we are presented throughout our philosophical travels with ideas that don`t agree with our own. the natural reaction to exposure to such ideas is to reject them and reaffirm our attachment to our prior position. this determination is biological in nature, as the physical system recreates it`s self and maintains systems of sameness because they work. the actions of thinking flow in line with this homestasic mechanism for survival purposes.
the problem arises when we autmatically react by rejecting new ideas without holding them in a comparitive structure in our minds for a period of time so that we can objectively evaluate them.
the shock of exposure to new and radical ideas is enough to send most running back to the safe and familiar, yet real interest and inquiry is where the discovery of new benifits lie. there have been times when i`ve lifted up a rock and been horrified initially by what i was presented with.........but by suspending judgement briefly i have gained insights into many areas that i wouldn`t have had access to by criticising and editing to fit my prior understanding.
we have to accept that the bulk of what we take as hard operational fact is belief and therefore can be replaced by alternate beliefs and still function.
don`t try that with your internal organs though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Obviously we need to be prejudiced, i.e. to make snap judgements all the time, every day. Life is too short to consider every new thing on its merits.
We can train ourselves to make exceptions, I accept that; but prejudice is still our normal mode.
i believe that to be able to compare ways of thinking, at least temporariliy, is a sign of a higher degree of intelligence. though what you are saying about prejudice is valid.
if we walk for a while in another man`s shoes we do gain a different perspective.
Post a Comment