is little to be gained by one of us talking about apples while the other is talking about oranges.
Then there is the fact that even the best idea may have flaws, or the worst idea may have positive points. There is little to be gained by denying this. Truth is complicated. Few things in life are one hundred percent good or one hundred percent bad, and to argue otherwise impedes true communication, and casts suspicion upon ALL our statements and beliefs.
Finally, there is the fact that for some people, in some circumstances, the goal of discourse is "victory" rather than communication. While this may occasionally be necessary, I find it to be very sad, and I personally have little use for such discourse.
I am not sure I have stated anything here that I have not stated elsewhere in this blog. Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Repetition
I once heard a stand-up comic (unfortunately, I do not recall who it was) doing a very funny routine about the Disney “It’s a Small World” ride. On the actual ride, visitors are carried past animated figures representing children from all over the world, all singing the “It’s a Small World” song. The ride is offers no particular thrills; I would say it is intended to be pleasant or even joyful. The stand-up comic, since he was, after all, a stand-up comic, offered an alternate view, describing it as frightening and demonic, with all those animated children, “all completely different, yet ALL EXACTLY THE SAME.”
Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.
I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.
Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”
I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”
While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.
When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”
I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”
Truth is complicated.
Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.
I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.
Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”
I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”
While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.
When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”
I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)