Consistency
I've already raised the issue of Human Bias, but an issue that is more concerning (though less fundamental) is Consistency. People find it hard to maintain consistency in their beliefs; in fact, I would go so far as to say that many people have no idea what their true beliefs are. Lots of people take one issue at a time, and respond emotively towards that issue.
Sadistic and whimsical as I am, I find it easy to manipulate people based on my choice of words when presenting an issue. Though I do this for sheer amusement, there are many that do this to control the populace; namely, governments. I dare say that most of the time my motives are in fact genuine. I enjoy encouraging people to defy their programmed thoughts and reactions; and if there so happens to be an element of subversion to boot, then who am I to deny it?
Let us though put aside those amongst us who are sheep, and concentrate on the rest of us who actually think. Do you have a consistent belief system? Can you reduce it to a single, governing axiom? You really should try.
For those amongst my audience who are Christian, let me suggest the principle of Compassion. When you examine it closely, compassion is in fact the predominate underlying factor that the New Testament revolves around. Likewise, your axiom should revolve around compassion. This does of course raise some concerns for the more radical amongst you, who wish to put a literal spin on everything contained in the Bible. An axiom such as "Compassion is the highest virtue" says nothing of the existence of Y'shua.
Unfortunately, all too many Christians miss the point of Christianity - the message of compassion, of love and forgiveness - and instead concentrate far too heavily on memorizing 'facts'. All that I can suggest to you, unfortunate, is to free yourself from the burdens of men, and listen to the words of the Christ. (This isn't a plug for Christianity, simply a self-help lesson.)
The truth is (and if you've given considerable thought to Relativism, you will already know this), any belief system, no matter how contradictory, can be justified. This is analogous to saying: in mathematics, any given set of numbers can be represented by a function. So why am I preaching about consistency? When you bring together a given set of somewhat random numbers in mathematics, you define a function. Similarly, when you unify a given set of somewhat random beliefs (the step required for their justification) in philosophy, you create a belief system. What you must ask is: are you certain that this belief system represents you?
It's strange how many people try to find some 'middle-ground'. Most of you would believe in the right of freedom of speech, yet most of you would also believe that people should not speak untruths. These are contradictory beliefs. On the one hand you demand freedom and, by the very notion of it, you demand that truth is relative; yet, on the other hand you demand that some things should not be spoken, by virtue of which truth must be absolute.
As if this is not bad enough, you then debase the entire system by trying to introduce some arbitrary measure of truth! (Oh, you wait for my sermon on Arbitrary!) Can you not see that this endeavour is pointless? That you do not achieve that which you set out to achieve in the first place?
I tend not to put too much weight on quotes, especially those by American presidents, but the following has a deep element of truth and relevance to it. Benjamin Franklin once said: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." In this he captured a specific instance of what I am talking about.
Consider the new laws that our western governments are introducing; they are an abasement of our right to freedom. The purpose of these laws is to provide security, but The Powers That Be (TPTB) have lost sight of what it is that they are meant to be securing: our freedom. I put it to you to examine this case; examine all of the ethical struggles that are in the media today. I guarantee that you will find that the proposed middle-ground is no better than one or other of the extremist solutions. The difference is: if you chose an extremist solution (for example absolute freedom, sacrificing security) then at least your fates would not be in the hands of an arbitrary tribunal.
Sadistic and whimsical as I am, I find it easy to manipulate people based on my choice of words when presenting an issue. Though I do this for sheer amusement, there are many that do this to control the populace; namely, governments. I dare say that most of the time my motives are in fact genuine. I enjoy encouraging people to defy their programmed thoughts and reactions; and if there so happens to be an element of subversion to boot, then who am I to deny it?
Let us though put aside those amongst us who are sheep, and concentrate on the rest of us who actually think. Do you have a consistent belief system? Can you reduce it to a single, governing axiom? You really should try.
For those amongst my audience who are Christian, let me suggest the principle of Compassion. When you examine it closely, compassion is in fact the predominate underlying factor that the New Testament revolves around. Likewise, your axiom should revolve around compassion. This does of course raise some concerns for the more radical amongst you, who wish to put a literal spin on everything contained in the Bible. An axiom such as "Compassion is the highest virtue" says nothing of the existence of Y'shua.
Unfortunately, all too many Christians miss the point of Christianity - the message of compassion, of love and forgiveness - and instead concentrate far too heavily on memorizing 'facts'. All that I can suggest to you, unfortunate, is to free yourself from the burdens of men, and listen to the words of the Christ. (This isn't a plug for Christianity, simply a self-help lesson.)
The truth is (and if you've given considerable thought to Relativism, you will already know this), any belief system, no matter how contradictory, can be justified. This is analogous to saying: in mathematics, any given set of numbers can be represented by a function. So why am I preaching about consistency? When you bring together a given set of somewhat random numbers in mathematics, you define a function. Similarly, when you unify a given set of somewhat random beliefs (the step required for their justification) in philosophy, you create a belief system. What you must ask is: are you certain that this belief system represents you?
It's strange how many people try to find some 'middle-ground'. Most of you would believe in the right of freedom of speech, yet most of you would also believe that people should not speak untruths. These are contradictory beliefs. On the one hand you demand freedom and, by the very notion of it, you demand that truth is relative; yet, on the other hand you demand that some things should not be spoken, by virtue of which truth must be absolute.
As if this is not bad enough, you then debase the entire system by trying to introduce some arbitrary measure of truth! (Oh, you wait for my sermon on Arbitrary!) Can you not see that this endeavour is pointless? That you do not achieve that which you set out to achieve in the first place?
I tend not to put too much weight on quotes, especially those by American presidents, but the following has a deep element of truth and relevance to it. Benjamin Franklin once said: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." In this he captured a specific instance of what I am talking about.
Consider the new laws that our western governments are introducing; they are an abasement of our right to freedom. The purpose of these laws is to provide security, but The Powers That Be (TPTB) have lost sight of what it is that they are meant to be securing: our freedom. I put it to you to examine this case; examine all of the ethical struggles that are in the media today. I guarantee that you will find that the proposed middle-ground is no better than one or other of the extremist solutions. The difference is: if you chose an extremist solution (for example absolute freedom, sacrificing security) then at least your fates would not be in the hands of an arbitrary tribunal.
No comments:
Post a Comment