This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Morality. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.
Among the principles we must recognize early on is that knowledge itself can be characterized, perceived and handled in an infinite number of ways. Indeed, the subject is vast and complex enough to have consumed the lifetimes of more than a few philosophers.
When we look back through history at the contributions of some of the great men and women who have contemplated the depths and complexities of life, from Aristotle's Causality to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, we can wonder whether it is presumptuous to even consider approaching the subjects ourselves. But in the end, we must each resolve never to defer to others, or confer upon others, the exclusive right or privilege to contemplate this world and its deeper meanings; the inclination to do so is its only qualification. Yet, we must also know that although this statement seems somewhat general and non-binding, it is actually quite specific; a proper inclination is essential.
It is certainly no secret that in virtually every case throughout history where knowledge has advanced, or where outmoded beliefs have been abandoned, it is because certain brave individuals ventured to set themselves apart from the crowds (often at great personal risk). In many cases, these people suffered ridicule for doing so, for being brash and bold enough to call established and cherished precepts into question. Even more unfortunately, very often it is only later generations, armed with the benefit of hindsight, that are able to see the full worth of their contributions to humanity and the world.
Unfortunately, all of this leads to a bit of a quandary. If some new idea or concept is rejected by the greater populous, it can be difficult, or even contemporarily impossible to know whether it is because its promoter is too progressive, or whether his ideas are simply without merit. Once we notice that a common hallmark of progress includes the willingness to venture away from conformity, we can then mistakenly ascribe more weight to it than we should.
We cannot reject conformity only for the sake of doing so and expect that the result will be progress, or believe that simply abandoning accepted precepts makes any person a creative contributor of anything. In fact, society has already devised an apt label for any such individual: a rebel without a cause.
The distinction between those who reject any form of conformity as a matter of personality, and those of true creative capacity can often be identified in a specific way: Creativity does not generally lie in the act of rejecting anything, but rather in embracing something new or true. Individuals who refuse to give up on a truth only because others cannot see it, or because it contradicts the accepted notions of the day, are the very same who change the world.
But there is also a danger here, which is somewhat opposite of the question of simple rebellion; it is the question of competence. Even if the inclination to ponder this life is the only qualification required to attempt it, the capacity to do so is another story altogether. Some may not be of a rebellious nature, but have a great deal of tenacity. In this, such a person can persist in driving his ideas forward on the strength of his character, but error in his inability to objectively evaluate his own motives or the merits of his cause.
Indeed, the greatest problem of incompetence is not that some of us are incompetent, but that the incompetent do know know who they are (or, perhaps objectivity demands that I reword this as, who we are). When competence is coupled with tenacity it is a great thing; but incompetence, when it is coupled with that same tenacity, can be treacherous.
The view the next post in this series, click here.
I whole heartily agree and I especially like this statement, “we must each resolve never to defer to others, or confer upon others, the exclusive right or privilege to contemplate this world and its deeper meanings.” As individuals, we must each seek out and decide for ourselves what we believe. We must also be reasonable and responsible in doing so.
ReplyDeleteSo wise... it is difficult to make statements such as these because of an underlying human nature; most everyone with an opinion wants to be "right". If a statement is made that 'grays' the absolute nature of their belief, their natural reaction is to defend their position instead of examining the possibilities of an alternative position. This nature, that I experience daily, makes it almost impossible to have a conversation regarding questioning our current beliefs when it is clear to me that we believe what we believe because those we trust have told us it is true, and they believe it because those they trusted said it was true, and so on for generations. My question is "who told them"? (And most people's first inclination after reading that question is to defend something they think they already know... thus, my point.
ReplyDeleteCarry on, Brent. I love your mind.
Sean, I couldn't agree more. I grew up among many people who fervently claimed to know things they did not (no one among my immediate family). When it comes to religion, people often live in echo chambers - among others who confirm and repeat what the larger group already holds to be true. When this happens, there is no need to look outside of that circle for anything to substantiate beliefs; each one confirms the beliefs of the others. If some respected, perhaps now deceased, person held some belief, then many people will move forward on his words without question. I wouldn't promote disrespect, but we can never allow ourselves to forget to think.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this eventually digresses into one of the worst beliefs of all, that the most righteous among us are those who refuse to accept anything beyond what they already know. Preserving faith is then completely misconstrued and reduced to barricading out anything that would challenge those beliefs.