\ruh-sher-SHAY\, adjective:
1. Uncommon; exotic; rare.
2. Exquisite; choice.
3. Excessively refined; affected.
4. Pretentious; overblown.
~~~~~~~
As much as I would enjoy this-world empiricism to be the standard (it would rather simplify a lot of debates in favor of my opinions), it is a wildly unfair approach to bridging the gap between beliefs.
Even were it to shift the arguments toward my views, I would not prefer it, because minds have not been changed, just excluded. Minds excluded from any debate lessen its diversity—and I hold to the proposition that in almost any situation requiring solutions, diversity is the key. Much like in evolution, where diversity allots some creatures the capability to handle difficult scenarios, and continued diversity increases the chance of a species’ survival against environmental changes, so too do humans thrive among social and mental difficulties with the same solution: varied is better. Someone’s bound to have a better answer.
And even if this-world empiricism were invoked, I very much doubt it would stand up for long—imagine being Galileo a thousand years ago, fighting for an idea of the universe that almost everyone tells you cannot be spoken about. Back then, he was even punished! If we invoked a system excluding the supernatural from debate, we would be doing the same thing (in somewhat of the opposite direction) to those firm in their otherworldly (or even supernaturally worldly) views. And sooner or later, the arguments would seep in anyway.
I much prefer letting all opinions be heard, even if it leads to more chaos, because eventually it will lead to more epiphanies, and that’s what we all want, isn’t it? Not just tolerance, but answers?
3 comments:
Do you believe tolerance is more civil than just answers?
Have humans hit the step, the ability to make conscious decisions in regard to the countless others, who is not them, nor their known community?
Is it better to have chaos resulting in far off answers?
Or is it better to first set a basis of equality, then begin looking for answers?
Do we all want epiphanies, or do we all want contentment?
It depends on what you mean by civil, I suppose. If everyone can agree on the answers, we wouldn't need tolerance as much lol.
Yes, I believe we have, and I believe a higher moral standard (than, perhaps, previous moments in history) is evidence of that.
Always.
I think not only should we do them simultaneously, but we have to. Everybody wants to look for answers, and have the freedom to look for answers, and that requires persistent problem-solving.
It depends on who you are. Perhaps the resolute inevitably yield to persisting truths, but that has yet to be evident. I don't think it's written into the human condition to need truth, but is often a by-product of curiosity, which is indeed a natural facet, I think.
For the third one, I mean always as opposed to persisting, false answers, and in regards to objective truth, as subjective ones are inevitably tied to the times and thus the chaos could be averted.
Post a Comment