There are several routes that one can take with this. One can deny that sides exist and that such things as opposing opinions are illusory. That if we can somehow transcend this deficient sense of dichotomy that our culture is wrapped up in, then there will be peace. Essentially, conflict exists because people believe the lie of dichotomy. If this were true, then those of us who do not view the world this way must deny that we disagree with those who do. Route #1 is a gentle way of telling someone that you know what they think, and that they should just agree with you.
Another route is accept the sides, but deny the ability of discernment. In other words, "my side may be the right side, but I cannot really prove it". Anything one might use to prove can be cast off as subjective knowledge. In this scenario, it is not that objectivity does not exist, it is that objective knowledge is illusory. One knows that one's view is true because one just knows it. Sides are taken, proofs are proven irrelevant. One might suggest that the proof is in the result. But then how may one discern that a result is good or true? Does this not put us back where we started? Route #2 is an elegant way of saying, "I believe it because I do, and I need no other reason?" To this I ask; "If someone believed that the sun was smaller than the earth, you would tell them it was not, and no reason would be given? They must accept you opinion on the basis that you are you, despite the obvious observation that the sun is smaller than the earth. And if you did say something about depth perception, why?
Another route is to take it for granted that sides exist, and to believe that the rightness of a particular side can be known and can be demonstrated. Most on this route are not so optimistic to think that all that can be known can be demonstrated. But most likely, they do believe that all things have a reason and a justification. But what if they don't? How could you ever demonstrate that all things do? (have a reason and justification). And if you did, isn't this either circular, or infinite. Either way there is no foundation, for neither circle nor infinite space are upheld by anything. If there is no foundation, what then becomes of reasons and justifications?
I don't believe that people fall neatly into these categories or routes. I believe that we all have some part of us in all of them and different points in our life, and sometimes we have more of us in a particular category than at other times. It would not seem a worthwhile debate in this country to jostle between what the best beverage is. We all assume that taste is subjective, and that nobody really cares what your favorite beverage is. But person taking route #1 would say that there's no such thing as best, only what you think is best. Person on route #2 would say that there is such a thing as a "best" beverage, but there's no way of knowing it. Person on route three would say that would say that there is such a thing as a best beverage and that they can prove it.
I think that on this issue that most of us would take route #1. But most of us would not consistently take this route. In fact we would not take any route consistently for if we did we would eventually run into the traps set by all of them. Most of us take a side while switching routes. But have we not created a route #4 which is the route that encompasses all routes depending on the issue? But how shall we decide which route we will take? Why does the above scenario require most of us to take route #1? But aren't these just the questions posed by a person decidedly on route #3? And if these questions do not matter, than aren't we on routes #2 and #3? It seems to be a conundrum.
Philosophers have been endowed with the particular skill of rhetoric coupled with excellence in abstract thinking. A philosopher can make sense of nonsense, even if what he says is still nonsense. And a philosopher is not so easily steered by skilled rhetoric and can tell when another philosopher is spewing sophisticated nonsense. The business of truth is not easy. And what makes this even more difficult is that we haven't even talked about routes from the eastern part of the world, that may have completely foreign frame of references. But here is one thing that's true. Philosophy is the luxury of the overfed. The bare necessities of life cannot be denied. The will to survive despite suffering is strong in the human being. And although every philosopher may debate how one knows what he knows, the hungry man knows that he must eat, and sleep, and have shelter, and that is what he knows. And the just man knows that he is his brother's keeper. May I suggest that we will not be judged according to our rabbinical or academic prowess? We will not be judged according to our skill for rhetoric or excellence in abstract thinking. We will not be judged on our ability to discern between good and evil. And when God created the dust man (Adam) and his helpmate (Eve) he gave them no ability to discern between the two, and because of this they had rest. But they wanted this ability and they took it, and it turned out that it was not so obvious to their son Cain that he should be his brother's keeper. The grass is always greener on the other side. But in a world without sides the grass is always green. The reality is that we do not live in a world without sides, but we live in a messy world of lots of different sides, with gates propping up everywhere regardless of angle or necessity. But we believe in a world without sides, where our responsibility to keep our brothers' is taken for granted. As Christians we seek to live in this world of gates and sides and give our brothers hope by showing them that there is another world. "Repent for the kingdom of God is near" The kingdom of God is a place where justice is taken for granted. It is coming. Let us be ready.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment