Yes we do tend towards this need. But on a social level, perhaps it is exacerbated by individualist ideology (more on that later). In keeping to ourselves and remaining determined to be self-sufficient, we would prefer simplistic explanations, because they are the best we can do with our own individual brainpower. To expand our explanatory powers, we would have no choice but to outsource much of our inquiry to others with differing specialties, others who can see angles to the problem we don’t necessarily see. It would require putting our trust in others and dampening our egos so that information can be shared, instead of us constantly butting heads in order to emerge with the better argument. The argument may be better rhetorically, but does that make it more true or useful?
Now it is evident that many times competition is very useful for strengthening arguments and forcing individuals to do the necessary research and thought in order to construct a better argument in the hopes of coming out the victor. This principle can be applied to other social spheres as well. But then what is happening in these arguments? Some arguments are inferior and false, and sometimes outright ridiculous. But then many of these arguments, if one looks close enough, are saying very similar things. Many times those in a heated conversation will talk right past each other, sticking to their differing conceptions and word choice and wielding them as if they were weapons or tools to best the other.
Are these rituals necessary, or are they simply a centuries old habit? Is it possible for us to really communicate when we converse?
For one to truly converse with another, it may be necessary to understand something that can often be very difficult to understand: the other person’s historical and emotional constitution, and how that relates to their favored ideas. When I say this I mean that each person has their own personal history: their formative moments in which they may emotionally adhere to certain principles without thinking about it. Or they emotionally adhere to a principle due in large part to the very constitution of their person.
Upon knowing this about a person, it is still not clear how to communicate one’s own ideas, much less be able to understand one’s own emotional position and be able to reconcile that with the other’s. But if we begin to pursue these lines of thought more, and investigate these mechanisms, we may come closer to an improved form of communication.
What does this have to do with simplistic explanations for complex phenomena? Well, take a thinker engaging in today's competitive individualistic logic. They are going to be motivated by a wide range of things: a burning obsession with their specialized knowledge, a desire to contribute to human knowledge and discussion (or implicitly, to join in community), and perhaps also within that spectrum of motivation is the desire to be great.
This all happens in an individualistic society, whose logic necessitates a competition for prestige and resources. Given this logic, it becomes important for a thinker to huddle down in some lair somewhere in order to produce a unique ideology, a closed system that can explain the given subject matter in a way that ties the system to the thinker and becomes proprietary. The proprietary nature of the system and its foreign nature provokes other thinkers to assail it with their own arguments. The greatest honor is being the greatest thinker and being beloved by the most amount of people in this environment, is it not? Sure there will be adherents and proponents to these thinkers, but then there will be plenty of opponents as well. Now sure, one's system may be more error ridden than another's, causing it to appear justifiably inferior in their peers' eyes, but aren't all closed systems of this nature cursed with blind spots by definition?
Its also worth pointing out that certain systems of thought are much more open and encompassing than others. Philosophical Buddhism for example, or the systems offered by those in the Heraclitean strain such as Hegel and Marx. But then these systems, upon being introduced into individualistic societies, still seem to attract their share of followers that wish to adopt simpler versions of the more open systems and wield them to propel themselves to power.
If we look closely at what appear to be very different systems of thought, we often find deeper strands of concepts and symbols that are all contrived to better understand the same reality. We find that different thinkers are operating in different modes or strata of thought. What if instead of arguing with each other, we each endeavored to genuinely understand each others' arguments and worked together to reach a higher understanding? Is it possible for us to decouple our ideas from our persons?
Of course, that could be quite a difficult thing to ask of human nature. After all, here I sit, huddled in a lair of my own constructing my own arguments that may appear foreign to other thinkers. We do have to take some time to ourselves to do proper research and construct rigorous bodies of thought without becoming distracted by the social noise around our peers (though even solitary research could be construed as a social act, which is often overlooked). And one could imagine someone coming across these arguments, and finding them to be erroneous, since they see the problem from another angle, begin to become argumentative and then I, feeling threatened, attempt to diffuse their own arguments in order to defend myself, and so the process continues ad infinitum.
But then the core of this problem seems to lie in our social relations and the intuitive and emotional way we engage our peers, as we've been taught to do in this society. Can we carefully reprogram ourselves for better communication and more cooperative social relations? This very thing may be happening within the Occupy assemblies.
So maybe we desire our simplistic explanations because we feel so embattled as individuals in this society, and in order to make ourselves whole and secure, must go out and fashion simpler closed systems of explanation to wield as swords and shields in debate and attack each other to gain prestige. What if we located our ideas not in our persons, but in the space between us, hanging there among us, constantly being refined and revised by a multitude of thinkers acting as equals. Would this bring us closer to a complex explanation for complex phenomena?
What does this have to do with simplistic explanations for complex phenomena? Well, take a thinker engaging in today's competitive individualistic logic. They are going to be motivated by a wide range of things: a burning obsession with their specialized knowledge, a desire to contribute to human knowledge and discussion (or implicitly, to join in community), and perhaps also within that spectrum of motivation is the desire to be great.
This all happens in an individualistic society, whose logic necessitates a competition for prestige and resources. Given this logic, it becomes important for a thinker to huddle down in some lair somewhere in order to produce a unique ideology, a closed system that can explain the given subject matter in a way that ties the system to the thinker and becomes proprietary. The proprietary nature of the system and its foreign nature provokes other thinkers to assail it with their own arguments. The greatest honor is being the greatest thinker and being beloved by the most amount of people in this environment, is it not? Sure there will be adherents and proponents to these thinkers, but then there will be plenty of opponents as well. Now sure, one's system may be more error ridden than another's, causing it to appear justifiably inferior in their peers' eyes, but aren't all closed systems of this nature cursed with blind spots by definition?
Its also worth pointing out that certain systems of thought are much more open and encompassing than others. Philosophical Buddhism for example, or the systems offered by those in the Heraclitean strain such as Hegel and Marx. But then these systems, upon being introduced into individualistic societies, still seem to attract their share of followers that wish to adopt simpler versions of the more open systems and wield them to propel themselves to power.
If we look closely at what appear to be very different systems of thought, we often find deeper strands of concepts and symbols that are all contrived to better understand the same reality. We find that different thinkers are operating in different modes or strata of thought. What if instead of arguing with each other, we each endeavored to genuinely understand each others' arguments and worked together to reach a higher understanding? Is it possible for us to decouple our ideas from our persons?
Of course, that could be quite a difficult thing to ask of human nature. After all, here I sit, huddled in a lair of my own constructing my own arguments that may appear foreign to other thinkers. We do have to take some time to ourselves to do proper research and construct rigorous bodies of thought without becoming distracted by the social noise around our peers (though even solitary research could be construed as a social act, which is often overlooked). And one could imagine someone coming across these arguments, and finding them to be erroneous, since they see the problem from another angle, begin to become argumentative and then I, feeling threatened, attempt to diffuse their own arguments in order to defend myself, and so the process continues ad infinitum.
But then the core of this problem seems to lie in our social relations and the intuitive and emotional way we engage our peers, as we've been taught to do in this society. Can we carefully reprogram ourselves for better communication and more cooperative social relations? This very thing may be happening within the Occupy assemblies.
So maybe we desire our simplistic explanations because we feel so embattled as individuals in this society, and in order to make ourselves whole and secure, must go out and fashion simpler closed systems of explanation to wield as swords and shields in debate and attack each other to gain prestige. What if we located our ideas not in our persons, but in the space between us, hanging there among us, constantly being refined and revised by a multitude of thinkers acting as equals. Would this bring us closer to a complex explanation for complex phenomena?
No comments:
Post a Comment