I find it particularly interesting when someone says, "You're being
irrational," as they are being irrational by conveying the other
person's irrationality, especially when on a very social level.
'Irrational' isn't always bad, and much of the 'right-brain' is
irrational. Irrational simply means not solid, simplistic, and logical.
While, certainly, it can mean that the person is detached from any sort
of reasoning, it can mean that they're behaving abstractly. Abstractions
are made on a regular basis by the human mind and are required for
society and social constructs to exist. While neither society nor social
constructs are themselves rational and logical, but are rather
irrational and abstract, both can be rationalised in various ways. The
brain has two hemispheres that regularly communicate with one another,
constantly transforming logic into ideas, and abstractions into
rationales. While it has been discovered that humans can survive and
adapt with only one half of the brain - one hemisphere - while the brain
remains whole, there is rigorous and constant translation and
conversion of logic into concepts, and vice versa, between those
hemispheres.
No one part of the brain is purely abstract or
purely concrete, however. Then again, virtually nothing in the world is
purely abstract or concrete so long as one's consciousness exists.
Remove consciousness and simply let the physical world exist, and you
have only concrete things. Much of what is abstract is based purely on
perceptions, and the entirety of one's mind is abstract. Even when doing
mathematics, the mind is relying on both logical and abstract
processes, as the symbols which represent numbers and various functions
are themselves abstract creations, as well as fairly arbitrary. So, any
time that you see a math equation, you are looking at something abstract
representing something logical. However, on the other hand, if you
actually had seven oranges, and then pushed five apples in with the
bunch of oranges, then you would have a total of 13 fruits - that's
apparent and obvious. But the very letters and words used to convey that
idea, and the idea itself (being hypothetical) is abstract.
Even
the ideas of 'abstract' and 'logical' are abstract, because they're
ideas, and ideas aren't tangible. This makes religion irrational and
abstract, as well, though that certainly does not make it unreal, as the
effects are observable and apparent. Once something begins to have
effects, it becomes real in some sense, thus rational in some sense. The
only things that are utterly unreal, lacking effects and lacking some
kind of rational basis are those things which do not exist and have
never even been thought of before. Some argue that there are numbers
that don't exist, yet they've been conceptualised, brought into
consciousness, and thus exist in some indirect and abstract way, making
the idea of them real. Even then, the actual (or hypothetical) numbers
aren't truly observable, nor are they truly fathomable, making them have
no real, logical basis. It is the idea of them that is observable,
fathomable, and has a real, logical basis. The ironic thing is how the
idea is built from truly real things, not exactly the thing it is meant
to represent.
Social constructs are artificial, but real,
irrational, but can be rationalised, arbitrary, but have meaningful
effects and purposes. Social constructs can be observed, made at least
partly tangible, and do require extensive use of the right hemisphere,
yet are abstract, conceptual, often intangible, and also require
extensive use of the left hemisphere. What makes social constructs so
infuriating for many is how they are arbitrary and nearly impossible to
universally and accurately understand, as one must deal with other,
separate entities with free-will, and who can just as easily conform to
such constructs as not conform. Social constructs depend on the
statistical baselines of societies as wholes, while somewhat neglecting
humans as individuals. No individual's actions are reliable, nor truly
predictable, yet averages and predictions of humanity as a whole,
singular entity can much more accurately and reliably be made. In this
sense, social constructs pay very little attention to any one
individual, but pays extreme attention to the masses. This in a way
devalues the singular while valuing the whole. Individuals like myself,
who both have trouble understanding and conforming to social constructs,
as well as value the singular individuals highly, and the whole
somewhat less, can have serious personal issues with social
constructions.
Now, I do not mean to suggest that I would rather
have one individual be valued over the rest - I feel quite differently.
Instead of seeing humans as fields, I see them as many blades of grass.
You can either group them up to devalue the individual (which is reliant
on all of those individuals to exist, itself), or you can see them as
many individuals that are each different, and which each have value.
Many eschew the concept of the individual seeing it as counterproductive
to the good of the whole, when really, it just takes more effort, and
they don't want to put in that effort. Certainly, it's true that not
every individual human can get the precise treatment and level of
attention they deserve, but that doesn't mean that they should be
universally ignored in favor of 'grander schemes,' or some such.
Morality
is not truly social, though it can have strong effects in society.
Morals are internal, personal, and individual, whereas ethics are
determined by society, and may be formed by the accumulation of more
common morals (again, the individual is random, the masses are
predictable.) Ethics frequently turn into law, and laws shape many of
the boundaries of society. If anything, society owes everything to
morals, yet is like a bastardisation and heavily morphed descendent of
morality. As societies grow and change, and spring new societies, it
gets more and more distanced and skewed away from the root morals.
Nothing can truly be called amoral, unless and individual truly lacks a
moral code (the most likely candidates for such a mind would be
sociopaths, though even they can display some semblance of moral code.)
Each individual has morals, and those morals may contradict another's
morals - which is when one calls the other 'amoral.' Morals aren't truly
good or bad, as in the end, good and bad are themselves blurry and even
arbitrary. Good and bad are, instead, based somewhat more closely on
ethics, which is societal, which can be averaged and given a baseline,
which can be constrained by and influence laws, and which can be
enforced by the masses based on a shared idea (though, with the
individual, it can be contradicted and questioned, as the individual is
unpredictable.) Predictable, when referring to an individual, rather
means 'close or similar to the average.' Some people do simply go very
in line with the average of the masses, which makes them more
predictable, despite the fact that their capability of employing free
will can still bring about a sudden and unpredictable nature at any
given point. For instance, it's been shown that virtually anyone and
everyone can be driven to murder in the right circumstances, no matter
how 'predictable' or 'good' they are.
What irks me most about
society is when it's given incredible weight over any other factor.
Society and social constructs should never trump the individual and the
unique mind, and yet they frequently do, even if we don't realise it.
When someone says that they don't vote during elections because their
one tiny vote won't make a difference, they're right to some extent, but
when you consider the accumulation of such 'tiny votes,' if many, many
more individuals thought the same way, then the results of a vote could
be drastically swayed in a different direction. Every vote does and
doesn't count, in that no one vote matters as long as there are many,
many more, but to make that larger number, you must have an accumulation
of individual votes. The individual should never so easily be
discounted.
No comments:
Post a Comment