That perfect person- the perfect spouse- the one person you always dream of, that paragon lost in a sea of hopelessly average and flawed runner-ups, does not exist.
That has been the flavor of my most recent train of thought.
Looking at the idea from a realistic stand-point, there are a number of problems with the theory of my "one true love":
Are all these characteristics I have in mind realistic for one person to have? Would it be reasonable to conceive of a person with all these perfect attributes? If it is reasonable, a person ascribed with the characteristics I hold dear would be very, very scarce; what are the chances that this person lives in the United states? In Utah? In Layton? I would have to travel to many nations for many years just to hope to improve my chances of getting a glimpse of this perfect person. Moreover, how old would this person be? What would be the probability that they would be within a relationship-functional age range?
On the other side of the coin, it seems improbable that only one person in the entire world has qualities I admire. If there were only one person, then the probability that I'd meet them- short of divine intervention- is virtually zero.
Furthermore, as there are a finite amount of optimal candidates, these candidates would vary from each other by a difference in the optimization of their qualities. This makes the window of mate optimization pretty relative. And as there are a finite amount of optimal mates, there is an even bigger pool of "nearly" optimal mates who lack one or two attractive characteristics, and even more in a pool of mates lacking two or three characteristics etc.
If I WERE in the same room as this person, would I even recognize them? Personally, I have never encountered nor heard a genuine tale of "love at first sight". "Love" to me is a deep and profound connection and is a product of time; anything else would be infatuation or "lust at first sight" so I suppose if this person was absolutely gorgeous, they might strike my eye readily, but for all the wrong reasons.
Assuming I was able to recognize this person, how would I know that I am everything that THEY want? Would I be comparable to that person at all? What if they did not want a relationship or were unavailable?
Faced with all these realizations, it becomes apparent that there is no one person on earth that one needs to search diligently for because that person is just an ideal: a prototype for you to compare possible mates against, not a reality. And even if you did find person who exists only in your mind, there's still the very real possibility that they would not find you to be what they are looking for.
So that means that that which is left is a group of people who fall pretty close to your prototype but are in the end not "perfect". Ergo, there is an aspect of "settling" in even the strongest of relationships; however it goes without saying that the settling should be done reasonably without ignoring fundamental factors like fidelity and respect that would determine if the relationship can survive at all.
And honestly, the ideal of a one true love is a pretty romanticized idea (which I suspect are perpetuated by religious ideals surrounding marriage-without-divorce and monogamy).
It should also be noted that humans biologically were not meant to be monogamous. Even though there are indeed advantages to monogamy for progeny, it exists rarely in nature and it's definition follows more along the lines of "favored partner" rather than "exclusive partner".
Nevertheless, I would also say that just because we are forced to "settle", that "one-true-love" is a conditioned belief, and that even though we may be programmed biologically to do things that follow species-survivalist instinct,these are not excuses to cheat habitually; One may argue that part of being human is learning to understand the ethics behind our actions and restrain ourselves accordingly.
It is important to realize that monogamy is not for everyone but is still gratifying to those who want it.
There has been alot of ground broken for me recently surrounding these ideas that, up until recently, have been unimpeached. But in closing I have to remember that companionship is only one aspect of life, and I'm just a "kid". I've got to keep things in perspective.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
***Insight*** Golden Virtue of Skepticism
Truth to me is the most valuable thing in the world. Yet it is so very impossible to find, it is shrouded in subjectivity and deception: If truth were a rock, it'd be the most ideal thing to build understanding on. But that rock is near impossible to find and discern, however, so often times our "truth" is merely something that is convenient to build upon. Yet we know as we build upon it(hopefully), that shaky ground has its limits; we cannot build too high nor too extravagantly because the ground will simply not support it.
So I hope one would excuse me when someone offers me truth in a convenient package and I choose to remain skeptical, for that is my golden virtue.
Why am I so skeptical of everything?
Because the truth is perfect understanding and everything else is inferior. I realize it is unrealistic that I will be able to find true understanding of anything or if I do that I will be able to recognize it for whatever gravity it possesses.
And because there are so many confounding variables influencing that which we perceive as the truth- a truth that for whatever reason, others want me to believe.
Here are some examples.
When told something, I need to keep in mind:
The speakers intent or motive for having me believe what they are saying
The state of mind of the speaker
The tone of the speaker
The environment of the speaker is in or the occasion. Are their surroundings and/or the surrounding cultural beliefs influencing what they are saying one way or another?
The existing prejudices they have
Their intellectual standing and integrity
The audience they are speaking to; if they were talking to just me, would they say something different than what they would say to a group?
The limitation of words. All words are are an assumption of meaning; subjective definitions that try to piece together an abstract and vastly complex thought with many intricacies and tones. Almost always, words simply do not do thoughts justice by roughly and incompletely describing the idea.
If they are quoting something, what is the context of the quote? Does the context or the way the quote was quoted have serious implications for the meaning of the quote?
When I read something, I have all the former to keep in mind as well as:
How was this translated?
How old is it?
Does the author speak for himself or for another? What authority does he have to speak for that person? What is the probability that they misunderstood whoever they were talking for?
How has the text changed since it was written originally and brought to me from all the different hands that have touched this text to where it sits now in my hands? Has anyone purposefully changed, deleted or added words? Sentences? Pages? Books? Why did they change it? What was their motive to altering the text?
Am I interpreting what the author is saying as correct? How do I know I am grasping their metaphors correctly? This applies largely to figurative language and is influenced by translation error.
How well did they argue their point?
If there is evidence, how sound is the evidence?
If there is data, was it collected properly? Was it interpreted properly?
If there is a claim without evidence or data, why is it not there? What implication does that have to the strength of the argument?
Skepticism requires that there always be uncertainty until, ideally, all confounding variables are isolated and controlled. It may seem overwhelming, but in fact along with the uncertainty of skepticism, we have reason to assign a probability to that uncertainty.
In the peer-reviewed scientific journal Punishment and Society, skepticism dictates that I simply MUST ask all of the above questions regarding the text (what do they mean when they use the word blah? Is it the same way I would use blah? Is the text drastically altered by many and/or anonymous editors? Did the author have an agenda when he published the article within journal entitled Education of Inmates is Meritorious? Is this text outdated and therefore not applicable to the current day and age? etc.)
However, the scholarly nature of the journal itself helps in drastically decreasing the probability of the uncertainty by stating:
1.It was peer-reviewed for soundness of logic, legitimacy of sources, and is in compliance with the paradigms of science.
2. The text is not outdated, the journal was published in 2008 and the content of the journal is such that it would not be outdated by the small passage of time.
Further more, reason allows me to ascribe low probability of uncertainty to the other questions:
1. The words used in the journal were not slang or even vernacular, but scientific. Therefore those terms will have a very definitive and universally agreed upon.
2. The journal was supported by an American institution, published in America, research was conducted by American professors at American universities to be released to an American english-speaking populous; chances are this was not written in non-english and translated.
3. The peer-review system is rigorous and if there was a very obvious motive, bias or prejudice, the article would not have been published nor included in the peer-reviewed journal.
There is still uncertainty in all of these things even though they have "answers", but to believe honestly believe the contrary would be unfathomably unreasonable.
May I now be so bold as to apply the rules of skepticism (and reason) to holy and perfect texts such as the bible?
Asking some of the questions above, here are some important realizations:
The bible was not written by God. It was translated by his human prophets through visions- one way revelations of unknown quality. Furthermore, the prophets were not always speaking for God at all; often it was just relating their own experiences rather than revealing the truth of God.
These human prophets were subject to misunderstanding what God was saying, to reinterpret what they thought God was saying either to understand what was said, or to fulfill a motive.
These human prophets were often from a lower class and therefore not educated.
These human prophets were subject to influencing others with their own prejudice and bias.
The Bible itself is thousands of years old, the beliefs and knowledge base of the denizens of those times were vastly different than the knowledge and beliefs we have today: to apply their archaic practices would be impractical and, in a way, immoral and disrespectful to the knowledge and experiences we have.
The bible was written in one language and translated over time through the christian community into over many different languages prior to its mainstream popularity; however, now there are translations available to every language.
The books that are included in the Bible are not universally agreed upon; there are hundreds of books in the bible but only a select few were included by an elite few. Those books those few chose were what they thought contained the truth or were included to further themselves with a political motive; they knew how influential it was.
Too often, we arbitrarily quote from the bible with not nearly enough regard for its context. A quote from Martin Luther King Jr. can, with simple omission, can turn "I have a dream that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" into "I have a dream that one day my children will be judged." This has huge implications for the meaning of the quote and added ambiguity.
Too often, people take the parts of the bible they don't understand and extrapolate a meaning. This is unreasonable. If it isn't understood, you must admit you don't understand and drop it. To transform it by leaps and bounds of the imagination or with impure logic does the author injustice, poses serious implications for how one reads the rest of the text, and can have serious implications for others depending on how the passage is used.
Even if one disagrees with one or most of the realizations I came to, so long as even one remains, there is serious and reasonable uncertainty surrounding the legitimacy of truth in the bible.
With skepticism, in the end all we have is faith- faith that that which reasonable and the probable does in fact point to the truth. Faith in that which is unreasonable or shrouded in doubt and corruption is foolishness.
I hope that I will go forth and look at what I have and realize that whatever I am given and told to believe cannot itself be immediately trusted. Only through earnest, unbiased questioning can I come closer to and show my respect for the truth.
Truth to me is the most valuable thing in the world. Yet it is so very impossible to find, it is shrouded in subjectivity and deception: If truth were a rock, it'd be the most ideal thing to build understanding on. But that rock is near impossible to find and discern, however, so often times our "truth" is merely something that is convenient to build upon. Yet we know as we build upon it(hopefully), that shaky ground has its limits; we cannot build too high nor too extravagantly because the ground will simply not support it.
So I hope one would excuse me when someone offers me truth in a convenient package and I choose to remain skeptical, for that is my golden virtue.
Why am I so skeptical of everything?
Because the truth is perfect understanding and everything else is inferior. I realize it is unrealistic that I will be able to find true understanding of anything or if I do that I will be able to recognize it for whatever gravity it possesses.
And because there are so many confounding variables influencing that which we perceive as the truth- a truth that for whatever reason, others want me to believe.
Here are some examples.
When told something, I need to keep in mind:
The speakers intent or motive for having me believe what they are saying
The state of mind of the speaker
The tone of the speaker
The environment of the speaker is in or the occasion. Are their surroundings and/or the surrounding cultural beliefs influencing what they are saying one way or another?
The existing prejudices they have
Their intellectual standing and integrity
The audience they are speaking to; if they were talking to just me, would they say something different than what they would say to a group?
The limitation of words. All words are are an assumption of meaning; subjective definitions that try to piece together an abstract and vastly complex thought with many intricacies and tones. Almost always, words simply do not do thoughts justice by roughly and incompletely describing the idea.
If they are quoting something, what is the context of the quote? Does the context or the way the quote was quoted have serious implications for the meaning of the quote?
When I read something, I have all the former to keep in mind as well as:
How was this translated?
How old is it?
Does the author speak for himself or for another? What authority does he have to speak for that person? What is the probability that they misunderstood whoever they were talking for?
How has the text changed since it was written originally and brought to me from all the different hands that have touched this text to where it sits now in my hands? Has anyone purposefully changed, deleted or added words? Sentences? Pages? Books? Why did they change it? What was their motive to altering the text?
Am I interpreting what the author is saying as correct? How do I know I am grasping their metaphors correctly? This applies largely to figurative language and is influenced by translation error.
How well did they argue their point?
If there is evidence, how sound is the evidence?
If there is data, was it collected properly? Was it interpreted properly?
If there is a claim without evidence or data, why is it not there? What implication does that have to the strength of the argument?
Skepticism requires that there always be uncertainty until, ideally, all confounding variables are isolated and controlled. It may seem overwhelming, but in fact along with the uncertainty of skepticism, we have reason to assign a probability to that uncertainty.
In the peer-reviewed scientific journal Punishment and Society, skepticism dictates that I simply MUST ask all of the above questions regarding the text (what do they mean when they use the word blah? Is it the same way I would use blah? Is the text drastically altered by many and/or anonymous editors? Did the author have an agenda when he published the article within journal entitled Education of Inmates is Meritorious? Is this text outdated and therefore not applicable to the current day and age? etc.)
However, the scholarly nature of the journal itself helps in drastically decreasing the probability of the uncertainty by stating:
1.It was peer-reviewed for soundness of logic, legitimacy of sources, and is in compliance with the paradigms of science.
2. The text is not outdated, the journal was published in 2008 and the content of the journal is such that it would not be outdated by the small passage of time.
Further more, reason allows me to ascribe low probability of uncertainty to the other questions:
1. The words used in the journal were not slang or even vernacular, but scientific. Therefore those terms will have a very definitive and universally agreed upon.
2. The journal was supported by an American institution, published in America, research was conducted by American professors at American universities to be released to an American english-speaking populous; chances are this was not written in non-english and translated.
3. The peer-review system is rigorous and if there was a very obvious motive, bias or prejudice, the article would not have been published nor included in the peer-reviewed journal.
There is still uncertainty in all of these things even though they have "answers", but to believe honestly believe the contrary would be unfathomably unreasonable.
May I now be so bold as to apply the rules of skepticism (and reason) to holy and perfect texts such as the bible?
Asking some of the questions above, here are some important realizations:
The bible was not written by God. It was translated by his human prophets through visions- one way revelations of unknown quality. Furthermore, the prophets were not always speaking for God at all; often it was just relating their own experiences rather than revealing the truth of God.
These human prophets were subject to misunderstanding what God was saying, to reinterpret what they thought God was saying either to understand what was said, or to fulfill a motive.
These human prophets were often from a lower class and therefore not educated.
These human prophets were subject to influencing others with their own prejudice and bias.
The Bible itself is thousands of years old, the beliefs and knowledge base of the denizens of those times were vastly different than the knowledge and beliefs we have today: to apply their archaic practices would be impractical and, in a way, immoral and disrespectful to the knowledge and experiences we have.
The bible was written in one language and translated over time through the christian community into over many different languages prior to its mainstream popularity; however, now there are translations available to every language.
The books that are included in the Bible are not universally agreed upon; there are hundreds of books in the bible but only a select few were included by an elite few. Those books those few chose were what they thought contained the truth or were included to further themselves with a political motive; they knew how influential it was.
Too often, we arbitrarily quote from the bible with not nearly enough regard for its context. A quote from Martin Luther King Jr. can, with simple omission, can turn "I have a dream that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" into "I have a dream that one day my children will be judged." This has huge implications for the meaning of the quote and added ambiguity.
Too often, people take the parts of the bible they don't understand and extrapolate a meaning. This is unreasonable. If it isn't understood, you must admit you don't understand and drop it. To transform it by leaps and bounds of the imagination or with impure logic does the author injustice, poses serious implications for how one reads the rest of the text, and can have serious implications for others depending on how the passage is used.
Even if one disagrees with one or most of the realizations I came to, so long as even one remains, there is serious and reasonable uncertainty surrounding the legitimacy of truth in the bible.
With skepticism, in the end all we have is faith- faith that that which reasonable and the probable does in fact point to the truth. Faith in that which is unreasonable or shrouded in doubt and corruption is foolishness.
I hope that I will go forth and look at what I have and realize that whatever I am given and told to believe cannot itself be immediately trusted. Only through earnest, unbiased questioning can I come closer to and show my respect for the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)