Comments on: The Art of the Disagreement http://gannonbeck.com/2007/11/14/the-art-of-the-disagreement/ Mental, Physical and Character Fitness + Some Cool Drawings Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:43:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Cam Beck http://gannonbeck.com/2007/11/14/the-art-of-the-disagreement/#comment-177 Cam Beck Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:21:34 +0000 http://gannonbeck.com/2007/11/14/the-art-of-the-disagreement/#comment-177 We are saying the same thing. It is not that people ignore what is right or wrong because of their worldview, but that their worldview might dictate that they see right and wrong in a certain way, leaving to one the belief that something is right, while to the other believing the same thing to be wrong. No doubt each believes himself to be right, but is this so far-fetched? Even the wicked believe themselves to guardians of the truth. Even the evil are able to justify their actions and believe they are in the right. That is nothing new. Hitler did not do what he did because he believed it to be evil, but because he thought it to be just. He was not elected by people who thought his ideals were evil, but by people who thought his ideals were right. Or at least practical. But to give credence to a story embraced by the wicked to the detriment of real goodness is inherently immoral, even if the advocates of those beliefs can do so credibly and authentically. The objective truth doesn't normally play a supporting role, but it is the main character in a marketing or any other story, to those who are intent on doing good for others. However, as can be inferred by Franklin's eloquence, we must be aware of our own limitations. I think the founders understood this more than today's politicians, which is why they respected a government instituted with limited, enumerated powers, and why today's politicians know no practical limits but that which would cause them to lose the next election or favorable press. Our worldviews are at the heart of our biases, and they change only slowly and infrequently. Truly challenging our own worldviews takes more time and effort than most people are willing to regularly spend. This is why, in my opening paragraph, I said, "The more I read, the more I'm convinced that we believe whatever we are inclined to believe. Very rarely do we undergo any significant paradigm shift that changes, not just what facts we know, but also how we shape those facts in our own minds." We are saying the same thing. It is not that people ignore what is right or wrong because of their worldview, but that their worldview might dictate that they see right and wrong in a certain way, leaving to one the belief that something is right, while to the other believing the same thing to be wrong. No doubt each believes himself to be right, but is this so far-fetched?

Even the wicked believe themselves to guardians of the truth. Even the evil are able to justify their actions and believe they are in the right. That is nothing new. Hitler did not do what he did because he believed it to be evil, but because he thought it to be just. He was not elected by people who thought his ideals were evil, but by people who thought his ideals were right. Or at least practical.

But to give credence to a story embraced by the wicked to the detriment of real goodness is inherently immoral, even if the advocates of those beliefs can do so credibly and authentically. The objective truth doesn’t normally play a supporting role, but it is the main character in a marketing or any other story, to those who are intent on doing good for others.

However, as can be inferred by Franklin’s eloquence, we must be aware of our own limitations. I think the founders understood this more than today’s politicians, which is why they respected a government instituted with limited, enumerated powers, and why today’s politicians know no practical limits but that which would cause them to lose the next election or favorable press.

Our worldviews are at the heart of our biases, and they change only slowly and infrequently. Truly challenging our own worldviews takes more time and effort than most people are willing to regularly spend. This is why, in my opening paragraph, I said, “The more I read, the more I’m convinced that we believe whatever we are inclined to believe. Very rarely do we undergo any significant paradigm shift that changes, not just what facts we know, but also how we shape those facts in our own minds.”

]]> By: Gannon Beck http://gannonbeck.com/2007/11/14/the-art-of-the-disagreement/#comment-178 Gannon Beck Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:06:16 +0000 http://gannonbeck.com/2007/11/14/the-art-of-the-disagreement/#comment-178 I think you're right that we rarely undergo significant paradigm shifts. I think it's possible to undergo small ones though. There is a new book out by Joseph Ellis, called "American Creation" that I know you would like. It covers the period from 1775 to 1803 from the perspectives of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison. In the book Ellis submits that the American cause was an "evolutionary revolution." He suggests that while the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence were radical, the practice of coming around to the principles has been slow and ongoing. It has been more evolutionary, and like you stated, really did not involve any significant paradigm shifts -- just lots of small ones lopped on top of each other over two centuries. If change is desired with respect to a person's worldview and therefore to their understanding of right and wrong, perhaps the desired model is evolutionary. Radical change does seem to be rare. I think you’re right that we rarely undergo significant paradigm shifts. I think it’s possible to undergo small ones though. There is a new book out by Joseph Ellis, called “American Creation” that I know you would like. It covers the period from 1775 to 1803 from the perspectives of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison. In the book Ellis submits that the American cause was an “evolutionary revolution.” He suggests that while the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence were radical, the practice of coming around to the principles has been slow and ongoing. It has been more evolutionary, and like you stated, really did not involve any significant paradigm shifts — just lots of small ones lopped on top of each other over two centuries.

If change is desired with respect to a person’s worldview and therefore to their understanding of right and wrong, perhaps the desired model is evolutionary. Radical change does seem to be rare.

]]>