American Pride and Intellectual Insecurity
I've noticed that certain people like to brag about how patriotic they are. Recently I was in a debate with someone over various aspects of American security, and at the end of one of his statements he said "Well I value freedom and American lives". My first reaction was pure rage that someone would be so stupid to think that, while we're discussing something as complex as American security, that I would have informed opinions on American security if I did not value freedom or American lives. So I explained to him that, for all practical purposes, everyone that will be expressing enough interest in American security values those things, and thus stating those things in that debate was about as relevant as stating "I am a carbon based life form". After which he apologized, and said that what he meant was that he shows his love of freedom and American lives, while I don't (in the process he, of course, accused me of liberalism). So I asked him what exactly it was about my thoughts on the matter made it reasonable to assume that I did not value freedom or American lives. I got no response.
It's really not a very hard thing to figure out, why someone would state something like that. It's because his side needs a boost. In stating "I value freedom, and American lives" while debating me, the basic assumption made by a looker on is that, since he statedly values freedom and American lives, and since I disagree with him on many issues, I don't value freedom or American lives, and thus why should anyone take what I have to say on American security? But this would lead to the next conclusion, which is that the presence of such statement is evidence that the person who stated that feels like s/he is losing the debate. Why else would someone state something that a child could tell isn't relevant in the debate (well, it's unfair to say it's irrelevant, since if he could've actually proven that I in fact do not value freedom or American lives, it would very rightly place into question the legitimacy of what I am saying about American security)?
But what of those who state it regularly. On the debate forum that I frequent there is a member who's name is ProudAmerican. Why would someone do this? Is it possible that someone believes that they need this unfairly earned extra legitimacy before any debate even begins?
I'd say it's a sign of intellectual insecurity. Intellectual insecurity isn't an uncommon thing, or something that is solely held to those who do not have anything worthwhile to say, just as much as someone being insecure in general doesn't mean that the person has more reason to be insecure than anyone else. Hell, Frank Sinatra was admitedly insecure, and he was fuckin Frank Sinatra!
but although a problem is not required to bring about intellectual insecurity, intellectual insecurity itself is a problem. This is because, if a given person is insecure intellectually, yet they place themselves in a situation where every aspect of one's intellect, and what they draw from that intellect (aka debate), they are clearly there to attempt to bolster their confidence in what they believe, as opposed to reforming what they believe into what is correct. Thus they are pointless in discussions, since they will always ignore the points that you make, while attacking you in any way possible in an attempt to justify, namely to themselves, that their opinions are correct.
And this leads to the single biggest problem in the world today, the one problem that all other problems stem from. Lowered levels of debate. I am a firm believer that there is not a single problem that the human race has, or will ever face that we couldn't eventually find a solution to. Now this is, of course, a debatable stance to hold. It is reasonable to look at human progress and human history and take from that that there are certain inherent aspects of humanity that make us incapable of solving certain problems. What I would argue, though, is that since humans are in a constant state of evolution, we are constantly improving, and the presence of improvement is proof that we have not achieved our full potential, and it is impossible to say what traits are inherent, and which traits can be improved, and thus the problems stemming from them become solvable once our full potential has been reached (although I do see the argument that, since we are in a constant state of evolution, for us to reach our true potential we have to reach a zenith, in which the human race is perfect, and how some could see this as impossible). That being said, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless someone presents an argument that would change my mind, which is certainly possible. I have not reached my full potential, and thus any of my views or beliefs are fallible).
Anywho, what we do know is that the limits of human potential are not static. There is short term full potential, and then there is long term full potential. If someone lowers the level of debate, what we know is that after which we are no longer discussing our problems, and their potential solutions, at the current full level of our potential. Although it is debatable on whether or not this slows down the speed of our intellectual evolution, it is unquestionable that it slows down the level of human progress. This is because debate, at its very core, is not just an intellectual pissing match, but a comparison of ideas on various perceived problems, and a comparison of proposed solutions to those problems, from which we can learn from each other, and thus develop better ideas and better potential solutions to our problems. Thus the one thing we do know about a lower level of debate is that we get worse ideas and worse potential solutions (speaking in an opportunity cost sense).
This effects every aspect of human existance. The vast majority of our problems are so complex that solutions are almost always imperfect. Imperfection in a solution is that, along with solving current problems, it brings about problems of its own. For example, yes, a minimum wage solves the problem of people who work hard but don't make enough to survive. But along with doing that, it also messes up the equilibrium in the market, and makes it so that fewer people will have jobs then had them before (and due to the nature of who is effected, both positively and negatively, from an increase in the minimum wage, those who lose their jobs are the ones who were barely scraping by in the first place, and thus they are the single group that has the least ability to absorb such a loss). Thus the minimum wage is an imperfect solution. Whether or not you believe that the overall benefit achieved by those who benefit from an increase in the minimum wage outweighs the cost of those who lose their jobs is a matter of opinion, but to deny the imperfection of the minimum wage brings us to a point where we cannot discuss how to deal with those who would lose their jobs because of an increase, simply because a large portion of the population denies their existance.
Since we know that our solutions are imperfect in nature, what we're seeking is the least imperfect solution to any given problem. And to effectively and constantly find these solutions, we must be at the top of our game, which a lowered level of debate makes impossible, by definition. Thus there is no greater sin against humanity than lowering the level of debate.
But who is responsible? Is it those who are intellectually insecure? That doesn't sound very fair to me, since insecurity is unpleasant in and of itself, and thus it is reasonable to believe that if those who are intellectually insecure would stop if they knew how, just as if something's consistantly stabbing me in my foot, I reasonably would remove it as soon as I realized what was actually stabbing me. So I'd say know, it is not their fault per se, but instead that they are merely pawns in this matter.
The ones who play upon intellectual insecurity are the ones who are responsible, regardless of their own level of intellectual security. The worst are the ones who are secure, and have a great understanding of how things work, but personally stand to benefit from misunderstanding, and thus foster misunderstanding. For example, those who try to convince people that there are only two options in any issue. This lowers the level of debate simply because, out of the seemingly infinite possible solutions, it eliminates all but 2, the one we're currently using, and the opposite of that. If we're at war, it's either we stop fighting or we keep fighting, which doesn't allow us to discuss different ways of fighting, fighting a different target, or anything else. You're either for gay marriage or you're against it. You're either for welfare, or you're for making all poor people fend for themselves. You're either for a minimum wage, or you think that people who work, but don't make enough to survive, is not a problem worth adressing. You can either vote for George W. Bush or John Kerry.
Another breed of these people are a seemingly less viscous group, those who introduce emotion into debate. Emotion, by its very nature, is illogical, since emotion causes us to act in ways that we otherwise would not if we had summed up a situation objectively and logically. When in "Bowling for Columbine" when Michael Moore left the picture of some kid who'd been killed by gun violence at Charleton Heston's door, that was lowering the level of debate. Forcing someone to adress someone who just lost their job to outsourcing while discussing the merits of outsourcing, that is lowering the level of debate. MADD constantly telling sob stories in trying to make drunk driving more illegal, is lowering the level of debate.
Note, this is not to say that the points they are arguing are wrong, but just the methods that they are using. This is because they are intentionally introducing an illogical factor into a debate that, for it to find the least imperfect solutions, must be entirely logical. Is it logical for a police force to dedicate more of its resources to stopping drunk driving then stopping rape? It depends, but if people are more outraged over drunk driving than rape, due to the presence of more horrible stories about drunk driving then rape, this question will not get the level of thought needed to find the correct answer. Should we have attacked Iraq? Probably not, but we certainly didn't come to that conclusion due to those in favor of it repeatedly mentioning September 11th, something that obviously elicits strong emotional responses, despite questionable links between the two at best. Considering the wealth of knowledge gained from the work of Darwin, does it matter if people are uncomfortable with his discoveries, or is it relevant if he was a drunk? Regardless of your opinions on George W. Bush, what is the ACTUAL relevence of his former coke addiction or alcaholism or weak grasp on the english language?
Let's go back to the original story, of the debate between me and the person who vocally values freedom and American life. What we should take from this is that the problem in this was not that he's intellectually insecure, but instead the problem is that he missed out on things he may have learned by lowering the level of debate (and possibly moreso, what I didn't learn because of his lifetime of participating in a lower level of debate). It should not be tolerated. It should be called out, regardless of what they may think of you for it, because when it comes down to it, their level of thought calls into question the value of their current thoughts anyways.
It's really not a very hard thing to figure out, why someone would state something like that. It's because his side needs a boost. In stating "I value freedom, and American lives" while debating me, the basic assumption made by a looker on is that, since he statedly values freedom and American lives, and since I disagree with him on many issues, I don't value freedom or American lives, and thus why should anyone take what I have to say on American security? But this would lead to the next conclusion, which is that the presence of such statement is evidence that the person who stated that feels like s/he is losing the debate. Why else would someone state something that a child could tell isn't relevant in the debate (well, it's unfair to say it's irrelevant, since if he could've actually proven that I in fact do not value freedom or American lives, it would very rightly place into question the legitimacy of what I am saying about American security)?
But what of those who state it regularly. On the debate forum that I frequent there is a member who's name is ProudAmerican. Why would someone do this? Is it possible that someone believes that they need this unfairly earned extra legitimacy before any debate even begins?
I'd say it's a sign of intellectual insecurity. Intellectual insecurity isn't an uncommon thing, or something that is solely held to those who do not have anything worthwhile to say, just as much as someone being insecure in general doesn't mean that the person has more reason to be insecure than anyone else. Hell, Frank Sinatra was admitedly insecure, and he was fuckin Frank Sinatra!
but although a problem is not required to bring about intellectual insecurity, intellectual insecurity itself is a problem. This is because, if a given person is insecure intellectually, yet they place themselves in a situation where every aspect of one's intellect, and what they draw from that intellect (aka debate), they are clearly there to attempt to bolster their confidence in what they believe, as opposed to reforming what they believe into what is correct. Thus they are pointless in discussions, since they will always ignore the points that you make, while attacking you in any way possible in an attempt to justify, namely to themselves, that their opinions are correct.
And this leads to the single biggest problem in the world today, the one problem that all other problems stem from. Lowered levels of debate. I am a firm believer that there is not a single problem that the human race has, or will ever face that we couldn't eventually find a solution to. Now this is, of course, a debatable stance to hold. It is reasonable to look at human progress and human history and take from that that there are certain inherent aspects of humanity that make us incapable of solving certain problems. What I would argue, though, is that since humans are in a constant state of evolution, we are constantly improving, and the presence of improvement is proof that we have not achieved our full potential, and it is impossible to say what traits are inherent, and which traits can be improved, and thus the problems stemming from them become solvable once our full potential has been reached (although I do see the argument that, since we are in a constant state of evolution, for us to reach our true potential we have to reach a zenith, in which the human race is perfect, and how some could see this as impossible). That being said, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless someone presents an argument that would change my mind, which is certainly possible. I have not reached my full potential, and thus any of my views or beliefs are fallible).
Anywho, what we do know is that the limits of human potential are not static. There is short term full potential, and then there is long term full potential. If someone lowers the level of debate, what we know is that after which we are no longer discussing our problems, and their potential solutions, at the current full level of our potential. Although it is debatable on whether or not this slows down the speed of our intellectual evolution, it is unquestionable that it slows down the level of human progress. This is because debate, at its very core, is not just an intellectual pissing match, but a comparison of ideas on various perceived problems, and a comparison of proposed solutions to those problems, from which we can learn from each other, and thus develop better ideas and better potential solutions to our problems. Thus the one thing we do know about a lower level of debate is that we get worse ideas and worse potential solutions (speaking in an opportunity cost sense).
This effects every aspect of human existance. The vast majority of our problems are so complex that solutions are almost always imperfect. Imperfection in a solution is that, along with solving current problems, it brings about problems of its own. For example, yes, a minimum wage solves the problem of people who work hard but don't make enough to survive. But along with doing that, it also messes up the equilibrium in the market, and makes it so that fewer people will have jobs then had them before (and due to the nature of who is effected, both positively and negatively, from an increase in the minimum wage, those who lose their jobs are the ones who were barely scraping by in the first place, and thus they are the single group that has the least ability to absorb such a loss). Thus the minimum wage is an imperfect solution. Whether or not you believe that the overall benefit achieved by those who benefit from an increase in the minimum wage outweighs the cost of those who lose their jobs is a matter of opinion, but to deny the imperfection of the minimum wage brings us to a point where we cannot discuss how to deal with those who would lose their jobs because of an increase, simply because a large portion of the population denies their existance.
Since we know that our solutions are imperfect in nature, what we're seeking is the least imperfect solution to any given problem. And to effectively and constantly find these solutions, we must be at the top of our game, which a lowered level of debate makes impossible, by definition. Thus there is no greater sin against humanity than lowering the level of debate.
But who is responsible? Is it those who are intellectually insecure? That doesn't sound very fair to me, since insecurity is unpleasant in and of itself, and thus it is reasonable to believe that if those who are intellectually insecure would stop if they knew how, just as if something's consistantly stabbing me in my foot, I reasonably would remove it as soon as I realized what was actually stabbing me. So I'd say know, it is not their fault per se, but instead that they are merely pawns in this matter.
The ones who play upon intellectual insecurity are the ones who are responsible, regardless of their own level of intellectual security. The worst are the ones who are secure, and have a great understanding of how things work, but personally stand to benefit from misunderstanding, and thus foster misunderstanding. For example, those who try to convince people that there are only two options in any issue. This lowers the level of debate simply because, out of the seemingly infinite possible solutions, it eliminates all but 2, the one we're currently using, and the opposite of that. If we're at war, it's either we stop fighting or we keep fighting, which doesn't allow us to discuss different ways of fighting, fighting a different target, or anything else. You're either for gay marriage or you're against it. You're either for welfare, or you're for making all poor people fend for themselves. You're either for a minimum wage, or you think that people who work, but don't make enough to survive, is not a problem worth adressing. You can either vote for George W. Bush or John Kerry.
Another breed of these people are a seemingly less viscous group, those who introduce emotion into debate. Emotion, by its very nature, is illogical, since emotion causes us to act in ways that we otherwise would not if we had summed up a situation objectively and logically. When in "Bowling for Columbine" when Michael Moore left the picture of some kid who'd been killed by gun violence at Charleton Heston's door, that was lowering the level of debate. Forcing someone to adress someone who just lost their job to outsourcing while discussing the merits of outsourcing, that is lowering the level of debate. MADD constantly telling sob stories in trying to make drunk driving more illegal, is lowering the level of debate.
Note, this is not to say that the points they are arguing are wrong, but just the methods that they are using. This is because they are intentionally introducing an illogical factor into a debate that, for it to find the least imperfect solutions, must be entirely logical. Is it logical for a police force to dedicate more of its resources to stopping drunk driving then stopping rape? It depends, but if people are more outraged over drunk driving than rape, due to the presence of more horrible stories about drunk driving then rape, this question will not get the level of thought needed to find the correct answer. Should we have attacked Iraq? Probably not, but we certainly didn't come to that conclusion due to those in favor of it repeatedly mentioning September 11th, something that obviously elicits strong emotional responses, despite questionable links between the two at best. Considering the wealth of knowledge gained from the work of Darwin, does it matter if people are uncomfortable with his discoveries, or is it relevant if he was a drunk? Regardless of your opinions on George W. Bush, what is the ACTUAL relevence of his former coke addiction or alcaholism or weak grasp on the english language?
Let's go back to the original story, of the debate between me and the person who vocally values freedom and American life. What we should take from this is that the problem in this was not that he's intellectually insecure, but instead the problem is that he missed out on things he may have learned by lowering the level of debate (and possibly moreso, what I didn't learn because of his lifetime of participating in a lower level of debate). It should not be tolerated. It should be called out, regardless of what they may think of you for it, because when it comes down to it, their level of thought calls into question the value of their current thoughts anyways.
posted by Galen at 3:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home