Words have meanings. These meanings can change depending on the context. So for purposes of clarity I will define what I mean by using certain words in this essay. The American Heritage Dictionary lists several different definitions for the word “insane”. The definition that I will be using is a more colloquial one that defines “insane” as being “very foolish: absurd”. To make my case I will be focusing on absurdity.
The definition of absurdity that I will be using is a rather rigorous one that comes from formal deductive logic. In formal deductive logic, one of the ways of testing a hypothesis is to incorporate it into the collection of axioms and theorems that one uses to define one’s field of study. Then by rigorous application of the rules of logic one reasons until one obtains a contradiction, “A and not A”. If one can do so one has applied the technique of Reductio Ad Absurdum to demonstrate that the hypothesis being tested must be false. Therefore its antithesis must be true. It is also understood that the axioms and theorems that one is using to define one’s field of study have over time been tested by numerous other workers in the field and found to be self consistent.
Note that another way of phrasing “A and not A” would be to say that “not A is A”. Yet in the news recently we have had two people who clearly do not belong within certain categories loudly proclaiming that they do fall within those categories. “Not D is D” and “not E is E”. One has been lionized, the other has been demonized.
It is interesting to note that when one examines the categories in question that one is dealing with things that are hardwired into the individual’s genetic makeup. That makeup was fixed into every cell of the person’s body the instant their genetic code was formed when their father’s sperm fertilized their mother’s egg. Therefore there is no logical reason why the two people should have been treated differently.
But while the genotypes of the people in question are fixed, their phenotypes can be altered. In one case this required extensive hormone therapies and surgical intervention that would have been unconscionable and likely impossible a century or so ago. In another case all that was needed was a change of hair styles and some tanning lotion.
Yet our culture has just applauded the person who got the surgery and excoriated the person who had the unmitigated gall to change their hair style and their skin color. Why? In both cases we are dealing with people who are arguing as loudly as they possibly can that their feelings about themselves should trump their genetic makeup. Logically there is no difference between the arguments being advanced by the people in question.
But there is a reason for the differential treatment. And that reason is ugly. The reason deals with various ideologies that must be advanced at any cost without regard for formal deductive logic and reason, the harm that will be done to the people in question, and last but most definitely not least the harm that will eventually be done to society as a whole. In the cases in question some people have determined that they can make the right kind of political hay by embracing the one person and disowning the other. So have the ideologues determined, so has it been done.
In formal deductive logic reasoning until one obtained a contradiction, or an absurdity if you will, was a means to an end. The absurdity was what was used to invalidate the hypothesis that was being examined. The current debates raging on the subjects being examined start with either embracing or rejecting the absurdity depending on whichever appears to best advance one’s ideological cause. Hence they are the antithesis of reasoned/logical debate.
Having said that which needed to be said, and having demonstrated that the arguments being considered hinge on abandoning either rationality, consistency, or both; I will now close. I see no need to attempt to debate those who begin their argument by embracing logical absurdity. That automatically invalidates everything that flows from that position. Such an attempted debate could only succeed in generating intense amounts of heat with very little light.
I fully expect that I will at the very least get seriously flamed. So be it. I will only note that if one doesn’t like what they see in a mirror, then they might want to consider the remote possibility that the person holding the mirror might not be to blame.
|
You're right; words must have meaning - and that meaning must be contingent on describing the ineffable truth of the cosmos we live in as accurately as possible. Sometimes, a culture discovers that what it thought was true and real is, in fact, not, and then we are forced to adapt our language.
In the case you're referring to, what we're grappling with now is the realization that "X" is NOT "X", but rather "X = A + B + C + D + YuzzwhichIusetospellyuzzamatuzz." We have discovered that this conceptual atom is in fact no "atom" at all, but can be split into countless particles that don't necessarily have anything to do with one another, and the more we look into it, the more we realize this previously sacred "atom" was in fact a totally arbitrary and valueless impediment all along.
You're a Slaad, right? This is the triumph of Chaos! You should be happy!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gender dysphoria is gaining recognition as a real problem that can be addressed through surgery.
An ethnicity-based dysphoria doesn't really have such acceptance, and is also tainted by decades of black/red/yellowface, etc. Hell, we have various derogatory terms for people who identify "too much" with "other" cultures and ethnicities.
Who knows - a decade or two from now, the latter may also be something that's getting corrected through surgery.
A decade ago, the U.S. was overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. Now it's legal in about 2/3rds of the nation. Things change; society moves forward.
I'm not sure if progress actually occurring on one front while lagging on another indicates cultural insanity; it just means that some parts need to catch up, and that certain problems may still need to be accepted as genuine problems.
If having progress at all is a sign of cultural insanity, then we need more of said insanity.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
