quote:I think the biggest evil is the person who claims to speak for Good, America, and makes blanket statements about a view he or she has seemingly never had.
Yeah, that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pretty evil guy...
But seriously, the person claiming to speak for Good is far less dangerous than the apathetic. Presuming people have some degree of good judgement, when two claims are put against eachother the better one will shine through as the truth, while the lesser view will be seen by most as false. But for this to happen a few things must be the case: Firstly, someone has to care enough to oppose the false view. Secondly, everyone else has to care enough to make the effort to accurately judge between the two. If both of these are the case, we have nothing to worry about in the long run - falsities will naturally die.
The problem is, when people are apathetic they don't bother to refute the falsities they hear, and they don't bother to check to see if the things they are told or believe might be false. Even if someone tries to point problems out them, they are often unreachable. It's a double effect. Their views go unchallenged, and they fail to challenge the questionable views of others. The result is the exact opposite of the society I described above. The result is that everyone is left alone to ponder their own views as they see fit, which may sound good to some tired of having to hear the crazy ideas of others, but which is quite a terrible thing when you take into consideration the fact that people NEED help to form good judgement.
If some kid grew up without the adults around them teaching them or helping them form solid beliefs, they'd grow up not only immoral but stupid. A kid can't figure things out for themself. But when said kid turns 14 or so, he or she comes to believe they can do everything themselves - often times better than everyone else can. This is not the case though, especially not in regards to forming good beliefs. There are far far too many adults (even very smart adults) out there with incredibly wrong ideas in their heads for us to ever think anyone can come up with Truth by themselves, much less everyone. It can only be effective as a collaborative effort. That's why we have churches, schools, and books. But none of these are substitutes for active participation in discussion with peers about real issues.
The problem with searching for "Your Truth" is precisely what you said - that it has little to do, relatively with finding The Truth. It is The Truth that allows you to accurately judge the world around you and what you should do to live in it. If Your Truth is too different from The Truth, you get in trouble. For some, it means they end up raping small children, because Their Truth tells them it's okay. For others it's mass suicide, because Their Truth tells them to join a given cult. For still others it may be as simple as voting for the wrong person for President. The point is, if "Your Truth" does not line up with reality, you're in trouble - and it likely will not if everyone has to invent their Truth on their own.
The mistake often made is thinking that a person who actively expresses their views has "converting others" as his goals. But that should not be the case. If it is, that person is also in danger, although not quite as much danger as the apethetic person. But the truth is, the goal of expressing views should not be to convert others, but rather to jointly find the truth. Being a proponent of a given view is only a tool to facilitate that end.
quote:"Whenever we try to propose a solution to a problem, we might try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practice this precept; but other people, fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves." - Karl Popper
quote:The problem is, when people are apathetic they don't bother to refute the falsities they hear, and they don't bother to check to see if the things they are told or believe might be false.
Will it make you feel better if I tell you you're full of crap?
You're placing a whole lot of values onto the apathetic soul, very few of which, if any, are even applicable to me--one of the most apathetic people I've ever known--or any apathetics I've ever known. Maybe all the apathetic people you know are stupid?
I think it takes a certain degree of intelligence to be apathetic. You have to know what not to care about.
I believe in (and love) learning. Does this mean I do so for anyone but myself? Not in my case. Will I correct someone obviously wrong? Probably. Arguing over facts is one thing--fighting over opinions, no matter how sure you are about them, is another.
quote:If Your Truth is too different from The Truth, you get in trouble. For some, it means they end up raping small children, because Their Truth tells them it's okay. For others it's mass suicide, because Their Truth tells them to join a given cult. For still others it may be as simple as voting for the wrong person for President. The point is, if "Your Truth" does not line up with reality, you're in trouble - and it likely will not if everyone has to invent their Truth on their own.
Thanks a lot. My ears are bleeding now. Feel free to save a stamp by not inviting me to your Utopia. I don't care if I do get my own number and a free brain chip.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are apathetic about learning, you don't also love learning. You either care or you don't. But you might be apathetic about some sorts of learning and loving of other sorts.
The sort of apathy I'm concerned with in this thread, I think, is apathy in regards to the class of knowledge known as "opinion," which is the one that is prevalent among my peer group.
You suggest that facts are worth arguing over, but not opinion. I would argue that, to the contrary, opinions are the things most worth arguing over. After all, facts can be found in books or through experimentation - you don't need to argue over them to figure them out. This is why I rarely bother to post about facts on Hatrack - they are either true or they ain't. What I have to say on the matter really has little to add, unless I happen to be a unique source of fact in some case. But opinions, on the other hand, cannot be found anywhere in a definite sense. Comparing or conflicting one against another is the only way to judge which is best. It is absolutely necessary to achieve well-formed opinions.
And no, apathetic people are not all stupid, but they do cause a heightened level of ignorance in society, in regards to whatever they are apathetic about. The worst society, as far as collective wisdom goes, is the society in which there is little discussion of any point of view, as people only have access to their own. (The second worst is where there is discussion of only one point of view and the best is where there is discussion of all.) The first of these is what apathy tends towards because, if you don't care about an issue, you don't talk about it. If you talk about it or share your ideas with lots of people, you're not really apathetic about it.
posted
am i the only one who was a bit put off by the initial post? all that talk of "victory", "battles", "truth", and evil prospering. it seems to me that the greater apathy is to assume that your own opinion is absolutely infallible, and that if you were to change it you would be loosing some great conflict between good (onesself of course) and evil (those darn "'open' people"). to do so is to basically say that you don't care if you're right or not, or if other people's beliefs could be just as valid as your own, and to simply spend the rest of your life in a sort of mental stagnation.
i see the "apathy" good ol' Dag spoke of as the best thing that ever happened to him, because it's the only thing that's keeping him from becoming one of those angry, holier-than-thou, small-minded fanatics that in my opinion are much more of a threat that people who are apathetic about the morality of being homosexual or having a perfectly defined set of beliefs.
here's another quote i think this thread could use; "a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson (i think)
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, you know, I think we're being more than a little harsh to Dag -- and there's no need. He strikes me as an earnest kid who's rebelling against authority, without really understanding why; he's got a good turn of phrase, and seems clever enough. I don't like his politics or his tone, either, but I'm not going to chase him away with a stick.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I never meant to imply that he couldn't change. I suppose "shown" would've been a good substitute for "proven".
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lafayette was, in my mind, quite an extraordinary French war hero. I mean, who else was a significant factor in three separate and rather pivotal revolutions on two sides of the world over a period of 50 years?
And Tresopax... What Frisco said.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:it seems to me that the greater apathy is to assume that your own opinion is absolutely infallible, and that if you were to change it you would be loosing some great conflict between good (onesself of course) and evil (those darn "'open' people").
I agree, sort of. Acting like that at least requires you to care to some degree about an issue, so it isn't pure apathy. I'd call it foolishness more than apathy.
quote:i see the "apathy" good ol' Dag spoke of as the best thing that ever happened to him, because it's the only thing that's keeping him from becoming one of those angry, holier-than-thou, small-minded fanatics that in my opinion are much more of a threat that people who are apathetic about the morality of being homosexual or having a perfectly defined set of beliefs.
That's a poor excuse for apathy, though. For one thing, is it REALLY better to be apathetic than to be narrow-minded? (I don't know!) It will anger fewer people, but it will also result in you getting less done (good or bad.)
But for another, far more important thing, isn't it possible to be NEITHER apathetic nor narrow-minded? I would say yes, and that understanding what's wrong with apathy is half the distance to that goal.
quote:And Tresopax... What Frisco said.
In that case, EG... What I said in response to Frisco.
posted
You know, one of the most charming things about this forum is how, maybe once or twice a month, a teenager will show up and post something you'd expect a teenager to post and how, in reponse, the putative adults here do their absolute best to attack and alienate that teenager. Man, you'd think people around here were insecure or something.
----- Dag, Welcome to the forum. I like the way that you express your ideas. I remember a time when I used to think somewhat similarily to you. I don't know if the me of that time would have benefitted or even listened to the advice that Ralphie gave and I underscored on the previous page, but the me now wishes that someone had given it to him. It might have made growing up a little easier and stopped me from doing some things I'm now embarassed of.
As to apathy, I can think of about 50 responses better than despair to pretty much any situation. For example, if you're not successful at changing people's minds, maybe you could try to learn from those experiences as to what would change people's minds. A big step is going to be realizing that people generally don't disagree with you because they are evil. People generally do have their reasons for their beliefs, and, while some of those reasons may be immature or weak or whatever, it's very rare that it's because they want to eat babies.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a lot of frivolous reading I've done I noticed an interesting cycle:
Good Defeats Evil. Peace Blooms from Good. Apathy grows in Peace. Ignorance evolves from Apathy. Evil Blossoms from Ignorance.
Under further examination I discover that Good only defeats Evil when it is strong enough to overcome Apathy and Ignorance with Passion and Knowledge.
Then I discovered this occurs in real life too.
But what if you are Passionate about the wrong thing? What if you are willing to fight to the death for the wrong cause? An AlQuedan Terrorist has passion for his cause. Does that make him right?
No. He does not have the knowledge to discover his cause is wrong. He did not seek the knowledge, only accepted what he was told and that was all.
How do we get the knowledge? Ask and it shall be given. Open you mind to the idea that you may be wrong, and do not let the questioning of what is right be an attack on what is right, but a strengthening of it.
Evil's minions believe that they are doing good because that is what people they respect tell them. How does that different than a person who tries to do good but has never questioned themselves?
Evil can only cease to prosper when confronted by someone good armed with passion and knowledge. Knowledge without passion is apathy and destruction. Passion with out knowledge is that destruction.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
