Sunday, January 22, 2012

Multiple Truths?


"The second fear is the fear of imperfectability: the dashing of the ancient dream of the perfectibility of humankind.It runs more or less as follows. If ignoble traits are innate,such as selfishness, violence, prejudice, or rape, that would make them unchangeable, so attempts at social reform and human improvement would be a waste of time. Why try to make the world a better place if people are rotten to the core and will just foul it up no matter what you do?"


     















The passage I chose has a lot to do with the cultural construct I question about our lives and the way we live it everyday. Although this statement doesn't say anything directly to a point that contradicts my beliefs and values, it speaks to a point that I hold as a value and truth in my life. From what I have learned through psychology, culture and science classes in the past 15 years of education and schooling there are ALWAYS multiple cause, reasons, and molding/shaping/influencing/constructing factors that impacts who we are, why we do things, what we do, how we look at it.... I could obviously go on. People being imperfect is kind of a fact (something real I hold as a truth in the world), but what stood out to me about this passage is the idea that there could be yet ANOTHER thing to point at this idea and say if this is fact then WHY BOTHER? I find it strange that after all these years, and technology and constantly new sources leading to new research and findings etc, that we could be okay with pointing to something and just letting it be FACT? This leads me to the definition that I question of what really does innate mean? Genes of course as this reading points out, but could innate also be something that anything else along the lines of people, environment could bring upon you? Even before reality and realizing there is a world that exists around you (I'm talking about being a baby, and even right after conception). I know this seems like a stretched subject but I feel as though a lot people are reinforced by things so much that it is almost as if things BECOME innate. 

 In my three years of college so far I have expanded the way I view and think about all of the different discourses we have in this world and life. Every culture experiences things is such different ways because of where they were born and how history has been written. I am constantly in question of things like religion and discrimination and what we believe so strongly but because of what? Our parents told us to? The people around us all did? At the end of the day there are so many more things we don't control than what we do starting with the way we are raised. I feel as though half of the time people feel extremely strong and passionate about a subject or something when they don't even know why they care so much. Could these feelings be the innate traits this passage is talking about or is it the combination of environment as well as these genetic traits that forms these combinations. The type of experiments that would need to be done in order to determine the difference or the facts are impossible and even if clones and human research of this matter was legal and reasonable, there would still always be cases and examples that don't fit the match/facts or add up. This may be a tangent and not make sense by the way I explained it but I think this idea and my reality of this idea is a passion in my life because I believe the 'science wars' are something that will always exist. We should care because there is never going to be something that just adds up and we can check off and be satisfied with the answer and fact. In the big picture not just talking about genes science is always in question and being proved differently along with nurture factors and research that is in constant change as well! 

This passage is only the beginning of our questions and research and reality, however what is important to realize and what I have gotten out of out class even in two period is that not everything is discourse and not everything is solid fact.truth.math. There are psychological factors and physical factors. That in between gray area is what is important to dissect and understand. The why and importance is what we should understand and always keep trying. To educate oneself and look at all sides of anything is refreshing very neccesary to create this just world we all want when we hold our values. After all if every person in the world felt the same way we did than would we consider the world just? Being tolerant and willing to accept multiple truths and realities and possibilities is essential to anyone living in this world and getting the most out of our existence. 

3 comments:

  1. I think that you have pointed out some important ideas when it comes to what makes an individual who they are and how it is constantly a 'science war' between different areas of study. Throughout school I have also been told multiple ideas about human development in Biology, Psychology, the History of Biology, Literature and I'm sure there are more. When it comes down to it, there really are not any definite answers, but that may not be a bad thing. I think that science will always develop new ideas on human development while reinforcing older ones, and as educated citizens it is our responsibility to be informed and make sound judgement. So when it comes to this quote and the fear of imperfectability I do not believe that social reform and human improvement is impossible. There will always be multiple perspectives on these issues, and science can often have a doubtful view on these topics, but I believe that science is always a growing field setting out to make new discoveries. That nothing is ever really 100% true and science should be used to question and expose new ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How would you define "getting the most out of our existence"? I just find it to be an interesting way of suggesting that in order to fulfill our lives we need to take on multiple perspectives on life, or as it were, reality. The idea of reality in this context is interesting because it refers to NOW. But humans, unlike animals, struggle so much with what NOW is. How can we possibly live in the moment when our needs or desires are shaped by the past, present, and future. I would agree that people should be tolerant. I personally feel like I've gained a stronger grasp of what reality is, or feel stronger about what is true, when being exposed to new ideas... and often more so when those ideas completely rub up and contradict my beliefs. It also would make sense that when I'm purely present and conscious it is much easier to allow these new ideas to enter my consciousness, to absorb. Overall it seems like there is just a strong need for open mindedness and acceptance of multiple perspectives, influences, molding, etc. etc. as you said. And what I think is interesting about this class and the way we're asked to engage about a topic like this, is that we all do come from incredibly different realities, and so what sort of conclusions are we going to be able to make? Is it possible to draw conclusions over a topic/multiple topics that are constantly changing? Or is it even important for conclusions to be made... perhaps just understanding and the ability to adapt to new environments and truths when need be? But also is it efficient or even responsible to wash everything over with such neutrality... should there always be a dominant truth taking center stage? Or should we be trying to put everything in dialogue with one another?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clever Steve casts his proposed, hypothetical objections so they look dumb and obvious. But what if we replace 'why bother?' with HOW should we bother? That goes directly to what politics we need. And in Pinker's view, Hobbesean.

    ReplyDelete