I'm a little torn, because it's results against philosophy, isn't it? On the one hand, if people are doing the right thing, who cares what their reasoning is? On the other hand, being right for the wrong reasons is essentially a fluke, and faulty reasoning could see people believe even dumber stuff down the track. I'm talking stuff like being an atheist, subscribing to evolutionary theory then becoming an evolutionary psychologist. It's so close, you were doing so well, then...
I just dropped the needle on that one, let me back it up; is it OK for people to be right for the wrong reasons? Is it alright for people to be on the side of "good" even though they're ultimately driven by motives deemed "bad"? This question upsets me because, well... I don't have an answer. Remember this moment, people. I just don't know.
It's very easy to be an intellectual snob, to say "oh, we don't want your kind in here, bumpkin. No, until you can write a 3000 page dissertation on why you believe that, you aren't welcome into the smart people's club." Obviously it's not so heavy handed, but when it comes to issues like gay marriage, is it OK to agree with the guy saying "oh sure they should be allowed to get married. I mean, they're going to hell anyway, right?" Do you really want your perspective associated with that one? Technically, we're pushing for the same thing, but there's a subtle, fundamental difference at the heart of our reasoning here.
Atheism and skepticism in general is my big pet peeve for this specific issue. There are a lot of people who say they're atheists, and yeah, we probably share opinions on the existence of a god/gods, but I do wish people who think horoscopes are accurate, or that certain different kinds of silicon dioxide can draw out "negative energy" from your body (ps. negative energy? What the hell is "negative energy"? I'd rather keep all my energy, I need it for being alive. I mean, technically, your brain and organs are "negative energy" because they consume it. If your purple stone can draw my pancreas out through my nose, maybe you should stay the fuck away from me) would refrain from calling themselves atheists. It cheapens it. Yes, "atheist" and "skeptic" aren't the same thing, and you're entitled to believe whatever you like, but again, I think we're diverging on some core ideas, here.
It's all pointless anyway, it's not as if there's such a thing as "right" or "wrong" in virtually every issue I'm passionate about. Should gay people be allowed to get married? Fuck yes, why not? They're people too, homosexuality is a natural human behaviour, two people that love each other should be able to enter into such a contract, so what if it's their choice they're consenting adults... fuck, the list goes on. Unfortunately, that doesn't make my view "right" nor any of those reasons. So, ultimately, the question should be "why should I care about what anyone believes at all, ever?" Shit, this post went nowhere. I leave you with the thought of a sobbing tortoise melting. Postmodernism!
I'm a little torn, because it's results against philosophy, isn't it? On the one hand, if people are doing the right thing, who cares what their reasoning is?
ReplyDeleteWhat is right thinking, is it logic, then what sort of logic, is it intellect then what sort of intellect? And who and why and how do they determines it is right or wrong? Does the end justify the means or the means justify the end and who says it is so?
Well, that's the question, isn't it? If the ends justify the means, you care about results, and if not, then you care about the philosophy. Personally, I think it is possible to construct an argument for why something may or may not be good for people using science, reasoning and logic alone, but that doesn't cut it for a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteIf you think something is "good" or "bad", you'd have to have reasons for it, and they'd have to stand up to scrutiny if you want to convince people in the public forum.
It's all moot anyway, my real gripe is people who's underlying reasons for things I disagree with belonging to the same groups as me. Quite selfish really.
Rather than being a selfish stamp, could this be an attempt to understand at a deeper level of an other and also come to a new and deeper understanding of self? Therefore gaining a new understanding of self through and in relation to other, in the context of the world each may dwell physically and emotionally.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly could. Or it could be me going "I fucking hate it when a group I'm associated with is made to look stupid because it reflects badly on me." I think both are valid readings.
ReplyDeleteBoth valid and both understandable not selfish.
ReplyDeleteOn a selfish note, how's the CD going?
The Last Whiny Man is not concerned with music. Ask my friend, Skeptic Faith.
ReplyDelete