Post by Admin on Oct 30, 2019 23:14:56 GMT
It may be human nature to want to oversimplify things as "good" or "bad", because it's less intellectually strenuous to categorize people, ideas, and events with as little consideration of their complexity as is necessary for us to pass judgment on them without appearing ignorant or bigoted to either ourselves or others. We don't generally like to do more work than we have to, and that includes the work of thinking deeply or doing further research into information presented to us on the nightly news or into things that we are taught in school.
This lazy bent toward the oversimplification of things that aren't one dimensional or black and white, combined with our susceptibility to acting and reacting on emotion over logic, particularly when our emotions are intentionally provoked or appealed to, leads to a kind of irrational, dogmatic approach to people, ideas and events that is a barrier to logic and intellectual discussion, and to the knowledge, wisdom, and good ideas that might result from these.
Allow me to use a very simple example to demonstrate what I am trying to explain; a single name: Adolf Hitler.
That name has come to symbolize and become synonymous with evil incarnate---worse than Satan himself. To be compared to Hitler is to be called the cruelest, most deranged and despicable specimen of humanity.
I'm not trying to make light of any of Adolf Hitler's twisted ideas or immoral actions, or of his war crimes, whatever they may or may not have been. I'm simply using his name to demonstrate the phenomenon of oversimplification that is used to justify the categorization of people and events and ideas as all good or all bad in such a way that even the suggestion that there might be more to them than what we have been taught is a black mark on our own character.
I think it's entirely fair to make a generalization about a person based on something exceptionally good or bad that he or she may have done, and that the amount and degree of good should be weighed against the same of bad when making such generalizations about "good" and "bad" people.
But here is my objection, simply put: When a person does or says something wrong, should he or she be branded for eternity as evil, so that nothing he or she has done previously or will do subsequently will be taken into consideration objectively? What is the board of judgment that decides who will be condemned forever and for what? And what will happen to you or to me if we find ourselves on the wrong side of their opinion?
If you express an idea that I don't agree with, I will address your idea. I may address your character also if I believe it to be relevant to the idea. But I won't dismiss what you have to say merely because I have a dislike of you for some reason, even if my dislike of you is based on something evil that you have done. I can still hear and assess what you are saying without being distracted by emotions.
According to the black and white view of the world held by so many people on both the Right and the Left, anyone labeled as a bigot of some kind, or an animal abuser, or some other thing that provokes an emotional response that overrides rational thought, can no longer say anything worth hearing or do anything good. He or she is just evil. Period.
And likewise, on the other hand, the favored person who does or says something admirable that wins him or her the praise and approval of the masses (with the help of social media and the msm and the public school curriculum perhaps) can do no wrong; or, if he or she does err, the sin will be minimized and forgiven, even rationalized and justified---no matter how egregious the error might actually be.
This is what I object to; making one dimensional caricatures out of complex people, whether good or bad. Because the Nazis, for example, did a lot of bad things, for which they are and should be condemned, we can't talk about any of the good things that they may have done or stood for. They were purely evil; and anyone who suggests otherwise is nearly as evil. I DO have a problem with that. And not because I'm a secret fan of Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. I just have a very objective and critical mind.
The ancient Romans did a lot of terrible things, as did other civilizations at various points in world history, but we don't think of them as pure evil, and we still read and discuss and admire many of their intellectual, artistic and architectural works. We acknowledge the evil things that they did, but they don't bear any of the stigma of the Nazis. Why not, if evil is evil?
Genghis Khan, Caligula, Josef Stalin all did cruel and evil things. But only Adolf Hitler seems to have earned the unique distinction of being the most evil man who ever lived (which I personally disagree with, as there are others who had twisted ideas and killed large numbers of people and attempted the conquest of the world besides him).
If I happened to find a quote by Hitler or Stalin or Genghis Khan that was truthful, admirable and thought-provoking, I wouldn't have any qualms about posting it on account of the source. I wouldn't be lending my approval to their twisted ideas or evil deeds by quoting them; the quote would stand alone. But can you imagine the outrage that would follow if anyone posted a quote from Adolf Hitler? He was pure evil, and anyone who can appreciate anything that he may have thought, said or did that wasn't maniacal or anti-Semitic, must agree with the evil things that he did and said as well.
That's frighteningly illogical.
Evil people can say and do wise and noble things, just as good people can do and say foolish and evil things. Even Satan can speak the truth; and even the most godly saints have sinned.
When we start oversimplifying things, whether people or events or concepts, it shows a lack of intellectual sincerity and diligence on our part, and robs us of opportunities to benefit from whatever good knowledge we might learn from people who have been branded and banished from study because of their evil deeds.
I make judgments about people and events based on what I know about them from investigation. I don't just parrot what other people say and accept as fact what I've been taught.
There are always at least two sides to every story (including history), and while there are things that are black and white when it comes to right and wrong, good and evil, at least as much or more are shades of gray---especially when it comes to complex human beings and their character and actions.
It's dangerous to have no moral absolutes, but it's just as dangerous to oversimplify things and to go with the mob to lynch folks without being thoroughly informed about what one is incited to attack. 🔥
This lazy bent toward the oversimplification of things that aren't one dimensional or black and white, combined with our susceptibility to acting and reacting on emotion over logic, particularly when our emotions are intentionally provoked or appealed to, leads to a kind of irrational, dogmatic approach to people, ideas and events that is a barrier to logic and intellectual discussion, and to the knowledge, wisdom, and good ideas that might result from these.
Allow me to use a very simple example to demonstrate what I am trying to explain; a single name: Adolf Hitler.
That name has come to symbolize and become synonymous with evil incarnate---worse than Satan himself. To be compared to Hitler is to be called the cruelest, most deranged and despicable specimen of humanity.
I'm not trying to make light of any of Adolf Hitler's twisted ideas or immoral actions, or of his war crimes, whatever they may or may not have been. I'm simply using his name to demonstrate the phenomenon of oversimplification that is used to justify the categorization of people and events and ideas as all good or all bad in such a way that even the suggestion that there might be more to them than what we have been taught is a black mark on our own character.
I think it's entirely fair to make a generalization about a person based on something exceptionally good or bad that he or she may have done, and that the amount and degree of good should be weighed against the same of bad when making such generalizations about "good" and "bad" people.
But here is my objection, simply put: When a person does or says something wrong, should he or she be branded for eternity as evil, so that nothing he or she has done previously or will do subsequently will be taken into consideration objectively? What is the board of judgment that decides who will be condemned forever and for what? And what will happen to you or to me if we find ourselves on the wrong side of their opinion?
If you express an idea that I don't agree with, I will address your idea. I may address your character also if I believe it to be relevant to the idea. But I won't dismiss what you have to say merely because I have a dislike of you for some reason, even if my dislike of you is based on something evil that you have done. I can still hear and assess what you are saying without being distracted by emotions.
According to the black and white view of the world held by so many people on both the Right and the Left, anyone labeled as a bigot of some kind, or an animal abuser, or some other thing that provokes an emotional response that overrides rational thought, can no longer say anything worth hearing or do anything good. He or she is just evil. Period.
And likewise, on the other hand, the favored person who does or says something admirable that wins him or her the praise and approval of the masses (with the help of social media and the msm and the public school curriculum perhaps) can do no wrong; or, if he or she does err, the sin will be minimized and forgiven, even rationalized and justified---no matter how egregious the error might actually be.
This is what I object to; making one dimensional caricatures out of complex people, whether good or bad. Because the Nazis, for example, did a lot of bad things, for which they are and should be condemned, we can't talk about any of the good things that they may have done or stood for. They were purely evil; and anyone who suggests otherwise is nearly as evil. I DO have a problem with that. And not because I'm a secret fan of Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. I just have a very objective and critical mind.
The ancient Romans did a lot of terrible things, as did other civilizations at various points in world history, but we don't think of them as pure evil, and we still read and discuss and admire many of their intellectual, artistic and architectural works. We acknowledge the evil things that they did, but they don't bear any of the stigma of the Nazis. Why not, if evil is evil?
Genghis Khan, Caligula, Josef Stalin all did cruel and evil things. But only Adolf Hitler seems to have earned the unique distinction of being the most evil man who ever lived (which I personally disagree with, as there are others who had twisted ideas and killed large numbers of people and attempted the conquest of the world besides him).
If I happened to find a quote by Hitler or Stalin or Genghis Khan that was truthful, admirable and thought-provoking, I wouldn't have any qualms about posting it on account of the source. I wouldn't be lending my approval to their twisted ideas or evil deeds by quoting them; the quote would stand alone. But can you imagine the outrage that would follow if anyone posted a quote from Adolf Hitler? He was pure evil, and anyone who can appreciate anything that he may have thought, said or did that wasn't maniacal or anti-Semitic, must agree with the evil things that he did and said as well.
That's frighteningly illogical.
Evil people can say and do wise and noble things, just as good people can do and say foolish and evil things. Even Satan can speak the truth; and even the most godly saints have sinned.
When we start oversimplifying things, whether people or events or concepts, it shows a lack of intellectual sincerity and diligence on our part, and robs us of opportunities to benefit from whatever good knowledge we might learn from people who have been branded and banished from study because of their evil deeds.
I make judgments about people and events based on what I know about them from investigation. I don't just parrot what other people say and accept as fact what I've been taught.
There are always at least two sides to every story (including history), and while there are things that are black and white when it comes to right and wrong, good and evil, at least as much or more are shades of gray---especially when it comes to complex human beings and their character and actions.
It's dangerous to have no moral absolutes, but it's just as dangerous to oversimplify things and to go with the mob to lynch folks without being thoroughly informed about what one is incited to attack. 🔥