Absolutism
In my time as a Theory of Knowledge teacher and supervisor, I've noticed an interesting trait in the local population. Students here love the security of absolute answers.
If you tell them that a discussion can end with multiple supported viewpoints, they always want to know 'which one is best', or 'which one is right'. If you say, "This is a paradox and hence has no real answers," they will be most unhappy and want to know why such things exist. If the question asks them to evaluate A and B in terms of X and Y, you will get some sort of ranking table and a conclusion which might as well read 'four legs good, two legs bad'.
This is an odd artifact of reason which I can only conclude is cultural. Empirically, these students see the same things that we do: they see that human variety is manifold and that there are a myriad viewpoints for most things. They struggle with faith and reason, they struggle with the opportunity cost of going to a concert vs going shopping or studying for a test. They KNOW there are few easy answers, but yet they hope for them.
I've found that by overwhelming consensus, the majority of them like math. It's good stuff; the answers always seem to come out either right or wrong. You can become a professional math problem-solver, almost. It is straightforward stuff; just do a thousand or two thousand problems a month and you're good.
What makes them like this? I suspect it is the sheer pressure of needing to get things right. Their world claims to be a meritocratic society, but all the merits are a) selected by those who were selected to begin with, and b) numerical in origin, type and quality. That is why the certainty of ranking and hierarchy, of numerical value and quantitative profit, of mechanical logic and economic outcome, appeals to them so much.
But it need not be so! Surely?
If you tell them that a discussion can end with multiple supported viewpoints, they always want to know 'which one is best', or 'which one is right'. If you say, "This is a paradox and hence has no real answers," they will be most unhappy and want to know why such things exist. If the question asks them to evaluate A and B in terms of X and Y, you will get some sort of ranking table and a conclusion which might as well read 'four legs good, two legs bad'.
This is an odd artifact of reason which I can only conclude is cultural. Empirically, these students see the same things that we do: they see that human variety is manifold and that there are a myriad viewpoints for most things. They struggle with faith and reason, they struggle with the opportunity cost of going to a concert vs going shopping or studying for a test. They KNOW there are few easy answers, but yet they hope for them.
I've found that by overwhelming consensus, the majority of them like math. It's good stuff; the answers always seem to come out either right or wrong. You can become a professional math problem-solver, almost. It is straightforward stuff; just do a thousand or two thousand problems a month and you're good.
What makes them like this? I suspect it is the sheer pressure of needing to get things right. Their world claims to be a meritocratic society, but all the merits are a) selected by those who were selected to begin with, and b) numerical in origin, type and quality. That is why the certainty of ranking and hierarchy, of numerical value and quantitative profit, of mechanical logic and economic outcome, appeals to them so much.
But it need not be so! Surely?
etched with acid at 9:24:00 pm
1 Comments:
Well, I once had a hypothesis that human beings took great comfort in (the security of) certainty, that is, knowing "for sure" (Sigh... I'm using very... ambiguous words here), and were afraid of the unknown, because the sense of mystery and potential danger lying within that unknown scared them. Thus, they were afraid of faith in (the existence of) God, for example.
Then again, that's probably because I'm so much of a Theistic Existentialist (Kierkegaard FTW! :P).
/Sorrows
Post a Comment
<< Home