Charles Schultz was a genius. Lucy holds a football. Charlie lines up to kick it. Charlie Brown is clearly aware of the history that Lucy will pull the ball away, yet decides to throw his experience, and reason out the window and run, full speed at the football. Sure enough... Lucy pulls the ball away at the last second. Charlie Brown ends up on his ass again.
This is life. One plays by the rules... has expectations of consistency... and yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, one trusts the improbable to happen. Is this stupidity inherent or is it culturally derived? Given that the bulk of Americans, currently, have tendency to celebrate ignorance, one might think it genetically endowed. "NAY", says I. It has become a part of our cultural zeitgeist. Any population that celebrates Sarah Palin is seriously fucked up; and deserving of a fitting Darwinian end. Yet, this celebratory cluster-fuck spreads like a virus across all cultural, environmental, genetic, and economic backgrounds. However, akin to most diseases it stays quarantined within the disposed group. But is this group disposed due to poor chromosomal development, or a weakened logical immune system due to constant over exposure to an environment riddled with similar pathogens?
I choose to believe that stupidity is inherent but curable. However, it takes two variables which must unite to defeat it. The first, is education. Simple exposure to information is part of the equation. The second, (which is lacking completely in public education) is "reason." When is "how"-to-think ever taught in schools? We sure as hell can not count on parents to teach that which they themselves do not possess. Some of the smartest adults I know are completely unable to analyze facts, weigh them against arguments, and then draw independent conclusions. They are smart in the sense that where cognitively untaxed innovation and creativity flourish. Yet, "stupid" when unable to let go of long-held beliefs which fail the simplest of smell tests.
Hope only thrives when acknowledging that both variables identified above can be introduced at any time to the living. One is never too old to learn how to learn. Today this gives me hope. Today this is the thought that allows me to be okay.
HH =)
8 comments:
You took shane's charge to heart. Good stuff. what you say here reminds me of Sam Harris' new book, The Moral Landscape, where he argues that we can indeed agree on some foundational moral principles without religion and then teach these to our children.
For Harris, of course, reason is vital to this project. These foundational principles can be derived through reason and science.
Out of the big new atheists, I found Harris' arguments the most compelling.
Although Hitler was a remarkably banal personality himself, he presided over some of the greatest scientific minds of his day. And Nazis applied reason and logic to the Final Solution and killed thousands of Jews in the process. Corporate and financial executives have used reason and logic to make late term Capitalism more effectively oppressive than anyone ever dreamed. And while your average Tea Party member might be less well informed than a typical 4 yr. old, you can bet your britches that the people who are running and funding the movement have used all kinds of reason and logic to get their way--and it has worked ingeniously!
Factual awareness and a rational thought process will lead to all kinds of horrific dystopias if you begin with an axiom of hatred.
Nice to see a post, amigo!
Shane,
You have supported my point. There are those who are "capable" of flourishing new ideas with a false version of reason and logic. It is those who propel "bad" ideas whom lack the rationality of which I write (bankers and corporate shills). Such folk "claim" reason and logic, yet in practice they fail to extend reason and logic beyond the limits of their own limited intellectual abilities. Those ,in America, who may promote "good" ideas are, at this point in time, either too cowardly to act, or too ignorant to understand the justification for acting. Morality is not something that drives goodness. Rather, rational independent thought promotes morality.
Thanks for the kudos! The closer I get to the holiday break, the less uptight I become. Inverse relationships rock! For example... the more I drink tasty beer, the less I dislike stupid people. Conversely, the more sober I become, the less I can tolerate stupid people.
HH
Ron,
I appreciate Sam Harris as much as you. I haven't read his new book, but look forward to reaing it over the break (mush like Holly's caramels). Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that reason and logic alone lead to higher ethics. I'm not even sure it's a major influence, actually.
I'm sure we'll get the issue resolved at our next blogger get-together, though! lol.
Gonna go pour a brandy and eggnog now. Looking forward to finishing the semester and getting out to Utah!
I found this very compelling...
"Morality is not something that drives goodness. Rather, rational independent thought promotes morality."
Well said HH. But I can see the room for argument here, where reason and logic alone may not be enough to lead to "higher ethics".
It looks like the kernel for some interesting debate. Can't wait!
Hope I'm not nothing spewing my ethics in the literal toilet again this go around. Staying away from sick people.
I think I spent all my quota on comments on Shane's blog last night, so I'm going to savor my thoughts for our expo! See you soon~
Good god (notice the lower-case g) what a bunch of intelligent fols my little corner of the world wide web attracts.
This is a malleable point I am at. I wish to entertain the fancy that there may be something "above or beyond" nature and rarity (as I perceive it). Yet, despite these ethereal longings the facts that my senses can not deny, beleaguer this petty meloncholoy.
Being beguiled by such intellectually attractive bedfellows is truly an Atlas-like, but enjoyable, weight.
HH
Post a Comment