On the Differences, Part III

It's interesting that the individuating force is driving us when we have similar urges to try to "fit in."  Why would we have both urges?  One trying to separate us from society, the other trying to unite us.  Constant internal conflict.

Now an interesting perspective on friends: they serve to satisfy both these desires.  We want to be part of a group, have friendships that will unite us with at least one part of society.  But we also use our friends as a mold, analyzing them for characteristics.  Characteristics that we don't like, we try not to ascribe to ourselves; we individuate ourselves through comparisons with our friends.  We decide how we are like our friends to fit in with society, and we decide how we are not like them to become individuals.

Do differences form our personalities?

On the Differences, Part II

After a night spent mulling over what I'd just written, I came up with some additional insights on the topic. Thus, there just had to be a Part II.

It finally came to me why it is people would focus on differences to differentiate themselves. It's very Spinoza-esque: if people can't show that their different, what's to say there's any separation at all?

I guess from this I could conclude that maybe people just don't want there to be only one thing. People will name things, set things apart from other things, differentiate people, all to try to show that there are multiple things in the world.

How could a ball and a chair be encompassed in the same thing? They have different names, they are not alike, they aren't even close in space to one another. They must be different, we have ascribed all these properties to each of them. Why would we do this if they were not indeed different?

However, even if we want to try to take the view of all-as-one, it seems like we still must try to tell things apart. If everything just blurred together there wouldn't be anything left to experience. It doesn't make sense to think of everything as one.

Well, I can already tell I'm not done with this yet, so I guess that means there is going to be a Part III.

On the Differences

I initially thought that this wasn't a very philosophic observation. However, the more I churn this around in my mind, the more it seems like it is.

I came up with this while pondering why it is that I can't remember people, more specifically, why I can't remember people's names.

My original theory was "The only way you can remember someone's name is by focusing on the differences from yourself." However, this idea seems to go beyond my simple conception. A deeper and more interesting way to think about this is that the only way you can tell two people apart is by focusing on the differences between them.

I haven't thought of every possible scenario to prove/disprove this theory, but if it truly sets up this way it makes an interesting case for racism. Could someone then make the argument that racism is natural? Or perhaps a better question: does an individualistic society makes people racist?

Differences. We focus on differences quite a bit. Probably more so than any of us even realize. It's amazing, try comparing anything. You will mention some similarities, but you'll mostly focus on the differences. What makes something different from another. What makes one thing better than another. What makes one person more interesting than another.

Oh, and for those who want closure to that story, I actually do remember people's names a lot better now, who knows why.

I Don't Understand Logic

Well, maybe it's not exactly logic, probably more like statistics. How 'bout I just tell you what I don't get and you can tell me what it is. It's interesting, that brings up another philosophic problem, how can I possibly know something I don't know? I can't tell you what I don't know, because I don't know it. Anyways, on to what I don't know.

I can best illustrate this with an example about roller coasters. Let's say that statistics have been compiled for a given roller coaster and that there is a one in a million chance that the coaster cars lose their grip on the track and fly-off mid-ride. Let's now say that the roller coaster has been on 990,000 successful "runs;" no cars have flown off and the ride is still running well. It seems to me that the people who ride on the coaster on the next 10,000 runs should be very nervous that the cars will fly off the track. If the odds say that there is a one in a million chance and 990,000 tests have been run without any cars flying off the track shouldn't that mean that it will happen soon?

This is why I don't understand logic or statistics or whatever it is. This makes sense to me, but it usually doesn't make sense to others.

When I was a kid, I used to be afraid of roller coasters for this very reason. I thought that, sooner or later, the odds said that cars were going to fly off the track. My friends would try to convince me to go on the rides by saying, "the cars have never flown off the track before," or, as in the case above, "there's a one in a million chance of it happening." Of course, I would reply to this with exactly what I said above, "if there's a one in a million chance and it's never happened before, isn't it due to happen?"

So ya, that's my logical conundrum. It's probably easily explained away by any logician or statistician, but I still wonder about it.

Nietzsche, Good & Evil

I was thinking today about Nietzsche and his thoughts on morality. Nietzsche thought good and evil are created by humans; nothing is inherently good and nothing is inherently bad. Things are merely good and evil because we, as a people, have decided that they are. It's considered good to be responsible and get things done on time. Why? Because responsible people are liked and they will not burden others with additional problems. It's considered evil to steal from someone. Why? Getting robbed is a huge inconvenience, and the robbed generally has a dislike for the robber well into the future.

I started thinking about this based on a somewhat odd scenario. Take a man who runs into a burning building to save someone. If the man saves, say, a newborn baby, he will be celebrated as a local hero. He'll get his picture in the paper and certainly have his 15 minutes of fame. Now, let's say that instead of saving a baby, the man saves a convicted felon who is wanted on charges of rape and murder. Will the man still be celebrated as a hero? Will he still get his picture in the paper? Have his 15 minutes of fame?

It seems like we have two comparable situations here. A man runs into a burning building and saves a human life in both cases. However, since one life is thought to be bad and the other life is thought to be good, different things happen after the life is saved. This scenario got me thinking that Nietzsche could be on to something here. It appears that we do have say as to what is good and evil. And that in itself is very interesting.

Hegel, History, & Racism

For those of you who don’t know much about Hegel, one of his most influential and interesting views was on the philosophy of history. Hegel thought mankind and progress were driven by history. His view was also very optimistic, as he thought that history always pushed mankind closer and closer to its ideal state. History, for Hegel, is one continuous improvement.

I find an interesting point of contrast with this in regards to racism. Take the often cited example of little children playing together. No racism exists when little children play together; they simply play with other children near them. Their views only seem to change after a parent tells them not to play with certain kids and after learning history.

History teaches kids to send unwarranted animosity towards other little kids. You tell a black kid about slavery and segregation and there’s almost no doubt some animosity will grow inside of him towards white people and white kids. You tell white kids about WWII and Pearl Harbor and they’ll likely have some hatred towards Asians and Asian kids.

I’m not saying we should eliminate the teaching of history altogether. History certainly has its worthwhile points, including the teaching of morals and the sparking of ideas in people for innovations and improvements. I’m simply saying that history has the problem of trying to teach kids about racism without making them somewhat racist themselves. And something should be done about this.

Why Philosophy?

Sometimes people ask me why it is I decided to study philosophy. I always have a hard time coming up with an acceptable answer, but I think I may have stumbled upon something.

In most subjects that you’ll learn in school, there are correct answers. You can grind your way over a set of math problems and then check the answers in the back to see if you got them right. You can agonize for hours over chemistry homework, and then go look up the correct answers when you’re done.

With philosophy, there are no right answers. It’s funny, because this is exactly why I didn’t like philosophy when I first took the intro course. It seemed dumb to study anything that has no right answers. Later on I began to realize that it’s actually more interesting to study things that have no right answers, and part of it has to do with all the time thinking that you may be coming up with the right answers yourself.

That’s part of the mystique. You learn about all of these great thinkers who could never figure out the right answers and somehow it’s motivating to think that I may be the one to come out with something new, something revolutionary, something that may someday be viewed as “right.”

It’s the whole (crazy) line of thinking that, even though no one to date has come up with the “right” answer, someday I can.

And that, probably more than anything else, is why I study philosophy.