• Blue Notes

Sunday, November 30, 2008

My philosophy

posted by Rick Blue at 16h03

I wonder what form of dyslexia I have. I recently read an obituary of a well known activist who was described as “full of integrity, never compromised her values.” I immediately thought: “judgmental, stubborn and ideologically hidebound.”

I have also heard people being praised for being “passionate.” I am always glad I don’t have to live with them. Because I am hearing: “unreasonable.” I am sure it would be someone who would feel that: “If you don’t agree with me, you are wrong.”

Maybe I read too much Nietzsche at college. He claimed that whatever you can say about something, the opposite can also be said. And I notice this all the time.

I have also noticed that whenever the word “ethical” is used in a discussion, it is used as a truncheon. And it indicates that the user considers his or her opinions far superior to any one else.

I find it ironic that in a post-modern world, where all ideas are being deconstructed and their implicit bias unpacked, that there is so much certainty about.

I don’t inhabit this world of certainty. I see that there are usually equally valid arguments on either side of any issue. And I am rather perplexed that others don’t see that as well.

Sure, ultimately we all have to make a decision to do or not do something or other. And this decision will be based on what we think is “right.” But there is always the strong probability that our decision could, in fact, be wrong. After all, we are only human. We can never know all the variables involved.

When a government decides to pass a law to tackle a problem this becomes abundantly clear. Almost every time they end up creating an even bigger problem than the one they were trying to solve.

When I was in university, the crème de la crème of sociological theory was The Sociology of Knowledge. This was the study of how all that we know is taught to us by whatever elite controls our society.

Now, if I was to take this seriously, this would mean that all knowledge is simply an arbitrary interpretation of reality – the one that suits the purposes of the group in charge at that time.

This is clear when a totalitarian government controls things. The old Soviet Union springs to mind. Everything that happened was seen through the eyes of an all encompassing ideology, even when that interpretation was patently absurd.

And the small voice crying out that the emperor was not wearing any clothes was arrested and sent to Siberia.

In our Western society there are competing systems of knowledge. The secular versus the religious is the most famous. But there are also many smaller and more specialized ideologies: feminism, environmentalism and nationalism to name but a few.

I try to stay away from “isms.” I find they distort reality rather than clarify it. And what is the point of living if you don’t try to see without distortion?

That is always the problem I have with the ideologically motivated, true believers of any kind. They don’t see the other side. Because if they do, this reduces the certainty to which they so desperately cling.

And here is the only value upon which I could ever judge them. If their ideology motivates them to help people, then it doesn’t matter if their beliefs are false. It’s OK with me. If their ideology motivates them to hurt people, then it doesn’t matter if their ideology is true. It’s not OK with me.

Oh, oh. I just Googled it. I can’t escape. That’s called pragmatism.