For every issue I was discussing with someone when they fell back on the old "back and white," there were indeed no other options. The thing was either good or it was bad; it was either right or wrong. But most people do not understand objectivity; they don't want to pronounce judgment, to value, to know. When I state that a thing is right (or that it is wrong), they rely on their emotions rather than logic to come to the false conclusion that it can't be right (or wrong) because it's a shame, or it hurts, or it isn't fair. And since they cannot make a logical argument for these emotions, they try to shortcut the argument by telling me that all I see is black or white, I don't see the shades of gray in between. But there aren't shades of gray with knowledge. It's either right or wrong. You can't be a little pregnant.
I think the above optical illusion is a fantastic metaphor for this. Yes, it's an optical illusion: the face of the word "white" is actually darker than the face of the word "black." Here is the same image with all extraneous data removed:
In reality, there are of course shades of gray - there are many shades of gray in this image and very few incidents of true black or true white. But as far as knowledge is concerned, it's either right or wrong. The word "white" is darker than the word "black" even though our minds tell us it is not. Possibly, our minds, using logic based on empirical evidence and experience, assimilate the concept of "shadow" so quickly and subconsciously that we pay it no attention; it is used in our logical thinking to realize that the word "white" is indeed white even when it is in a shadow and appears darker, but then we disregard the concept of shadow when thinking, illogically, that "it must be lighter than the word 'black' since I know it is white." There is likely another explanation why we think the word "white" is lighter than the word "black" in the first image, but my point is that there is no gray area (referring to knowledge). No matter what it looks like, the word "white" is indeed darker than the word "black."
What most people confuse for "gray areas" is actually context. This is an exceptionally important point: context is different than subjectivity. Context is a reference point. It is the sum of all related knowledge. It is the relation of your topic to reality. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is arbitrary whim. It is expecting reality to accede to your emotions or desires. A subjective response to the first image is: "The word 'white' looks so obviously lighter than the word 'black' that it can't possibly be darker, and upon examining the image more closely where it does appear darker - I'm still not convinced, it must be a trick because the word 'white' is lighter!" A contextual response to the same image is: "Even though the word 'white' looks lighter, I understand that the shadow and the contrasting bright background behind the word 'black' make it difficult to judge which word is actually darker, but upon examining the image more closely I can see that the word 'white' is indeed darker than the word 'black.'"
The previous example is relatively easy to understand, but try applying the same principle to value judgments. For example: people who believe in god are wrong. There are no gray areas here. Either they are right and god exists, or they are wrong and god does not exist. Based on the aggregate of all human knowledge and experience, using empirical evidence gleaned from all of our five senses, and processing all of that evidence and those concepts via logic, nothing supernatural can exist. That is contextual and objective. But those who listen to and understand every argument based on reality and logic and still believe in god are subjective; they want god to exist, so they disregard at least some of the logic. They say, "You can't prove god does not exist" and thus they hold on to their whim. But I can prove god doesn't exist. They say, "That's not proof, that's just a bunch of theories." But it is more than theories. Most of advanced human knowledge (i.e. knowledge based on logic and empirical data, instead of just on empirical data) is indeed conceptual. It is impossible to see an electron yet we know they exist because of the effect they have on other atoms; we cannot see atoms but we know they exist because of the way they act together to form elements; and this chain of logic continues through the concepts we know until finally it is based on empirical evidence: we know because we see/hear/smell/taste/feel. We know X because we perceive it. We know Y because it can be the only cause for X. We know Z because it is one of the causes of Y. We know W because X causes it. All human knowledge is based on perceiving reality, and every single argument for the existence of god stops on it's conceptual chain before it reaches reality.
Context is point of view. When you saw the words "black" and "white" without a shadow in the second image, you were easily be able to discern the darker word. The context was different; the information surrounding your topic was different than in the first image. Your topic itself did not change; the words "black" and "white" did not change shades.
When people tell me I see everything as "black or white," it is a compliment. It means that I successfully focus on fact and reality, rather than letting my emotions control me.
No comments:
Post a Comment