Figuring Out Life

Intro (part 1)

I grew up in a pretty good/evil household, and learned to think that way. No, you could not eat the pork cooked in fat. Yes, you should get an A (if not A+) in every class. No, there is no country better than the US. No, your parents are never wrong. You get the idea. 

So imagine the surprise when I walked into my classroom, low and behold, the first lesson was: truth is relative. 

Actually, everything was relative.

I had a good teacher (seeing as he set out to make us question reality and succeeded, I would call him a success). He started with Aristotle and the quest for truth that still goes on today. Then he mentioned Schrodinger's cat and quantum mechanics. He mentioned the various viewpoints held by various people in today's society. Then he delved into a praise of Baudrillard and Postmodernism. 

To put it shortly, my brain cells hurt from the effort that took me to understand it (and I will have you know I am limited in the number of brain cells). By that point in the year, I had been going through a period of voluntary distancing from my parents, because I disagreed with everything they had to say or wanted to say. I had had enough of their holier-than-thou attitude and their incessant desire to be present in my life when they no longer had work or family to distract them. I may have been cruel (another topic), but I believed myself to be right. That class turned it upside down. 

How was I to remain a champion for children's and women's voices if I doubted what I believed to be true?

This was a question I wrestled with for weeks after that. A particularly sexist comment made by my father would be followed by outrage, then deliberation, then denial, and back to outrage. It seemed nearly impossible to balance the postmodernist and the activist within me. I did not know what to do. On the one hand, I wanted to uphold the ideal of "to each their own beliefs" but recognized that we needed to all cooperate and be on the same page to solve the many problems facing the world today (climate change, hunger and rape to name a few). 

But then it struck me, was the to each their own idea a mask for incompetence?

I thought it through. I did not know. I still don't know.  My temporary solution is to stand up when someone's rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (or "life, liberty and property", to give John Locke the credit he deserves) are violated when someone's beliefs are enacted upon. I still think anyone can believe whatever they want, but the minute the use it to put down others, that's when we step in. Isn't that what society is for? Helping out those who could not help themselves? 

Of course, there's a the question of whose rule to follow. The golden standard would be where there were just rulers, or "angels" that governed "men" (sound familiar Gov folks?). The next, according to Madison in Federalist No.10 would be to have it where self-interested people are pitted against themselves to ensure at least some semblance of democracy and negotiation. The worst case scenario would probably be an authoritarian state, where only one group gets a voice but hurts everyone else (in contrast to the first scenario where only one group controls the government but ensures the wellbeing of everyone else). Of course, this is based on the axiom that having your voice heard is good. We land somewhere between the second and third options (because obviously angels do not walk among us, even Shadowhunters can be corrupted - if you get my drift). So, ideally, it would be up to each individual to try and uphold the first situation, but there are selfish people (psychological or ethical egoism is up for debate), and society is basically built on the fact that there will always be a lesser. That no matter where you were in life, at least you were not _______ (poor/female/LGBTQ+/any minoritized group that you are glad not to be a part of). So basically, to each their own means to let minoritized groups fend for themselves. (I did not use minorities because the minority status is 1)subjective to the country and 2)discriminatory- they did not choose that name for themselves). I don't like the sound of that. But here comes the fun part.

Beliefs led to actions. Actions strengthen beliefs. It's a positive feedback loop that goes on and on until it stops on either of those. Actions are easier to influence than beliefs. Someone said "You cannot legislate morality. You have to change hearts first". To which Martin Luther King Jr. replied that it can not change hearts but it could "restrain the heartless". So are actions easier to influence than beliefs? (especially with what we have come to learn about psychology?). I don't know. This is something you will have to figure out for yourself. I cannot tell you what is right or wrong (postmodernism, remember?).

So, food for thought

1) To what extent should freedom of belief be enforced?

2) Should there be a moral code, and to what extent?

3) How to enforce "equality"?

Peace Out,

QLB