HuffingtonPost.com, the self proclaimed left wing response to drudgereport.com and co.,(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45168.html) recently launched its newest addition to string of highly specialized categories, divorce. Its founder, Ariana Huffington, claimed that she was prompted by the statistic that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. It's an astute idea. After all divorce is part of the fabric of our society and America needs a forum for the growing discussion.
Yet I was taken aback by the direction in which many of the contributors on her site were going. One op-ed "Divorce! It’s good for the children!" by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/divorce-its-good-for-the-_b_782469.html Jane Smiley, argues that divorce can be good.
But is it?
Ok, I understand that many in our society attempt to go with the flow. When they recognize a societal trend they respond with non-judgmental acceptance, i.e. instead of attributing meaning to a given development they just recognize it and report on it. I appreciate the importance of presenting objective-oriented information.
However, I perceive more than just aloof coverage, by contributors to Huffingtonpost.com, of a news-worthy story. Instead, it seems that many who gravitate to this media platform are attempting to justify the trend. Instead of offering an unadulterated statistic to their audience these writers are attempting to reshape an historically negative event (even when justified), divorce, into a positive activity.
The arguments are boring, but non-the-less should be considered.
1. we live in a post-marriage society
2.marriage works for some and not for others.
3. marriage vis-a-vis same sex couples and singles is exclusionary.
I can accept that religious grounded argument for marriage (such as the refrain that "love is a part of marriage, not marriage") often have a minimal impact in the secular public sphere and are already discounted as antiquated and/or myth. Never mind that religious communities of all types are also experiencing relative increases in divorce rates. I can even see why many proponents of divorce discount the anecdotal evidence as to the ravages of broken, uh I mean separated families. I live in Crown Heights, where gang affiliation is often directly attributed to absentee parents. Just as my classmates, of divorced parents, in my hometown of suburban CT. seemed, perhaps mistakenly, to have their own genre of problems (who doesn't right!?).
Still I'm sure many divorced parents and their children are neither gang-bangers or in therapy.
Fine, I can understand all these perspectives.
Furthermore, we may never know whether rampant divorce is a symptom of a larger cultural problem, or just another seminal development in an increasingly changing society.
But at the same time it may be cause for serious concern even for those who feel that our capitalistic mindset requires a materialistic reason to gain our attention.
So I ask: Do the implications of increasing divorce rates have a direct impact on our economic welfare?
What if it is not a mere coincidence that the 1960's liberal revolution and the increasing divorce that came with it, was also the decade when real income reached its peak and has since declined? What if having an economically stable home to turn to (yes two adults living in one location are more likely to accumulate resources to share with others) in times of distress and need, helps strengthen the fabric of our national psyche and, by virtue of that, our productivity? What if your divorce precludes your children from marrying, which negatively impacts the economic environment that we ALL live in? Do the inherent responsibilities of a successful marriage inculcate its members, especially its children, with a sense of monetary responsibility, credit cards and all?
If huffingtonPost.com is going to publish articles justifying societies divorce from marriage than, for the sake of the greater good, it should also explore the ramifications of a society without marriage.
Showing posts with label objectivity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objectivity. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Unifying Factor: Relativist/Subjective Thinking Reflects Objective/Truth
What is a ball?
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Some may answer “it’s like x”.
Professor Wolfgan Grassel argues (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8393&Itemid=48) that this is wrong answer. Because the correct answer requires a definition that places the ball into a more general category, i.e a spherical entity/object, “instead [of] an instance of balls, or of the usage of balls. Providing merely an aspect of what [it]is (by substituting a part for the whole)”.
Why do so many young students respond in this way to a simple question “what is a ball"? Grassel asserts that this is yet another manifestation of subjective/relativist thinking that has overtaken our culture of thought. Thus the student, automatically applies a completely subjective definition to a word, a “ball is LIKE x”. This, Grassel continues, is rooted in the enlightenment.
His line of argument continues. However the legitimacy of his underlying assertion that relativist thinking reflects the negative results of the enlightenment movement, is questionable. Also, in an ironic twist, relativist thinking -which has its roots in individuality/subjectivity- is in itself a reflection of a much deeper unity.
RELATIVIST THINKING DEFINED
Relativist thinking is defined in many different ways, but the underlying theme is that ones interpretation and subsequent actions reflect ones individual experiences.
It is important to recognize the prevalence of this type of thinking, also known as “x relativism”, because it is applied in almost every social milieu.
For example (it’s like) “moral relativism”, `imports the belief that what is deemed moral for one individual or society is deemed immoral by another. Take Native South-American tribes where women do not cover their breasts. In many Western countries that is unacceptable conduct. Try to define the word “black”. Many will associate it with the unknown, fear, death, crime, and the devil. Others will define it as the absence of light or as the color of their shirt. In politics, crime/terror is explained by some as the result of society imposing itself in a negative way on individuals or communities and by others as the lack of personal restraint or even inherent tendencies. In the media, the disparities in reporting and subtle word usage (terrorist, militant, rebel) between FOX and CNN. In science, Einstein’s theory of relativity argues that our perception depends on our vantage point, “standpoint theory”.
Indeed, if we assert that every person's thoughts, words, and actions are influenced by their unique experiences (upbringing, community, school, travel etc.) then everything is subjective and there is no one objective truth. In fact “Relativist thinking” is what explains and even justifies the above disparities in human thought.
From this perspective, the one Grassel presents, relativist thinking justifies eternal disunity, a perpetual lack of consensus in every level of our existence.
RELATIVIST THINKING REFLECTS DEEPER UNITY
On the other hand.
Paradoxically, “relativist thinking” is a superficial expression of the unifying factor!
For example, what is a hand? The evolutionary-scientist may respond it is a four fingered appendage evolved, advantageously, into four fingers and a thumb. Rafael Nadel could assert that it is what allows us to play tennis, and Brock Lessner affirms that it is something we use to pummel your opponent. These responses would aggravate Grassel, because they are subjective definitions engendered by relativist thinking.
At the same time Grassel would certainly acknowledge that these are all true answers just as all the subjective individuals in our discussion would agree that all the definitions are true. The hand IS a result of design, a weapon, or a human “holder”.
But how is that possible? How is it that all are true but so different, isn’t truth definitive/singular?
Many will shout “this is exactly the point”, there relativist/subjective thought doesn’t allow "one truth”.
Or
The underlying singular truth is so definitive, so immutable, so prevalent that it has far reaching multiplicity of affects all of which true are only because their source is true!
True the hand is the result of design, a weapon, or a holder, but only because the hand is part of the body. Without this underlying truth the hand would just be a piece of useless decomposing flesh and all those definitions would be patently false.
Indeed the only issue is recognizing that the reason why there are many truths is because there is a deeper unifying truth.
Thus if it is true that relativist thought is not a result of one deeper truth then there is indeed no one truth. Without the body the hand could be none of the subjective things we claim it is. Alternatively if there is an underlying truth/unifying factor, then each person’s truth (which stems from their individual experiences) is true but only so long as they are connected to the one underlying truth.
It would seem then, that the very existence of relativist thought which fosters multiple truths is enabled by a deeper singular truth. Thus the enlightenment movement, far from fostering further division, enabled a major step in recognizing our innate uniqueness (subjectivity/differences), and the unifying role of those differences.
Just as the hand is unique only so far as it is part of and serves the body, so to our unique qualities shine only when we are part of the unifying factor -when we serve each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
