Absolutism and Missing the Relative Variability of Reality
Do you often think a standard or principle is absolute, or absolutely the same in every context?
Do you think some ideas are "either/or" in all cases? What if there are other options or choices?
Do you think an idea has to apply to "all" and "everything" for it to be valid? What if you don't understand what it means? What if it demonstrably doesn't apply to everything, yet is still a valid idea?
Absolutism and Absolute Polarization
Sometimes we can think something is "either/or" (polar); or applies to "all" or "everything" (absolutist). Sometimes we're right, and sometimes we're wrong.
Let's take the principle of free will.
Free Will "is an illusion..."
Some people want to say there is no free will. Why? Because they are thinking in absolutist terms. For them free will is only "truly free" if anything would be possible. For instance, you can't choose to fly because there is deterministic laws that don't allow humans to simply fly. You might want to do something by your free will, but you can't. Or the fact that there are laws, causality and determinism in existence, means there can't possibly be free will or that would violate the absolutism of how "everything" is deterministic.
A universe of both free will and determinism doesn't exist for them because they are stuck in polarized absolutist thinking.
The same goes for freedom, or control.
Freedom "is an illusion..."
People will falsely claim there is no such thing as freedom, that freedom is an illusion, or that control is an illusion. Why? Because they are stuck in fallacious thinking in pure absolutist terms. In order for there to be freedom, you would have to have the full freedom to do what you want, like in the free will "willusionist" denial. Since we can't go murder someone without consequences to our actions, without a cause-effect feedback, then that means freedom is an illusion.
Control "is an illusion..."
For control, it's that since we can't control everything in reality (given that we obviously aren't the whole fucking universe, duh we can't control everything), then that means control is an illusion.... Only if you're "God" who controls "everything", can control not be an illusion.
Do No Harm "is a delusion..."
Is harm something you want? Do you think trying to reduce harm in life is a good thing? The ideas of "do no harm" and non-violence are all about that. Not violating other free will beings. But, like above, some people think that trying to "do no harm" is an illusion or delusion. Why? Because it can't be applied "absolutely" to "all" and "every" single aspect of our lives. Therefore, living by the principle of "do no harm" is nothing but a delusion, it's not worth pursuing, silly delusion... LOL. Why bother trying to reduce the harm we do... since we can't reduce "all" harm absolutely... Get rid of slavery? Nah, we still have all the other harms around us, why bother striving to remove harm done to others!
Words and Definition Matter
Some people conceive of ideas reflected through words in their own special way. They don't want to look at how the word actually defines something that can be demonstrated. How does freedom actually work? How does free will actually work? How does control actually work? Look at how it's reflected in reality? Nah... Instead, they want to make up their own definition into absolutist or polar terms, and redefine an aspect of our lives as not even existing, as only being an illusion. :P
Nuance of Diversity and Variability
The nuance of how it works in reality is not being looked at, only the absolutist polarized vision of something needing to be applied in an "all" or "nothing" way. Don't get me wrong, sometimes absolutes are reflected in reality. In many cases reality does reflect absolutes and pure polar alignments, but in many cases reality doesn't work like that. There are degrees, grades, levels, variations and diversity to many dualistic conceptual frameworks. Not everything fits into an absolute pure polar alignment. It depends on the context of what we're looking at.
Take Off the Absolute Polarization Lenses, then Put them On Again Later
Just because we put on polarized glasses, doesn't mean we need to only accept the polarized view as an absolute "all" "everything" one way. Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. The pole is one of two sides, and in most dualities there is variability and diversity in between the two poles that forms degree, levels or grades in a spectrum or continuum for measuring between the two poles. In the picture, is the reality really seen when looking through the polar lens? Thinking in polar terms can help us identify the contrasting opposites to a duality, but it can also lock us from seeing more of what 'is'.
False Dichotomies
We can fall for false dichotomies from others (either/or, false limited view/choices), and we can also create them for ourselves and believe things to be this way. A deeper analysis of reality can often reveal how we fool ourselves all on our own by not looking at how something applies in general, letting the anchoring or focusing effect cognitive bias pigeon hole our vision from seeing more that applies.
We can be looking at something from one end or the other, but miss what's happening in between. Life is often black and white, and often gray as well. It's neither just black/white (poles), or just gray (variations). The poles are the opposites used to compare and contrast. Sometimes things can be one the poles (black/white), and sometimes things aren't directly on either, but in degrees between the two ideas/ideals.
P.S. Also check out my other post from today: The Trivium Method of Thinking and Learning
Viewing the world in absolutes is a pretty common way to learn nothing about it and reality as a whole. Many of our concepts especially the ones that are hard to verify have shifted a whole lot from their original usages exactly because many of our imaginary "perfect" concepts are simply not really applicable to reality. But before throwing a useful concept of idea away, one should try to modify it in a way that it would actually have meaning and a level of utility. Our concepts about the world should help us expand our knowledge or it instead of limiting it.
It's also import to mention the words are not magic and don't have permanently affixed meanings, but only usages with definitions that often differ depending on the contexts. That's why subscribing to the black and white understanding of a concept that is disconnected from reality is a way of actually misusing or at least underutilizing the power and/or utility of a particular concept. When we further our knowledge and/or understanding of a concept, we also develop the ability to refine its definition and usage instead of throwing it all away in an all-or-nothing scenario instead of just fixing what we have found to be contradictory or of lower practical value.
Words are not magic literally, but language and word symbols have a "magical" effect in that they influence us through "summoning" imagery and "invoking" emotions in our consciousness that influence our thinking and behavior. That's some powerful shit :) Thanks for the great feedback.
Haha, powerful shit indeed, but not unchanging and not universal. In that sense they are magic indeed, just not permanent magic spells. I guess I need to modify this borrowed expression I like so much now ;)
Absolutes are a warm cozy blanket for some, it gives them some comfort when they can't understand what's going on around them, Hillary is Good, Trump is Bad, Trump is good, Hillary is bad.
I have to give credit here to a movie: "I don't know that I believe anyone is 100% a dick."
I'll go as far as 97.3 percent here on Earth.
I remember that part in Guardians, made me think of this as well. How you can't be 100% of much, real absolutes are hard to come by ;) in depends on what we're talking about.
Also there is the action, where someone was 100% a dick, and then afterwards they aren't, so they are being a dick but then stop. If their persistent behavior is to be a dick, then they are largely a dick even when they aren't directly being a dick. Persistence and repeatability isn't just for the scientific method, but for discerning truth and probability as well. Someone can be dick most of the time, or some of the time. Or, truly they are always a dick because that's what they choose as their modality of consciousness.
But who is truly a dick all the time, maybe 90%? LOL. People can be pretty damn evil, but no one is pure evil at all times. It's not liek every single action can be evil or dickery, but a high probability of continued behavior based on past behavior can signal vigilance and being ready for things.
Someone may not always be bad, but a reputation of being bad will have many people avoid them as they don't want bad things in their life. They aren't 100% bad, but behavior reflects upon character and people avoid those who can harm them. Being a dick, although not 100% of the time, can still get you a rep of being a 100% dick because you are most of the time. I just wanted to blab about the nuance of how someone can be called a "total" or "100%" something, not as a literal description, but as a general representation of their behavior that has been garnered through repeatability and persistence of their behavior.
That's the double edged sword of absolutes.
Once someone has a reputation, they can do almost anything and people will still consider them based on their previous reputation.
Yes it can fail to apply new behavior as well. People can change. We can stop doing what we formerly did. That's when someone is no longer a dick lol. They don't want to be, so they aren't anymore, at least not intentionally, maybe some slip ups hehe. Sometimes people don't want to change, and other times we do. But to trust someone again, we need their demonstration of a persistence and repeatability to their changed behavior.
Reputations blind both ways indeed, to focus on the bad rep and ignore the change towards being better after, and focusing on the good rep and ignoring the bad someone is doing.
I think people put on the black and white concept because it's easier to understand. If you're not A, then you must be B. It's simple enough. You won't have to spend hours and hours reflecting because it's only either of the two. But of course, like you said, life isn't often black and white. There's also a gray in between and even the shades change. But people like to stand for something and appear firm. Barely anyone wants to consider any middle ground or they take everything at face value. I was going to put topics I've read here where people were either a pro or anti but I'm not keen on getting bullets from either side because I'm divided on those topics anyway :P
Indeed, but often there is no middle ground either, compromise isn't always the solution. An accurate understanding of issues can be had, and better options chosen of less better options, not compromise just because someone wants their own personal gain at the expense of others. Sometimes both sides are wrong, but sometimes one side is right and the other wrong. Thanks for the feedback.
LOL now u are getting paid for philosophy!
u should show this to a Philosophy Professor at any University to show their students how there IS a way to make money of philosophy now!
eeven @Vsauce deals in philosphiccal questions all day and makes BIG ukcs MILLIONS of dollatrs a year on Youtube!
Right on! Go philosophy!
Absolutism can be dangerous the same with free will if both are used negetively. Thanks for sharing this great article
You're welcome.
Thanks a lot for your great contents @krnel , more success to you
I left smarter after reading this beloved.
Supreme insight x is greatly appreciated.
#HoldtheReigns
Yours Truly,
#Theeillgloryfactory 🦄
Sweet! What was the most impacting-affecting part for you? Thanks!
Really great post, I especially loved the "words and definitions matter" it would be awesome if people could stop making up their own definitions for words.
Yeah, that would help greatly :)
I always find @krnel's post on philosophy
C'est fantastique!
I think most people just never thought about free will.
Maybe.
Well at least my entry inspired a post! :P
Your discussion of free will is either a misunderstanding or a straw man. The reason a rock doesn't have free will, isn't because it can't spring up wings and fly away. It's because it's made of matter, and each of the molecules that make it up acts according to deterministic laws. Same for humans. (The reason we don't have free will isn't because we can't generate wings and fly, it's because we're made of matter, and each of the molecules that make us up acts according to deterministic laws.) The only other alternative is randomness, and that's only true (if it even is, we don't know yet) in the quantum world; and randomness is not the same as free will.
The issue might depend, to an extent, on how you define free will. For our purposes here I believe this simple definition will do: 'I could have done otherwise'. I.e.: 'I possess free will, if and only if, in a given spatiotemporal location, under the exact same circumstances, the entire universe being exactly the same, I could have done otherwise than what I did.'
Can you explain how that could happen, given the laws of physics as we know them? Can you give me an example of free will? A causa sui eye-bat that wasn't governed by the laws of physics? Anything?
The word 'freedom', unlike 'free will', is rather subjective, so one can have varied opinions on the issue.
Same goes for 'control', unless of course one literally means the power to control everything, and it has been proven that even God doesn't possess that power (although I'm here talking about omnipotence, strictly speaking, not control).
I don't know who they are. The philosophers who have been at it for a thousand years? The scientists who have been at it for 200? It seems as though you believe they're living in a bubble, defining free will whichever way it suits them. They aren't:
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~snichols/Papers/Folk_Intuitions_on_Free_Will
Well whose ideas are those exactly? If you're referring to the religions that gave birth to them, then you're wrong. In Buddhism, for instance, attaining Nirvana whilst continuing to be harmful to any living thing would constitute a contradiction. And yeah by 'living thing' they mean the minutest creatures imaginable, because they believe we were once them, and evolved into us through reincarnation.
I wasn't promoting slavery in my article. (It's hard for me to believe I have to state this!) What I was saying in my article, is that people who are unaware of their real nature as conscious beings, are in danger of thinking themselves angels. That's how all absolutisms begin! This type of person will, for instance, fail to take measures to curb his political power, because he believes he 'is all love'. Nothing bad can come from love, right? Loving one's country? That's patriotism! It can never turn to nationalism, so why bother exposing schoolchildren to anything other than the poems and literature of their own country (my generation was never taught foreign literature when I was in school). 10 consecutive presidencies? Why, I'm a good president! It's therefore impossible for me to be a tyrant. Jesus taught Love! It's therefore impossible to do harm trying to promote his vision. Oh did I just put a sword through you? Well, you'll only end up in heaven! You can thank me later!
For a person who is for equality, who is a liberal, a supporter of the LGBTIQ community, a feminist, and all that jazz (and who follows minnowsupport on streemian even tho I don't have to do that to use the bots!), I'm frankly rather shocked at how my article, because of the way I verbalized it I guess - maybe even because of the swastika-like symbol at the top (yes, the one that represents non-aggression) - gave people the completely wrong vibes! The goal was to reveal how human nature works, how 'loves' are tied to 'hates', so that we can be less naive about how these 'loves' are oh so innocuous and could never possibly harm anyone or foster hatred. It was meant to show how we can be ignorantly harmful, not to condone the harm.