Thursday, April 30, 2009

Redirection

I'd like to begin a new post, and redirect the previous conversation away from all the insanity. I think that my original post greatly defected from what I was originally trying to say by quoting the song, and I'm surprised that so many people jumped on the insanity thing and passed right over the ideas at the beginning. I think that exploring what is at the center of our lives is much more important than exploring the definition of insanity, because what we place at the center could very well be the thing that drives us insane (or, more accurately, that takes us from what is important and, as my mother said, "makes us miserable."). Our center could also complete us and make us better human beings.

Then there’s the idea of absolute truth and faith in truth. This has always been something I’ve struggled with. For instance, we accept that what has been told to us about history is true, because books say that it is, people say that it is, but we could not know that unless we went out and researched ourselves through first-hand sources (which, on my part, would also include carbon dating), artifacts and, perhaps, accounts of those who were there. However, I have better things to do with my time, so I must take for granted that what I am being told is true.

Likewise, when I was a Christian, I accepted that what was in the Bible was truth because I was told it was truth. It took no faith on my part, however, to believe that the Bible itself was true, it took faith for me to believe that what my parents (half of them, anyhow) and Sunday school teachers were telling me was true. Once I realized that those people were fallible (oh so fallible), I lost my faith in people and had to put my faith elsewhere, which is, partly, where the breakdown came from. The other part came from dissenting opinions and beliefs from this subjective truth that I was offered. First, through my father, then from a respected college professor. I began to question all supposed truths that I had been taught. Some approximate truths, like history, I was forced to quit and accept, because I had neither the resources nor the time to explore those particular truths. I did, however, have ample time to explore my personal beliefs, which have ended up in a completely different place from where they began.

To clear something up, though, I do not have the same beliefs of my father, nor of that college professor. I have found my own path, my own truths, and I consider them, to quote Jefferson, to be self-evident, but I have no illusions that they could possibly be the truth of others. I am sure that there are some absolute truths (though what they are I couldn’t tell you), but truth, like everything else in the universe, is in constant flux as we grow as a species and as a universe. This means that things are changing. What was true yesterday might not be true today, and we are also constantly finding flaws in what we thought was true (which includes history, science, math, and a whole slew of other things). What I like about knowledge in comparison to faith is that it allows for a margin of error, of transformation. It allows the mind to be open to everything, closed to nothing. It establishes not truth, but possibility. That, rather than faith, is what gives me hope. It makes up my center.

6 comments:

  1. It sounds like your advocating situational ethics, yes? It is true that "scientific facts" do change, but that doesn't address moral issues. I believe that you must have some absolute standard of moral truth or things get skewed to who knows where.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But every culture has a different standard of moral truth, so how could that be absolute?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do they? I don't think so. In every culture lying, cheating, murder, etc. are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do not think that is entirely accurate. In some cultures children can be murdered by their parents, wives can be murdered by their husbands, and criminals are murdered for murdering others. In our own culture their is debate over whether things like lying, cheating, and murder are wrong. We make movies portraying people who kill criminals as heroes because it's okay as long as they have it coming to them, we rank lies based on an arbitrary scale and decide that some are okay while some are not, it is okay to tell someone a lie if it makes them feel good about themselves, it is okay to lie if it doesn't hurt anyone, it is okay to call in sick to work even when you are not ill. So are even those very basic morals absolute? Some would contend that morality is evolutionarily based, that we have developed morals as a result of natural selection caused by some evolutionary force. Some would say that we are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with those related to us because of morality but biological studies have shown that it is embedded in our DNA, that the pheromones put off by our relatives physically repulse us. In this way nature prevents close relatives from breeding and weakening the gene pool. This is just one example but I think most things come down to science, even morals and ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brava! I couldn't have said it any better myself. All morality is subjective, whether it's individual, cultural or species-wide (sometimes, even, morality is time-based, such as the period of time in which the moralist was born).

    I would be fascinated to see what other sentient species would think about us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I found something, somewhat related, that I thought you'd enjoy.
    http://deoxy.org/pkd_how2build.htm
    He gets a little preachy for my taste (and if you skip to the middle you'll think he is out of his mind), but whether you believe him or not, it's an interesting read. At least read the "I am the brand name" part.

    ReplyDelete