Humanity Redeemed

I'm a humanist. I don't believe a fearful creature lurks at the bottom of the deep well that is a human being. Quite the contrary; I believe that in that dark and hidden place is a wondrous thing; the true and quite glorious nature of the person. A thing which is kept hidden, and whose discovery is avoided. Consciously or unconsciously, we have a habit of denying ourselves the self-exploration which uncovers this creature, bit by bit.

Why is this? Why are people so uneasy at the idea of exploring the machinations of their minds? Of examining themselves like they would any scientific subject? I find I resist it myself, and am baffled as to why I fight the idea of exploring myself fully, from intuitions to motives to ideas to actions.

I look at the people of my country and see them in a state of self-distraction. Self-delusion. While I don't think it's an executive choice, human beings commit logical fallacies in an effort to protect themselves. We kill thoughts which discomfort us, such as the questioning of faith or social taboos. On occasion, we accept ideas as valid and refuse to give any further thought to them, for the compromising effect they could have on our worldview.

Now and then an idea will come along which will challenge the basic assumptions underlying one's system of thought and belief. Even when the idea rings true, it's common to reject it, uncomfortably, in lieu of restructuring one's entire system of thought and belief to accommodate it.

I come with such a challenge. I posit that not only is the notion of evil a contrivance, but so too is the notion of a 'bad person'. I suggest that any man, no matter how petty or monstrous his deed, is absolved of blame when he explains himself fully.

I note how quick people are to label others, and demonize them. Even in day to day life, they weave tales wherein they stand as guardians of reason and morality in the face of such irrational, calculating creatures as their fellow office workers. Notice how such people are characterized when quoted, often with a whiny or grumbling voice. It sheds light on the way we corrupt the ideas of people.

Often, when putting ourselves in the shoes of others, our sense of reason declines. This is a matter of necessity; we would need to be extremely intelligent to predict such complex things as other people. Whatever the case, we come up with logical fallacies and petty motivations so as to have simple explanations on hand for the person's behavior. And this leads to a portrait of a monster. We can't let it happen. We can't be so liberal in guessing at such matters.

When the 'demon' in question is asked about the situation, the classic second story emerges, wherein the teller of the first story is no more than a deciever vying for admiration, and now represented with the same sort of vocal silliness that the 'demon' had been. Effectively, the two switch places. Hero and villain are reversed with the change in perspective, and we are left to examine the evidence and our own biases to decide which story to believe.

Most say something to the effect of 'There are two sides to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.' They suggest that both our characters are somewhere between hero and villain; that neither is absolutely good or evil. But I dislike the terms 'good' and 'evil', and I dislike the notion of human beings as petty and irrational creatures. I prefer to take a different stance. Both our characters are, in fact, the heroes of the story. The villain? The rather innocent failures in reason and perception--dark clouds--between the two.

Now, if these clouds could be defeated or bypassed altogether, the two would see one another for what they are--noble things, at fault only for their failure to apply logic properly, leading to conflict. Even when one has motivations which are far from 'noble'--when one is a single-minded seeker of pleasure or respect--this too is a failure of logic. A failure to realize that the fulfillment of petty drives is shallow and unsatisfactory, providing at best a weak satisfaction before vanishing.

There will never be a way to cut those clouds entirely. To see other human beings, truly, for what they are. For corrupting that information is all the world; every mistake we can make, no matter how innocent, in observing them. Physically and mentally, we are imperfect beings. It's inevitable.

What we can do is fight the darkness rather than gather it around us--like a blanket. What we need to do is actively seek out the sorts of people with whom we are genuinely disgusted--even terrified--and see them not as monsters. Not as lost causes, or animals. We need to see them, as best we can, for what they are.

They must be willing to explain themselves for this to happen. Any person can make excuses, but this is not what I mean. The monster in question must be, through careful inquiry, made to explain itself rationally. To give its desires, its perceptions of cause and effect, its goals, and its plan. The more the monster is examined, the more human it becomes. Terrifying though it may be, we'll see ourselves--all of humanity--reflected in the thing.

We'll realize that at the core, the person we've found embodies reason as well as anyone else, at worst having made the mistake of acquiring a skewed--though usually reparable--image of the world. The person won't be able to create a highly rational explanation until much of this is, in fact, fixed. If it is, in fact, fixed--if those dark clouds are disspelled--then the person's guilt is gone in every sense. No longer a malevolent force to his peers, and with realization of past mistakes. Neither forgiveness or regret in their traditional sense are meaningful to describe this. It's a genuine resolution.

This, I think, pertains to everyone from office workers to politicians to businessmen to dictators to serial murderers. While the details surrounding them vary, we all hold the same basic elements at our core--reason, the universal system with which we may handle ideas, and emotion, the wellspring of our motivations of which the most satisfactory are noble. I'm a humanist. I believe that the imperfect details and fallacies of thought can be wrought into shape in anyone (they must be willing) and a wise, noble human being can be created.

The downside of this--the descent from ideal to real, as it were, is that it's difficult to apply. I have, in my life, been a mediator. It has been, genuinely, the hardest and most unrewarding thing I have ever done. On other occasions, it has been rewarding and not so difficult. (I think distance from the parties is key.) I'm aware that the clouds about some people are, while not impossible to penetrate, difficult. Too difficult for one to try at, perhaps. Here we have those so deluded or biased as to be impossible to crack, at least from our own position.

Despite what I say there is yet a case for the imprisonment of the criminally insane. But the important thing to remember is that no human being is truly a monster as we define it. Self-delusion about a noble core can corrupt one into a despicable thing, but it's not hopeless. Still, without the tools to resolve such delusion the best we can do is keep our distance.

A lifelong process should be to find errors in one's own reasoning, and to strive for an accurate and satisfactory set of motives. When the correct answer does come, I suggest, it'll be a likeable one. While defeating unsound ideas and habits seems a scary thing from the outside, the most difficult part is commitment. Willpower lies in the strength of an idea. As we do this--as we explore ourselves and make such repairs--we gain what I term wisdom. We become less biased and, I expect, come to see the value and potential in all human beings.

I'm aware ideas will always diverge, and the thing I call 'wisdom' is not a path but a whole world of ideas to be explored. Not a position, even, but a velocity, representing one's willingness to evaluate new ideas and one's inclination to disregard the source of those ideas as important in their consideration. I think the idea above applies here as well. Philosophy is great fun, and greater still when you don't see members of other schools of thought (damned empiricists!) as fools or monsters.

Like dealing with people in day-to-day life, there's much more to be gained by finding people who think differently than immersing one's self in people who think the same. There's much to be gained by examining both sides of an ideological conflict. By reading religious texts and philosophical texts to find ideas, rather than beliefs or weapons of argument. There's a wide, grand world of thoughts out there, and the thing known as 'discourse'--rational argument--is its language.

So, if you disagree with me on any of the points above, I'm quite glad you came. Unsheath your keyboard and let us do battle! I ask only that you see me not as irrational or a monster--just thinking differently. And I'll do the same for you.


Cellulose Man
------------
Lv. 1
class: Rationalist
faith: Irreligious, Agnostic
outlook: Humanist
ethics: Egoist
social: Libertarian
economic: Anticorporate, Moderate Left
favorite color: Blue
fashion statement: Vespa Goggles