You Can't Say That On LJ
Nov. 18th, 2002 04:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksPeople don't like being told they're wrong.
It's a simple fact that I think anone out there can confirm. I can't imagine what it would be like for anyone who LIKED to be told they're wrong, and I would argue the point that none is even indifferent to being wrong.
People like to know they're right.
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever been given - though I can't remember if it was specifically directed towards writing or acting - is that, to have a believable villain, be must believe that what he is doing is justified, if not good.
It's also become evident to me that people don't like to hear what their faults are - and the closer a remark is to what someone precieves to be a personmal failing, the less they like to hear it.
I had a personal example just a moment ago, but it's left me...
(And no, I don't intend that to be a sarcastic allusion to my poor memory.)
I think, perhaps, that to understand where I'm going with this, you have to understand two points: that i'm driven by conviction, and that I beliieve in objective morality.
I'm sure you're all aware of the facts of those two point, but I'd like to expand, if only a bit, on the implications.
First off, I am driven by conviction. Though I would argue that I'm not so cut-and-dry as to be pidgion-holed into one category or another, I believe X, Y, and Z, and I'm convinced of their truth. This is not to say I know, absolutely and without a doubt, that what I believe is actually the truth. The subtlty may be a difficult one, but while I am convinced of X, if it were to come about that I were convinced of not-X, I am prepared to adjust my beliefs. However, I stand secure in my certainty because I have not yet been shown reasonable arguments for not-X, and have no reason to doubt X. Even speaking with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nif, with as valid points as she makes, hasn't yet caused me to falter. I question, yes - I question all the time, because to do otherwise would be to fall into fanaticism. As I told Trevor just the other night, there are two things I don't want to be - someone who claims to believe in X, but doesn't act like it; and someone who believes in X, but doesn't understand what that means. I want to be someone who not only believes, but also understands WHY he believes, and acts accordingly.
The second point readily follows from the first (or perhaps, it's more that the first follows from the second), and that is that I believe in objective morality - or more broadly, objective truth. That is to say, there are things that are and are not; and, on a moral level, things that are right and things that are wrong. I don't mean to say that ethics is mathmatical, or that you can be CERTAIN of morality in a given situation, but the fact remains that things are right and wrong.This means that people do bad things. I do, you do, EVERYONE does things which are wrong. We should strive to do what is right, but we aren't perfect. Following this, not everything we think or even feel is nessisarily good, either.
All of that being said - you know what bothers me? It bothers me when people claim a subjective morality - that things are only right or wrong if you believe they are. Perhaps you can't truely be held accountable for the full gravity of your actions if you don't know them to be wrong. But the universe did not alter itself when we learned the world was round - it had ALWAYS been round, we just knew the truth of the matter then.
Truth is truth, no matter what you think of it.
The REASON this bothers me is, I should think, evident from the preceeding paragraphs. it seems to me that saying something is wrong only if you think it's wrong removes all acountability on the part of the person. First off, NO ONE does something they think is wrong - there's always some justification as to why someone does X or Y. And following from that is the idea that Subjective Morality claims that no one ever does anything wrong - that whatever anyone does at any given time is good, almost solely because they did it. And it also implies that one thing could be good at one moment, and bad at another moment, just because he who acts changes his system of belief.
In essence, all I've said is the this perspective seems to be the polar opposite of everything I'm convinced of. That is, it seems Subjective Reality is the opposite of Objective Reality.
But then, isn't that evident?
Slogans
A Steve A Day Helps You Work, Rest and Play.
The Steve Of A New Generation.
Got Steve?
A Different Kind Of Company. A Different Kind Of Steve.
This Is Not Your Father's Steve.
We're with the Steve.
You Deserve A Steve Today.
Every Steve Helps.
I Can't Believe It's Not The Advertising Slogan Generator
It's a simple fact that I think anone out there can confirm. I can't imagine what it would be like for anyone who LIKED to be told they're wrong, and I would argue the point that none is even indifferent to being wrong.
People like to know they're right.
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever been given - though I can't remember if it was specifically directed towards writing or acting - is that, to have a believable villain, be must believe that what he is doing is justified, if not good.
It's also become evident to me that people don't like to hear what their faults are - and the closer a remark is to what someone precieves to be a personmal failing, the less they like to hear it.
I had a personal example just a moment ago, but it's left me...
(And no, I don't intend that to be a sarcastic allusion to my poor memory.)
I think, perhaps, that to understand where I'm going with this, you have to understand two points: that i'm driven by conviction, and that I beliieve in objective morality.
I'm sure you're all aware of the facts of those two point, but I'd like to expand, if only a bit, on the implications.
First off, I am driven by conviction. Though I would argue that I'm not so cut-and-dry as to be pidgion-holed into one category or another, I believe X, Y, and Z, and I'm convinced of their truth. This is not to say I know, absolutely and without a doubt, that what I believe is actually the truth. The subtlty may be a difficult one, but while I am convinced of X, if it were to come about that I were convinced of not-X, I am prepared to adjust my beliefs. However, I stand secure in my certainty because I have not yet been shown reasonable arguments for not-X, and have no reason to doubt X. Even speaking with
nif, with as valid points as she makes, hasn't yet caused me to falter. I question, yes - I question all the time, because to do otherwise would be to fall into fanaticism. As I told Trevor just the other night, there are two things I don't want to be - someone who claims to believe in X, but doesn't act like it; and someone who believes in X, but doesn't understand what that means. I want to be someone who not only believes, but also understands WHY he believes, and acts accordingly.The second point readily follows from the first (or perhaps, it's more that the first follows from the second), and that is that I believe in objective morality - or more broadly, objective truth. That is to say, there are things that are and are not; and, on a moral level, things that are right and things that are wrong. I don't mean to say that ethics is mathmatical, or that you can be CERTAIN of morality in a given situation, but the fact remains that things are right and wrong.This means that people do bad things. I do, you do, EVERYONE does things which are wrong. We should strive to do what is right, but we aren't perfect. Following this, not everything we think or even feel is nessisarily good, either.
All of that being said - you know what bothers me? It bothers me when people claim a subjective morality - that things are only right or wrong if you believe they are. Perhaps you can't truely be held accountable for the full gravity of your actions if you don't know them to be wrong. But the universe did not alter itself when we learned the world was round - it had ALWAYS been round, we just knew the truth of the matter then.
Truth is truth, no matter what you think of it.
The REASON this bothers me is, I should think, evident from the preceeding paragraphs. it seems to me that saying something is wrong only if you think it's wrong removes all acountability on the part of the person. First off, NO ONE does something they think is wrong - there's always some justification as to why someone does X or Y. And following from that is the idea that Subjective Morality claims that no one ever does anything wrong - that whatever anyone does at any given time is good, almost solely because they did it. And it also implies that one thing could be good at one moment, and bad at another moment, just because he who acts changes his system of belief.
In essence, all I've said is the this perspective seems to be the polar opposite of everything I'm convinced of. That is, it seems Subjective Reality is the opposite of Objective Reality.
But then, isn't that evident?
Slogans
A Steve A Day Helps You Work, Rest and Play.
The Steve Of A New Generation.
Got Steve?
A Different Kind Of Company. A Different Kind Of Steve.
This Is Not Your Father's Steve.
We're with the Steve.
You Deserve A Steve Today.
Every Steve Helps.
I Can't Believe It's Not The Advertising Slogan Generator
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Built Steve Tough?
Date: 2002-11-18 01:23 pm (UTC)And now, seriously, I quite liked your post. My brain, however, is not well-equipped at this point to explain why I liked your post. (Second Leslie says: "Comes from being rather dumb in the head-meats, if you ask me, but don't tell her that...") So, I'll leave it at that, and meander away.
Behold - the power of Steve.
Date: 2002-11-18 03:17 pm (UTC)A piece of work?
-Flexes-
Yeah, I guess I am.
But how is that pertinent?
I must say, though, I am both grateful and rather surprised that you might have liked this post. I would be quite interested if you ever cared to elaborate.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-18 01:31 pm (UTC)i'm rather sick of it, can you tell?
the problem with truth is that each person seems to have their own version of truth. meaning what seems true and right in my life and to me and based on my experience... could be seen as a giant lie in the eyes of the wrong person. which sets up certain people, who are indeed good people, to be thrown down by people on power trips thinking that what THEY believe is right above all else. it is true that truth is truth. but with so many people in the world with their own twisted view on reality... it's hard to get to the COMPLETE truth.
i mean, for example... you and i believe different things. very different, most of the time. we each believe ourselves to be right. we both question outside of our beliefs, but at the core we really stick to what we know to be right based on what our life has given and delt us and the truth we've come to believe based on our upbringing. we are both good people at heart, we both have a good sense of right and wrong... and we both try our best to do good in the world. because our beliefs differ, does that mean one of us is completely wrong and fails to know the truth?
i don't think so. both of us are young and constantly learning, still, about the world around us. how people work. how relationships are. how life treats people of all ages and races and backgrounds. and in this learning experience, we must allow room for change in beliefs. the truth - as WE know it - can change. it does. as you said... people believed and saw it as truth that the world was flat. until someone went questioning, searching... and then the real truth happened. the world was always round. it was just that people didn't know.
this isn't making any damn sense at all. i suppose i'm too conflicted with people in general - and with lies and deception - right now to even go into this subject. i had something valid to say at the start and it got lost in the inane.
but anyway. livejournal. if al hadn't just given me a paid account, i'm pretty sure i would have deleted my journal by this very moment. livejournal has lost it's shine - people whom i once loved to read are now leaving it... and on the whole, it seems like a very fake version of what's true. heh, so maybe that did tie in with what you said. i don't know.
that slogan thing was quick fun, yes? my friend dixie found that and came up with some pretty amusing ones... which is how i got the link.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-18 01:59 pm (UTC)And even if you cannot be 100% honest in your LJ, because of everyone who peruses it and looks on with eyes eager to pick out any detail that might offend, might cause them to draw away from you and misunderstand what you are trying to say...please continue to try to be, for your own sake. Even if everything around you is going dim, you have the power to keep your own little corner of life - the place where you keep all that beauty that the world on a whole is most unfortunate that they cannot see - free of darkness.
I don't know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sorry, Andrew, for cluttering your comments list with it...my words are slipping on jagged rocks and cutting themselves up most unbecomingly...
no subject
Date: 2002-11-18 03:15 pm (UTC)It is not clutter.
I mean for my journal to be a dialogue (or tri-alogue? Polylogue?).
Anything - relevant or not, possitive or not, agreeable or not - is welcome.
And, in actuality, what you have said is agreeable, possitive, and relevant.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-18 03:33 pm (UTC)With that said, I dearly hope you can feel free again. It's advice easier given than followed, but I would say that anyone who won't accept you as you truely are doesn't deserve to have an association with you. You don't have to be fake, ever, and least of all here. I should hope this might be a sanctuary.
Though, for the record, it was an allusion to 'You Can't Do That On Television,' a really bad Nickelodeon show they ran in the '90s. I hated thast show. >_<
God works in mysterious ways, yes?
Moving on, you have very valid points on the nature of truth - or at the very least, the human tendancy towards percieved truth. You and I, and rather everyone here, may well disagree on many things. But it's been noticed many many times that we agree more than we might expect. Enviroment and rearing does affect one's perceptions, but there is still an underlying truth to the world. Much as it may seem, I don't think the world is black and white - there's many shades of gray. I admit to not being perfect - I never claimed otherwise - and I would defend you violently against anyone who would claim you are patently wrong.
And I do think you and I agree on the great majority of subjects. It would be interesting to test that theory.
I truely hope you don't kill your LiveJournal, Mel. Even aside from all selfish desires...
^^...
Date: 2002-11-19 10:16 am (UTC)Defining Truth
Date: 2002-11-19 01:06 pm (UTC)Agreed, I do believe. However... It seems to me that we owe it to others, and especially those we care about, to strive to find precicely what truth is. When I argue a point, I don't so much intend to say 'you are wrong' as to challenge you to prove me wrong. Nothing cane be learned without dialogue, as I can see it.
I will say that, whatever else it sounds like I stand for, I will defend anyone who has something valid to say. There can be no dialogue if there is only one voice speaking.
And I greatly appreciate the considerating, Lovely. ^_^;;
Re: Defining Truth
Date: 2002-11-19 05:34 pm (UTC)Re: Defining Truth
Date: 2002-11-19 06:35 pm (UTC)However, that being said, it only makes sense that if something can be called valid, the same thing could plausibly be called invalid. I suppose something I might consider invalid, and hope you might agree, would be if someone tried to shoot down another person without having any basis. ::Shrugs::
Re: Defining Truth
Date: 2002-11-19 06:46 pm (UTC)Re: Defining Truth
Date: 2002-11-19 07:16 pm (UTC)I agree that not everything can be coldly logical, but I would argue that anything that has no logic at all can't really hold up.
I will agree though that subjectivity does have a place in dialogue - we are all human here, not machines.
"Keep the light burning Abby"...
Date: 2002-11-19 10:07 am (UTC)