Why do we have different opinions?
Well, you have been arguing that so much of our thoughts are affected by personal experiences. That means differences in experiences lead to those in opinions.
Why do we react differently to the same event? Namely, why do we differ in its interpretation?
Well, you have been arguing that so much of our thoughts are affected by personal experiences. That means differences in experiences lead to those in opinions.
Why do we react differently to the same event? Namely, why do we differ in its interpretation?
... Comrade, these are the same as the first question.
Just checking! What about our personalities? Don't they matter in how we view the world?
Haven't we talked about this, too? Already as babies, we differ in how we behave. That is by nature. But who we are at any point in life is an intricate product of nature and nurture.
It seems to me that when we are young nurture have greater influence on who we are or to become. Curiously, we shed some of the aspects that we cultivate through nurture, as we age.
Didn't we talk about this?
In a slightly different context. Come to think of it, when I say aging, I should differentiate biological aging from social aging, or change in social standing that is associated with age.
Which one have you been referring to?
I guess both, but mostly the latter. For example, we abandon much of the virtuous attitude that the grown-ups attempt to inculcate us with, because when we become grown-up ourselves, there is nobody to punish us. It results from the changes in our social ranking.
After we leave our parents' house, there are no more rules imposed on us except for the law...
It is no coincidence that the time we reach our physical peak is when we become a full-fledged member of the society. In many countries, that is when we are allowed to participate in formal politics, plus all other things that are prohibited as minor persons.
As a way of taming them? 'Don't wreck havoc, because you are now part of the establishment'?
Exactly.
Why doesn't it happen a bit earlier? It may not be a bad idea to contain the youth in advance.
Before that period, the adults can outsmart them; their gaining physical strength does not yet pose a threat. University students are often admired and hated for good reasons. That is when our mental capability becomes developed enough to say something relevant to the real world. Add to that the capacity to beat up the old folks...
Because of their paucity of experience, they are idealistic.
Just checking! What about our personalities? Don't they matter in how we view the world?
Haven't we talked about this, too? Already as babies, we differ in how we behave. That is by nature. But who we are at any point in life is an intricate product of nature and nurture.
It seems to me that when we are young nurture have greater influence on who we are or to become. Curiously, we shed some of the aspects that we cultivate through nurture, as we age.
Didn't we talk about this?
In a slightly different context. Come to think of it, when I say aging, I should differentiate biological aging from social aging, or change in social standing that is associated with age.
Which one have you been referring to?
I guess both, but mostly the latter. For example, we abandon much of the virtuous attitude that the grown-ups attempt to inculcate us with, because when we become grown-up ourselves, there is nobody to punish us. It results from the changes in our social ranking.
After we leave our parents' house, there are no more rules imposed on us except for the law...
It is no coincidence that the time we reach our physical peak is when we become a full-fledged member of the society. In many countries, that is when we are allowed to participate in formal politics, plus all other things that are prohibited as minor persons.
As a way of taming them? 'Don't wreck havoc, because you are now part of the establishment'?
Exactly.
Why doesn't it happen a bit earlier? It may not be a bad idea to contain the youth in advance.
Before that period, the adults can outsmart them; their gaining physical strength does not yet pose a threat. University students are often admired and hated for good reasons. That is when our mental capability becomes developed enough to say something relevant to the real world. Add to that the capacity to beat up the old folks...
Because of their paucity of experience, they are idealistic.
It irritates the older people who have been benefiting from having adapted themselves to the system. First, because they may lose their privilege, and second, because they know that the students have legitimate reasons to question how the society is run. None of us enjoy it when our disciples, so to speak, turn around and use what we taught them as a weapon against us.
Traitors...! But then, why do we pass on idealistic ideas to younger generations?
Some of us have strong enough beliefs of how societies should be, even after the co-opting phase, and are motivated to transmit those thoughts so that the future society will be closer to their ideal.
Aren't they the ones who are not getting as much out from the society as they wished? Isn't it a way for them to get back to the powerful?
I agree that some certainly fit that description. It would be hard to pin down why they turned out to be not so powerful: because they never abandoned their ideals, or something else prevented them from becoming one of the powerful and that is why they hang on to the ideals.
They have much less to lose by espousing the same ideals as when they were eighteen. Plus, they can draw comfort from the power-money-dirt equation.
Anyway, observing the big social changes that have happened in the past few months around the world, you must have noticed that it is mainly the people in their twenties who have been leading the movements.
The countries in question have a pyramid-shaped demography, too.
As a society gets better off in terms of material, its birth rate usually goes down and the average age becomes higher. That in turn slows down the social transformation process.
Because there are fewer and fewer of the young who are willing to challenge the status quo.
At the same time, the society becomes more and more burdened with retirees who require financial support by the rest of the population and with infirm folks who require nursing and medication.
Such activities are akin to engaging in safe disposal of hazardous waste...
Irreverence aside, I have to agree with you.
I said it for you, and no word of appreciation, eh?
If civilizations are not destroyed by wars, plagues, or environmental degradation, it would be the aging process that puts them into slow, but steady, decline... Getting back to my very first question of differences in our thoughts, do you think we ever change our opinions?
Sure, isn't that why we engage in debates?
Most of the time, we do not manage to convince the other.
Wait a second, didn't we talk about that?
What we can do is to overwhelm the other party with our emotions.
Aren't they the ones who are not getting as much out from the society as they wished? Isn't it a way for them to get back to the powerful?
I agree that some certainly fit that description. It would be hard to pin down why they turned out to be not so powerful: because they never abandoned their ideals, or something else prevented them from becoming one of the powerful and that is why they hang on to the ideals.
They have much less to lose by espousing the same ideals as when they were eighteen. Plus, they can draw comfort from the power-money-dirt equation.
Anyway, observing the big social changes that have happened in the past few months around the world, you must have noticed that it is mainly the people in their twenties who have been leading the movements.
The countries in question have a pyramid-shaped demography, too.
As a society gets better off in terms of material, its birth rate usually goes down and the average age becomes higher. That in turn slows down the social transformation process.
Because there are fewer and fewer of the young who are willing to challenge the status quo.
At the same time, the society becomes more and more burdened with retirees who require financial support by the rest of the population and with infirm folks who require nursing and medication.
Such activities are akin to engaging in safe disposal of hazardous waste...
Irreverence aside, I have to agree with you.
I said it for you, and no word of appreciation, eh?
If civilizations are not destroyed by wars, plagues, or environmental degradation, it would be the aging process that puts them into slow, but steady, decline... Getting back to my very first question of differences in our thoughts, do you think we ever change our opinions?
Sure, isn't that why we engage in debates?
Most of the time, we do not manage to convince the other.
Wait a second, didn't we talk about that?
What we can do is to overwhelm the other party with our emotions.
That's called passion, comrade. How can we buy into something that the advocate is not sure about her/himself?
The problem is that objectivity discourages us to be narrowly focused. The more objective the advocate is, the less forceful s/he would be.
In other words, the most reasonable tends to be the weakest.
In the short-term, or on surface, at least.
In other words, the most reasonable tends to be the weakest.
In the short-term, or on surface, at least.
If someone is foaming through the corner of her/his mouth, we have all the incentive to say, "Sure, sure, sure." We don't want to get sprayed with saliva.
You seem to know whom I am thinking about... It doesn't have to be a lunatic, though. We usually don't come to change our opinions through a debate. At best, we end debates by a very reluctant admission that the other party may be right in certain things that we touched upon.
As a courtesy, you mean.
Remember, our convictions and beliefs are founded in our personal experiences, so unless we go through events that convince us otherwise, we would most likely not change them. Needless to say, debates do not qualify as such.
Doesn't this point to the utility of fiction work? The mock experience given by reading novels can augment the real-world ones.
I think you are right about that, but we should never overestimate art. As many artists have said already, art cannot change the world.
Perhaps not directly...
You seem to know whom I am thinking about... It doesn't have to be a lunatic, though. We usually don't come to change our opinions through a debate. At best, we end debates by a very reluctant admission that the other party may be right in certain things that we touched upon.
As a courtesy, you mean.
Remember, our convictions and beliefs are founded in our personal experiences, so unless we go through events that convince us otherwise, we would most likely not change them. Needless to say, debates do not qualify as such.
Doesn't this point to the utility of fiction work? The mock experience given by reading novels can augment the real-world ones.
I think you are right about that, but we should never overestimate art. As many artists have said already, art cannot change the world.
Perhaps not directly...
I remember reading about a lecture on racism that Tahar Ben Jellon gave to highschool students. At the end of the talk, a student asked if he had been successful in making a racist change his ideas about race.
The answer was 'no'?
You got it. By the way, I know more than a few who have been transformed from a fundamentalist in one religion to that in another.
The answer was 'no'?
You got it. By the way, I know more than a few who have been transformed from a fundamentalist in one religion to that in another.
How is that possible, such a big swing!
One would think so at first, but it is rather natural. What such people need is a thought, belief, ethic system that they can follow by the letter. They are the opposite of anti-authority people.
After all, all religions are alike, so it may not be that dramatic.
In my opinion, labeling means a lot to them, too. They want a word that neatly explains who they are.
They love to be pigeonholed, or have a strong urge to belong to a certain group.
What is certain is that a mind well made is better than one well stuffed...
One would think so at first, but it is rather natural. What such people need is a thought, belief, ethic system that they can follow by the letter. They are the opposite of anti-authority people.
After all, all religions are alike, so it may not be that dramatic.
In my opinion, labeling means a lot to them, too. They want a word that neatly explains who they are.
They love to be pigeonholed, or have a strong urge to belong to a certain group.
What is certain is that a mind well made is better than one well stuffed...
Posts
