| THE PARADOX OF HUMANITY Humanity has produced some of the most heroic individuals ever as well as monsters straight from the furthest reaches of insanity. How this is possible has within the last few years become a topic which I have become interested in. First of all, I assume monstrosity and heroism, as absolute terms, are still subject to interpretation. One person's helper might be another's oppressor, as it were. However, it is this non-definite nature of a person and his or her thoughts, words, deeds, etc. which draws me so strongly to this subject, I suppose. How is it that what one does with pure benevolence might be judged as malevolent? I will present in the following paragraphs a few hypotheses seeking explanation. ONE: There is no "real-life" analogy to an act that is either purely good or purely evil. This seems like a very easy and simple way to explain the way in which one generation might be typified as virtuous wheras the next may be considered the laziest, most selfish lot to ever waste public education monies. In fact, it could be applied in explanatory nature to almost any sort of value judgment that might be placed. It's ease, simplicity, and almost innate sensibility renders it suspect. Though Occam may have said that the simplest explanation is the best one, it does not follow that all "simple" explanations are therefore best. Example: H. is a person who gives table scraps to the needy. These leftovers are thoroughly inspected for any sort of imperfections or possibly pathogenic/allergenic qualities before being handed over to the needy individuals. This is done so in a true spirit of human love and compassion. All who know of this activity while it transpires see this as a very selfless and benevolent act, as do many generations of students afterwards upon reading about it in history books. However, T., a political type, decides that the activity of H. was an indictment of the oppression of the needy by the more fortunate. After all, if H. were truly a benevolent person, mightn't steps been undertaken to prevent the need in the first place? This argument, though begging the question and thereby fallacious, wins over huge swathes of academia and soon the story of H. is used in textbooks as a well-cited example of oppression. H. is now viewed with contempt. Now, remove from the narrative all the bit concerning T. the revisionist. If the situation was such that H. was perpetually viewed as a truly good person, then this example could serve as counter-example to hypothesis one. To be viewed eternally as a "good person", then by corollary, it could be said that all actions of this individual were purely good. And thus, we have a "real-life" analogy of the purely good. TWO: Opinions are impure ideas, as they are by their very nature personal and incapable of true consensus. This is equally simple in base terms to the first hypothesis, yet it is a bit more of a bugbear in analysis. If an opinion cannot be truly shared, then any idea of "soul-mate" must be thrown out. For if our soul is nothing more than that which is most personal, and if nothing can be truly shared from it, then one might as well quit searching for a complement to one's soul, whether it be in another person or in anything else for that matter. I believe that by attempting to share your soul/opinion with someone who is reciprocal in this act that you have arrived upon the only true consensus that there is. Heisenberg's Principle basically states that the observer affects the observed. The expressed opinion will always affect the person who hears it, whether it does so purely or not. Sometimes a movement of an inch can be as unto a mile when it comes to opinion. (To be continued) First Diatribe Return to main page |
| This article will be changing soon. I'm about to start working on a new version of this essay with a different thesis. |