Very tired dog of mine. My fault entirely. Moved his food bowl to another room. Sadly passed away but memories linger on in his son Bruce, & his son Max. Both on my website:

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Further to Yesterday's Post

As I said yesterday, the piece I trawled from the internet was worth reading; at least, I thought so.

But I wasn't quite happy with the argument as a whole. As arguments go, the conclusion was quite logical; & so I started to examine the premises the argument was constructed upon. & it was there that I think I found the fault. Lets see what you make of it.

As I pointed out yesterday, the argument & conclusions put forward could equally be applied to most organised religions & "isms"; indeed, this was the method of exposition used. &, I think, herein lies the flaw; not of argument, but of premise.

In order to more easily make sense of the world, we compartmentalise it; categorising & looking for patterns as we examine each discrete phenomenon. This works well with inanimate objects, & of course, is the basis of the scientific method which has given us this world of seemingly boundless possibilities. But does it work so efficiently when the objects of study are human?

Humans are of a dual nature: social, & individual; the herd & the hunter! & in that former role, as herd members, using the (pseudo)scientific method of categorical analysis may be of use, albeit limited. But to categorise individuals into groups & expect such analytical method to explain or predict behaviour of the individual by reference to group mores measured by some statistical analysis, for instance; however many such individuals within the group exhibit such behaviour, has a fundamental flaw.

In other words, to conclude from this argument: we might be on surer ground when examining our fellow humans if we treat them as individuals. Of course, its not possible to ignore certain social characteristics such as the obvious ones that we perceive with our senses immediately. But it may be helpful to push these perceptions to the back of our minds & examine the individual rather than the social attributes before judgement.

But I do take one of the conclusions, (not that this was a conclusion meant to be drawn). Namely, that the acquiescence of the majority allows the dangerous minority to represent, however falsely, the group purpose.

1 comment:

  1. word. that was an awesome exploration of the previous material. thank you.