I recently had a realization, and I'm going to feebly attempt to verbalize it (no, verbalize does not necessarily mean "say", it means "put into words", so writing counts. Go look it up if you don't believe me).
As people canvass life, they come up realizations as, quaintly enough, I just have. We have experiences, we reflect upon them, sometimes with more emotion than reason, but in any case we instinctively draw conclusions. Some of these conclusions are faulty, some not so, usually in direct correlation with the extent to which our emotions were involved in making them. In any case, we then settle upon an assumption, which is used to make inferences in the future and even shape more solidified beliefs regarding associated phenomenon. Simply put, our experiences shape how we view the world, some times rationally, sometimes not.
What often happens afterwards is we feel compelled to tell (or in the worst cases, lecture or preach) our newfound wisdom to those around us. We can often feel encouraged in our beliefs when we share them with those in our closest circles. After all, even if they don't necessarily agree with us, they still are supportive. It is when we try to pass this knowledge on to others, particularly others who hold on to opposing views (which they came upon via profound experiences and equally deep realizations... see where this is headed?) and we run up against a stone wall that is called either a principle or close-mindedness, depending on which side of the wall you are on. This can be immensely frustrating, and I realized why. It's not that you are necessarily angry at the individual per se; there will always be individuals whose views are opposed to ours. It's that you realize that if the goal of changing the hearts of an individual is so daunting, then how can you hope to have any meaningful effect on the entire world? If the expenditure of such copious amounts of energy and effort are to no avail to just one person, then what does it take to move whole societies? The thought is intimidating, overwhelming even. So how is it to be accomplished?
Initially I assumed reason, logic. Human beings have an unprecedented capacity to use critical thinking to rise above their current situation, to not be swayed by ephemeral moods and to look at events from an objective viewpoint. The key word is capacity; this does not necessarily mean we exercise this potential or develop it. We can be, and often are, still swayed by our psychological attachments to our identities which are wrapped up in our beliefs. Whether or not this is "right" is irrelevant. It simply is.
So then I started to think the solution was persuasion. Humans are emotional creatures, there is no escaping that. So in order to change hearts and minds we must appeal to their emotions. Sway others to our cause, that's the solution. But this did not sit well with me, and I soon realized why: This type of thinking is what induced masses to compromise their morals or values and allow for such atrocities as the Holocaust. Hitler was a master of mass persuasion at the expense of reason.
So what is it? You could mix the two and become a politician, but if you consider it, is it any wonder, then, that politicians are considered untrustworthy? You could relinquish the dream of inspiring the masses because they are too [fill in any negative adjective you feel is appropriate, for instance "ignorant" or "blind"], while relinquishing a tiny bit of your hope, your humanity. You could continually futilely battering people with your cold, calculated reason, or manipulating them with your impassionated persuasion.
None of these solutions sit well with me. Then it dawned on me. Use the oldest philosophical trick in the book: Questions.
The socratic method.
The few times I have managed to open minds or hearts, albeit only slightly, was with patient, considerate but reasoned questions. It is the ideal mix of reason and empathy, all the while acknowledging that the other person's thoughts and opinions matter (and they do, I'm not just saying that). Why do they matter? Because you can never be sure that YOU are right, and if you practice this method, you are giving the other person a chance to persuade YOU with their reason, with their experience. Scary, isn't it? The other methods do not allow this. The socratic method does. As far as I can see, it is the straightest path to the truth: the alliance of two diverse minds in cooperative endeavor to take a small step closer to the truth. A slow, ardous, exhausting process, but in the direction of truth. If you allow another to expound his or her truth, you permit them the opportunity to persuade you. If you allow another person his or her own thought process, you allow them to change their own mind without having to shove your agenda down their throat or swindling their rational faculties.
So I want to go back to it: questioning people's claims, asking them to examine their beliefs.
The perfect weapon against faulty reasoning? The question "Why?".
As people canvass life, they come up realizations as, quaintly enough, I just have. We have experiences, we reflect upon them, sometimes with more emotion than reason, but in any case we instinctively draw conclusions. Some of these conclusions are faulty, some not so, usually in direct correlation with the extent to which our emotions were involved in making them. In any case, we then settle upon an assumption, which is used to make inferences in the future and even shape more solidified beliefs regarding associated phenomenon. Simply put, our experiences shape how we view the world, some times rationally, sometimes not.
What often happens afterwards is we feel compelled to tell (or in the worst cases, lecture or preach) our newfound wisdom to those around us. We can often feel encouraged in our beliefs when we share them with those in our closest circles. After all, even if they don't necessarily agree with us, they still are supportive. It is when we try to pass this knowledge on to others, particularly others who hold on to opposing views (which they came upon via profound experiences and equally deep realizations... see where this is headed?) and we run up against a stone wall that is called either a principle or close-mindedness, depending on which side of the wall you are on. This can be immensely frustrating, and I realized why. It's not that you are necessarily angry at the individual per se; there will always be individuals whose views are opposed to ours. It's that you realize that if the goal of changing the hearts of an individual is so daunting, then how can you hope to have any meaningful effect on the entire world? If the expenditure of such copious amounts of energy and effort are to no avail to just one person, then what does it take to move whole societies? The thought is intimidating, overwhelming even. So how is it to be accomplished?
Initially I assumed reason, logic. Human beings have an unprecedented capacity to use critical thinking to rise above their current situation, to not be swayed by ephemeral moods and to look at events from an objective viewpoint. The key word is capacity; this does not necessarily mean we exercise this potential or develop it. We can be, and often are, still swayed by our psychological attachments to our identities which are wrapped up in our beliefs. Whether or not this is "right" is irrelevant. It simply is.
So then I started to think the solution was persuasion. Humans are emotional creatures, there is no escaping that. So in order to change hearts and minds we must appeal to their emotions. Sway others to our cause, that's the solution. But this did not sit well with me, and I soon realized why: This type of thinking is what induced masses to compromise their morals or values and allow for such atrocities as the Holocaust. Hitler was a master of mass persuasion at the expense of reason.
So what is it? You could mix the two and become a politician, but if you consider it, is it any wonder, then, that politicians are considered untrustworthy? You could relinquish the dream of inspiring the masses because they are too [fill in any negative adjective you feel is appropriate, for instance "ignorant" or "blind"], while relinquishing a tiny bit of your hope, your humanity. You could continually futilely battering people with your cold, calculated reason, or manipulating them with your impassionated persuasion.
None of these solutions sit well with me. Then it dawned on me. Use the oldest philosophical trick in the book: Questions.
The socratic method.
The few times I have managed to open minds or hearts, albeit only slightly, was with patient, considerate but reasoned questions. It is the ideal mix of reason and empathy, all the while acknowledging that the other person's thoughts and opinions matter (and they do, I'm not just saying that). Why do they matter? Because you can never be sure that YOU are right, and if you practice this method, you are giving the other person a chance to persuade YOU with their reason, with their experience. Scary, isn't it? The other methods do not allow this. The socratic method does. As far as I can see, it is the straightest path to the truth: the alliance of two diverse minds in cooperative endeavor to take a small step closer to the truth. A slow, ardous, exhausting process, but in the direction of truth. If you allow another to expound his or her truth, you permit them the opportunity to persuade you. If you allow another person his or her own thought process, you allow them to change their own mind without having to shove your agenda down their throat or swindling their rational faculties.
So I want to go back to it: questioning people's claims, asking them to examine their beliefs.
The perfect weapon against faulty reasoning? The question "Why?".
No comments:
Post a Comment