The advertisement of a man - the cleverer you become the greater your capacity for (self )deception
---
the ability of writing to edit and add to your inventions, affording faux attractiveness to incorrect thinking, such that by the end it takes extra effort to discern what is false
---
winning an argument doesn't make you right, it just means you had a less able/interested opponent. United States I'm lookin 'atchu / majority rule / the stupidity of crowds / median voter is always right
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
The advertisement of a man - the cleverer you become the greater your capacity for (self )deception --- the ability of writing to edit a...
If you were truly clever you wouldn't be able to deceive yourself.
ReplyDeletean eagerness to adopt such axioms is precisely what makes the clever so easy to deceive. the clever are so willing to believe that they are right that they use their considerable intellectual prowess to bend the facts i.e. selectively accepting embellishing and ignoring arguments to afford them this belief - true, the capacity for determining falsity in arguments and self may well increase with intelligence, but nobody truly deeply desperately wishes to be proven wrong - so far likelier is the tendency for clever people to continue deluding themselves comfortably. one must recognize that oneself is, even at the best of times, not a perfectly rational creature, though one would certainly like to think of oneself as such (don't know why I suddenly started using 'one' as a personal pronoun. {because you are a pretentious ass.} oh ok). thus, it is an uphill battle to find out if one is wrong, since one has so many ways of pretending one is right.
ReplyDelete(here I am considering cleverness and wisdom as two different things - equating cleverness with pure cognitive processing power - conversely, wisdom as a wealth of experiential knowledge and the ability/propensity to recognize + utilize it appropriately.)
The axiom "truly clever people are impossible to deceive" is different from "truly clever people have commensurate egos that promote falsification". If for the sake of argument you accept the first axiom, I am right. The reverse works for the second.
ReplyDeleteBut my adopted axiom can be seen as self-evident, while yours is more conjectural (because I said so, and I'm always right. {yup.} I even agree with myself. Maximum arrogance) and is a poorer basis for argument. Unless having an ego is evidently part of being clever, your statement does not hold. It's also hard to see someone who can't take apart their self-imposed wall of falsity with logical reasoning and understanding of self, as someone who is clever.
I agree with your definitions of cleverness, but for wisdom I would like to add deep understanding, along with experiential knowledge, noting that breadth of experiential knowledge doesn't help if you're too dull to apply its lessons to more challenging and less similar scenarios.
Also majority rule isn't about who's right but about who can rightfully and legitimately claim to make decisions for everyone.
1) The populace of Jononia is comprised of Jon
2) Jon wants ice-cream
3) Jon is morbidly obese and crippled with heart conditions that will be triggered by a scoop of ice-cream
4) The "right" decision is to not eat the ice-cream [or maybe later]
5) Jon votes to eat ice-cream
6) Jon eats it
In this case no one can say that what Jon did was wrong, perhaps he valued the ice-cream more than the benevolent man. Also, it can be said that if Jon cannot be trusted with making decisions for himself, why should the benefactor?
It doesn't change the fact that the story above was more than pointless. *How many times do I have to prove that I'm not a robot?!*
I wouldn't call it self-evident - the axiom is your argument. It is not a basis for a conclusion - it is the conclusion. If I accept the axiom, I would have to accept your argument. It is the same thing as if I said to you, 'let us operate on the assumption that I am always right' and then present the hypothesis, 'Jon is always right'.
ReplyDeleteI'd say having an ego is an inherent, apparent and decidedly human trait - something that afflicts both the brilliant and the not-so-brilliant. The ego doesn't have to increase for deception to improve. If you have a faster car, the driver doesn't have to improve his track time to operate it. Intelligence is the tool - the ego is the user. The better the tool, the greater beneficial or detrimental effect it has the potential to cause.
"It's also hard to see someone who can't take apart their self-imposed wall of falsity with logical reasoning and understanding of self, as someone who is clever."
I see your point, but with self-deception it's often not so much a question of 'can't' as it is a question of 'won't'. What clever people often do is build up their wall so well that their 'won't' looks more and more like a 'can't' (even though they could if they really wanted to). If they build it large and high enough, they might even be able to convince themselves that there is no wall and that the horizon has always been that shade of grey and concrete.
Once again, intelligence provides the raw material - the brick and mortar. Ego is the foreman, it provides the drive to start and continue building. Ego exists, in even the dumbest of creatures - it just cannot hide as well in these (- or perhaps it can; their brick laying skills are likely proportional to their wall wrecking skills, so perhaps even a rudimentary fence will do. The only difference I suppose is that once Ego is extinguished, they'll have less work to do). I don't know how to prove to you that ego exists, except to ask you to examine the bitterness that comes with having lost an argument. Why should emotion be involved in a purely intellectual discussion? And why should it be a reaction of aversion? Should not one feel joyful at discovering a new, more accurate perspective? It is not just the machinery of the conscious mind at play here. The subconscious mind, beyond our psychic inspection or supervision, has a hand in almost everything we do - let's not discount this most essential part of the equation.
---
Exactly - don't you find it worrisome that the majority that make the decisions on behalf of everyone else do so by virtue of their relative abundance rather than their moral or rational 'rightness'? In a sense, all you need to rule is to get enough people on your side - not an ideal system of government imo
[I had a long diatribe on the first topic, and then your lousy comments system dictated that it was longer than 4096 characters, so the whole thing had to be ditched. The politics half is intact though. Here's the gist of the first]
ReplyDelete1) Axioms are a premise that you use to deduce statements from, and not an argument in itself
2) Despite knowing this, I used the term wrongly
3)I agree with the statement that egotism is present in all people
4)I see effective self-deception as a rational choice rather than a byproduct of intelligence
6)I use the example of a "truly clever man", one with perfect knowledge of all things
7)Yes, it is a re-skin of the Rational Man
8)The TCM would make decisions based on a weighing of his interests
9)The TCM will self-deceive, or not, depending on what serves his interests best
10)It is possible that self-deception could be the best way of serving a person's interests (in my eyes unlikely except in instances of a Horrifying Truth), in which case it is a conscious and reversible choice, since the TCM is aware that the deception is exactly that.
11)The concept still applies to the less "clever".
12)It is possible to self-deceive knowingly and still have it be a valid deception, if you behave as if the deception is true even if you know otherwise.
13) While it does not directly follow, I imply that if you believe the deception to be true, you are not "clever".
And now for something more usual.
-----------------------
No one said it was ideal. Only that it was pretty okay.
Don't treat democracy as majority rule: modern liberal democracies are what you call representative democracies because the demos selects people to lord over them, but do not make decisions themselves. So in theory, we can look past things like the tyranny of majority ruling the polity and instead focus on the fact that the ballot is an excellent safety valve and signaller to the higher ups that something needs dealing with.
Treat the people as the biggest component of government rather than the sole driving force. And unless you're an incorrigible cynic with extremely deep and insightful views on government (no shortage of those) politicians generally come into office wanting to do good and generally do hear you, even if they don't listen for whatever reason.
Besides, rational rightness is a big problem, and much of the time we can't figure out what is the rational, maximising outcome. So even if we had an oligarchy of wise men, it would not result in perfect government. I have an even bigger problem with the whole concept of moral rightness, seeing as its definition changes over time and with the people who believe in it. Fickle custom shouldn't dictate what we do.
Governance in the best countries (and some not so good, Malaysia included) is already pretty enlightened. I found out from a consultant the other day that he was asked to interview philosphers and health economists as part of a government consultation on healthcare reform in the UK. When I asked why, he posed a question to my spiritually crippled mind: "What would you use government funding on: extending a nine-year old's life by one year or perhaps an elderly man's by five?"
Cause for some positivity I think.
quotation marks indicate that the usage of the words have strayed from their original meaning. I used 'clever' to mean pure cognitive processing power, separate from and not inclusive of wisdom - for which we also devised a definition. Your definition of the "truly clever man" is remarkably similar to the definition of omniscience. It's tough arguing a statement if we can't both agree on what the words mean.
ReplyDeleteIf you, at the outset, possess knowledge that allows you to disbelieve the deception, you can ignore and effectively erase this knowledge, which would allow you to wholeheartedly believe the deception to be true. It's difficult to distinguish between whether an inconvenient fact has not been acquired or not been acknowledged, but the psychological phenomenon of denial is not uncommon, illustrating how even obvious knowledge can be subconsciously rejected. even then, the acquisition and utilisation of this knowledge comes under the province of wisdom and not cleverness
---
I think it's kind of dangerous to be content with pretty okay. I concede that it's probably the best we can do with people and the world in the state that it's in today, but what I'm getting at in rather a roundabout way is that it could be made almost infinitely better by simply improving the state of people in the world today.
I don't see how you can say democracy is not a form of majority rule when the only difference is that the population presses their influence using ballots instead of bullets. Like you said, politicians act as representatives - a vessel tasked with enacting the wishes of the individuals they represent. The difference between this and cave man days is that people gather in big groups and instead of beating each other into submission with clubs and sticks, they now count the number of people each group has.
People have different opinions of what is good or right - like the govt funding question, that's a quandary. 'I have an even bigger problem with the whole concept of moral rightness.' This is a separate matter, but something we must address (maybe via email) - we can't start debating the good of extending someone's life if we can't even define what good is.
I used the term Truly Clever Man to create a hypothetical figure where the individual has infinite cognitive processing power. I didn't elaborate well, and that's a function of the shortened bullet point argument. I meant to imply that an individual with infinite cognitive processing power would effectively have perfect knowledge. He would be able to, in theory, untangle his motivations for everything and be able to weigh pros and cons witout mistakes. Perhaps there would always be things the individual did not know, but with infinite cognitive power, that individual would be able to deduce a lot "a priori", and come up with good approximations for everything he did not know.
ReplyDeleteIn effect, perfect knowledge.
But I did agree with the aforementioned definition.
I don't think you can consciously forget anything. I'm not sure what you mean by "disbelieve". I did make provision for denial in my theory, by saying that perhaps it is possible for the TCM to choose to behave as if he did not have that information. That's what I would consider a plausible denial mechanism.
You can, in my outcome, deny knowledge by not using it intentionally, but you can never deceive. And so I've argued myself into a hole.
------------------
Improving the state of people today. That's a challenge isn't it? I'm not sure you can improve people very much at all. Which is not to say that I don't believe in institutional progress, or social progress, or the endless march of human knowledge.
Democracy isn't majority rule. It IS only in its strictest interpretation. But that's not how it works in practice. Politicians are not vessels, they are agents in their own right. They have their own agendas, incentives, etc.
Once again, the public is not the ruler, but just the most powerful component of a ruling body. During elections the public is sovereign, in a sense, but between them?
We have the courts, different branches of government, and interest groups. Why is it that the Tea Party in America can have such control over policy, even while representing a minority? Yes, the Swiss PEOPLE may decide to ban minarets in the country, but the Federal Courts can overturn the decision of the people on the basis of it being an idiotic breach of human rights.
And what of elections themselves? Depending on the electoral system entire swathes of people may find themselves without a say at all. Famously in Bush vs Gore 2000, Bush became President of the United States despite a majority (however slim) voting against him. In GE13 Barisan won despite being pretty much run over in the popular vote.
Majority rule is not real. Think of it as a constantly shifting tug of war between groups.
Setting aside the distinction between clever men and the Truly Clever Man (who to me sounds less and less like man and more like deity) for the moment, I'd argue that denying a person vital, valid information is basically the start of deception. Falsifying to fill in the glaring omission would be its natural consummation, I should think
ReplyDelete---
I wish to amend what i said about democracy being merely a societal extension of a primitive invention. Democracy does more than just cut out the bloodshed, it allows the weaker and less violent members of the community to have a say, leading to a more accurate picture of what the majority wants/needs - which is great, provided the community can decide/knows what it wants/needs - and therein lies the rub. What you've listed are cases in which the majority did not get its way, in terms of government and policy - though I'm not sure why I should take heart in the fact that democracy is a flawed system, can often fail and/or be exploited and manipulated to suit a private agenda.
It is worrying that majority rule distributes power solely on the basis of strength of numbers, but that doesn't automatically make the minority a more attractive option if the minority is simply the flip side of the same coin, incapable of ruling themselves or their desires. Somehow the fact that BN won the last election does nothing to bolster my faith in human government.
Let's say you want to pick a class president. You pick on the basis of popularity, which is a terrible criterion because being popular doesn't mean you can make the sort of decisions that will make the class better off, it just means the kid knows how to get people to like him/her. But while it's a terrible way to decide on a class president, you wouldn't go, 'ok how about we pick the most unpopular kid instead!' There's got to be a better way of deciding who gets to rule.
Let's get this straight - majority rule is preferable to minority rule, ceteris paribus, where the groups are homogeneous except for beliefs and opinions. You wouldn't want a tiny number of people safeguarding the interests of the entire country - unless they were somehow more qualified to govern than the mediocre sea of shareholders and had proven themselves trustworthy of handling such power and responsibility. What the electoral system is is basically telling the people, 'okay, you pick these elite few' - but what proof is there that the general public is capable or qualified enough to pick the best candidate to represent them and their interests? we're groping our way out of having to make tough decisions, relying on the alleged wisdom of crowds. and again, it comes down to the people - when people act this way, it suggests a community without firm beliefs or convictions on these matters, supplementing them instead with knee jerk reactions - people who haven't really thought it through. How many outings have we inexplicably balked at picking a place to eat, instead eagerly deferring to the reluctant consensus of the group.
Arguing that majority rule isn't real presents an even more alarming problem: if not numbers - if not consensus - then what exactly are we basing these decisions upon?
'I'm not sure you can improve people very much at all.' I was just about to criticize this assertion for being too bleak, but then realizing you meant human reform and rehabilitation, I find I hold the same opinion. Looking at my own personal track record of attempted self-improvement, it certainly does seem like the whole thing is an exercise in futility. Yet is institutional or social progress any substitute for good men? Can we invent infrastructure that will force or manipulate us into behaving rationally?
ReplyDeleteAcknowledging that efforts to improve oneself are useless at best is a good start, because then we can try something else. But thinking we can entrust improvement to other, perhaps even more flawed and hideous creatures - thinking 'maybe if I can't make myself better, other people can and will' sounds hopelessly, dangerously, almost ludicrously optimistic to me. A case of the blind leading the blind it would seem
The idea leads me to think of a house being built upon wet and shoddy foundations, whose contractors would rather stick on wings and other mechanical contraptions to enhance the integrity of its construction than to demolish and relocate, starting again from a more stable foundation - thinking maybe if we build it well enough, if we keep building higher and higher it won't succumb to stormy weather
For this reason, atheism seems like a desperately dismal worldview to me, because if we can't trust humans and can't believe in anything higher or greater than humanity then we have to rely on our ability to invent machines and machinations that will keep us in line and stop us from hurting each other, which sounds like the plot of way too many bad science-fiction movies, which often and unsurprisingly end in revolt
I will however say that the idea of helping other people by manipulating them is a promising premise for a romance novel. Also, the idea of imperfect humans creating perfect machines, or machines capable of attaining perfection gives rise to many interesting ramifications
DeleteThe Truly Clever Man is most definitely a man. He values things like sex and alcohol and gambling and probably wants to get back at his neighbour who has been showing off his new Porsche, maybe by scratching it in the night.
ReplyDeleteI’ll revise my TCM conclusion by saying that, no, he could not self-deceive. Even if he chooses to act as if some information does not exist, it would be with full knowledge of that information and its effects, so even choosing to disregard that information would imply acknowledgment of said information.
The TCM is a tool. We hypothesise that as raw intellect increases, self-deception ability increases. By looking at a hypothetical figure with infinite intellect, we can say that at least for very large numbers for intellect, the relationship does not apply, forcing us to reconsider the original hypothesis provided my tedious logic holds.
For levels of intellect much lower than that of the TCM, we can only make abstractions. But we can say that the ability to self deceive does not increase indefinitely with intellect.
I agree with your definition of deception, except that I don’t think falsifying outright follows self-denying information.
I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that as intellect increases, the ability to detect and avoid self-deception increases as well. Therefore this increased self-awareness will cancel out the possibility of self-deception. But this doesn’t account for the fact that intellect does not only involve the ability to identify and avoid self-deception but also supplies the mental adroitness to engage in it.
Delete(I prefer the term 'capacity' to 'ability' as 'ability' implies both capacity and the willingness or propensity to engage in something, which are themselves separate factors for consideration. for instance, something that would interfere with the propensity to steal i.e. fear of being caught would hamper one's ability to steal, despite one being perfectly capable of executing the act. And now I have become a pedant). The act of self-deception and the capacity to self-deceive are two different things, just as becoming blind and the capacity to blind yourself are two different things. The ability to self-perceive does not take away the capacity to self-deceive, it simply hinders the eventuality of the act. It is an addition, not a subtraction - a counterbalance, not a constraint. It must be applied - it is not a passive, automatic function of the mind. The capacity to perceive oneself truly doesn't reduce the capacity to self-deceive any more than the capacity of water to put out fire diminishes the destructive alacrity with which fire devours wood.
If the TCM is a man who values sex and alcohol (for whatever reason - validation, chemical bliss, for the bottle's amnestic properties etc.), he would choose a lifestyle of promiscuity and perpetual inebriation, which would be a rational choice given the context of his temperament. Only if he valued the utility gained from a healthy liver and disease-free genitals over the utility gained from booze and hookers would he abstain - so now the question is, which does the truly clever man value more: an intense but short-lived bout of carnal pleasure or a long life of forbearance and uncertain contentment?
Does his decision depend on cleverness? Is the former objectively worth any more or less than the latter? Or is there no objective truth in these matters - is it all subjective and simply based on the temperament and preferences of a particular individual?
Yet if you argue this way then why do governments strive for improved healthcare and national education? If there is no right or wrong decision - if our government is simply directed by public opinion, then why don't we strive for brothels and cheaper tobacco production? The demand is certainly there. You state somewhere below that wise men are occasionally wrong, but what is this 'wrong' you speak of? Do you mean that they act irrationally? If we follow on from the TCM illustration, rational is defined based on the individual - thus what may be rational for one person could be irrational for another. How then can we decide whether to build hospitals or weapons of mass destruction, with each tax-paying citizen endlessly quarrelling with his neighbour, unable to agree or see eye to eye yet all equally justified in their advocation.
Then you may argue, no no, rationality is not choosing what a man values but choosing what he ought to value. Then we are forced to confess an absolute standard by which we measure our choices and their consequences – by saying that the TCM should choose green tea over cigarettes implies that green tea is objectively better for the TCM than cigarettes. You cannot use words like ‘should’ without subscribing to the notion of good and greater good and consequently evil and lesser evil.
You're quite right - there is an essential element required to produce denial and self-deception that I have missed out - and that is a motive - a reason. Why would a man lie if he had nothing to hide? If he had no guilt, no shame, no sense of self-worth to protect? Why should we need clothes if not to cover up our nakedness? Are we hiding from winter or from each other?
DeleteA discussion of the nature of democracy is best deferred to individuals with knowledge of political theory. Since total ignorance doesn’t seem to stop us, I’ll have my go, within what I know.
ReplyDeleteIn my own made-up political theory, I described democracy as a balance of competing interests. I didn’t put forward an argument as much as I merely debunked the idea that democracy represents majority rule. Because straightforward majority rule does not exist, it does not automatically follow that minority rule applies. That’s not only incorrect, it carries connotations of aristocracy.
The general consensus is that we should have the will of the majority respected, not because it’s correct or because it’s wise or the best form of government, but because it is what people want. Government exists to serve the people, so who is to say otherwise? Who has the legitimacy to decide otherwise? It’s not about decision making, it’s about signalling. The elected officials make the decisions. We just tell them what we want more of or less of, and whether they execute it is dependent on a lot of other factors.
We trust the electorate to have a mature view of what they want, much like we would treat a grown adult. Whether they are, is irrelevant, just like how we treat adult individuals in society. In this general consensus, we also seek to balance out the worst tendencies of the commons with institutions. We appreciate that the needs of the minority might be overlooked, and the need to bind us to principles like fairness, that we know we will throw away in times of uncertainty. Hence the appearance of constitutional courts and the separation of powers. This is the idea forming the basis of our government. Is that so bad?
With the utmost respect, you’ve built a straw man of the world that you’ve taken to lamenting. Let there be no more blanket talk of majority/ minority rule. There is not one “group”. There are groups. Plural. The people drive the agenda, or should. Yet the Media, Legislature, Executive, Courts etc. all have their own priorities and power of their own. And you have factions within each group, the people included. What results is balance and horse-trading. The exchange is two way: the people are not the only ones pushing an opinion. Politicians and interest groups fight to persuade the public.
The ballot is a signal. It’s a way of telling “government” what we want. It never directly affects decision making.
We do a disservice to this subject by not appreciating the complexity of our reality.
"the idea forming the basis of our government" is not bad at all. On the contrary, I think it is wonderful to have recognised that people can be, even at their best, quite unfair and, at their worst, absolutely monstrous. It's how we have dealt with this conundrum that I am unsatisfied with. We take turns chaining each other up instead of exorcising our demons - a short term solution to a long term problem.
DeleteI never intended a discussion on the nature of democracy. I only wished to publicly dismiss deciding by majority as an effective way to pick what is best for people in a group - which, correct me if I'm wrong, is probably the only thing we've left not discussed.
There's much more wrong with the world I've taken to lamenting - and it'll take much more than straw to accurately illustrate what. My man isn't made out of much, but then again I'm not claiming he is. I'm not arguing against democracy - but for moral right, justice and personal integrity, all of which become hopelessly embroiled in any meaningful discussion of politics. But I never wanted to be embroiled in a meaningful discussion of politics - all I wanted to do was to construct some models, add in some variables and see what we could learn from them.
Representative democracy picks an elite few, yes. In some cases, different generations of representatives pick each other. It’s complicated. It may not be the best way of ensuring that they are truly the elite. But what better way of making them represent the interests of the people than by making them accountable to the people? Only that is important, not perceived wisdom.
ReplyDeleteWise men can overlook things and wise men can be wrong. Let’s say we omitted the ballot altogether. The danger of having a council of Very Wise Men is that even our wise men are often not very much wiser at all. Not only are Wise Men often divided on a subject, they also have trouble with empathy. It’s a human thing. We don’t (and hopefully never will) know how important public healthcare is to the poor. We don’t know their fears as well as they do. That’s why we need their needs represented.
You mentioned that these people had to be more trustworthy or more qualified than the people who elect them: But who judges that? Would these people remain as trustworthy after we put them in positions of power?
“Power corrupts” is a platitude. Bad things happen when nothing exists to check your worst impulses, and we all have them. The office itself does nothing.
This is why the system that we have today exists. We can’t trust anyone to act perfectly in the interests of the public. So we build these checks and balances, constitutional and informal. I said repeatedly that we live in a balance of power, of which the people are just one large component. We’re not relying on the wisdom of crowds at all. You make it sound as if someone else can make the tough decisions. Who?
Can we build infrastructure that forces us to behave otherwise, you ask? Yes, and we have. I gave the example of the Swiss minarets. There is the famous case of the Belgian King Leopold the Second, who was benevolent to a public with a media that watched what he was doing, a parliament that kept him in check and people who were aware of their rights. He also maimed thousands of his subjects in Congo, where such institutions did not exist. Which one was the real Leopold, I ask?
If it is of such utmost importance then how do we ensure that they stay accountable to the people? Do we threaten them with the very institutions we have placed under their influence? Or can we appeal to military might to safeguard our interests, turning in desperation to the devil we don't know? Human government is not as well designed and elegantly functioning as you have made it out to be. As far as I know, a government is only as good as the people it is comprised of - and this means that even the best of them are shoddy systems, fighting to stay functional, held together by a few good screws and lots of duct-tape.
DeleteEven if we gave the poor people each a ballot equivalent to 100 regular people votes, I highly doubt they would be represented fairly. As you said - majority rule doesn't operate in the real world. In the real world, things get muddled up conveniently behind the scenes so that those who are in a position to fix things in their favour stay there. Also, why are having wise men govern us the only plausible alternative to a traditional voting system? Where or when in my argument have I advocated a council of dubiously-decided wise men to accede the place of government? Of course people should have their needs represented - that's part of the reason why I disagree with the, as you have informed me, long-defunct-effectively-non-existent-in-the-context-of-modern-government operation of majority rule.
Not more trustworthy - ideally the most trustworthy and qualified should be elected. That's exactly my point - whose assessment can we trust to decide the best candidate? The modern electoral system is expedient - but not much else. How am I to know - I suppose it would depend on the person.
Regarding decisions concerning oneself and one's interests, I should think it obvious to entrust them to he/she who proves most knowledgeable about oneself and at the same time is eminently invested in one's best interests, taking for granted a knowledge of what one's best interests are.
I am not questioning the eventuality's viability - I am questioning its humanity. I do not know for certain which of the two were genuine, only that I should not like to be ruled by either.
I accept the status quo. This seems like anathema to you, but here’s where we differ: I’m positive about where we are and where we’re going.
ReplyDeleteI hear often that people who believe in annihilation (I’m personally undecided) are a bleak lot. It has nothing of the warmth of message that some belief systems offer. But I consider acceptance of our circumstances a lot more positive than self-delusion. In my eyes, humanity can’t be meaningfully improved. We will always be human: selfish and fickle. I’m sure you’ll agree. But this is not defeatism: instead of waiting for the better men, who don’t exist, to come save us, we’re better off building a system that accommodates that.
It’s not that atheists are unwilling to believe in anything higher and greater than humanity. They do. Humanists believe in our collective greatness and the strength of our ideals. It’s just that nothing has given them any reason to believe in a higher power.
And faith in human government?
We don’t need your alarmism. Things have never been better, and governance as a whole has never been better. Personal liberty has been advancing around the world over the last 50 years, and all the indicators of good governance (crime, corruption, development, life expectancy, education, quality of life) have been improving relentlessly. I appreciate that in particularly tired places and in poorer times, it’s harder to be comforted by the bigger picture. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It’s not perfect. But it’s pretty good, and I’ll settle for that.
Addendum
Delete1) For reasons of logic, a traditional ranking ballot cannot accurately represent preferences in society, see Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. It’s good reading. Since I haven’t really reflected on this, I went on with the assumption that the ballot works.
2) Always mistrust a man with firm convictions, my pa used to tell me. Or he should have. If your unwavering faith in any stance stops you from questioning why you took it, what good is it when the facts change? You’ll agree that humanity doesn’t know very much. What good are firm positions then?
3) Majority rule is only preferable to minority rule because a majority vote better represents what most people want.
4) People are not either good or bad all the time. That’s the fault in your logic. People are good when they have the luxury of it. A starving man is not going to care about stealing ration cards. A mother whose son was murdered is not going to care about fair justice. So we let the people who can write these rules do so right then. Let us all agree that freedom of religion is a good thing while everyone is fed and happy. Enshrine it at that moment. Then at least when emotions run high, we’ll have our better, past selves holding us back.
5) I have nothing but contempt for the frothing mouthed masses of this country, those who see only what they want to see and nothing more. I’ll leave it at that. BN is contemptible, but has done little extra to deserve the unusual shellacking that they received. Malaysian civil society continues to depress me. Yet I’m optimistic. We have public pressure for institutional reform, high democratic participation, and a thus-far momentary decline in extremist influence. Mahathir is a villain who ran our institutions into the ground, so it was always going to get worse before it got better.
6) Also, GE13 was clearly a Chinese Tsunami. Lynch me, but it’s the truth. Ask me about it while I hang, I’ll be the one next to Imran Zainal’s totally Bangladeshi father.