The falacy of "one thing or the other."
Jun. 29th, 2003 03:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasJust something that's been going through my mind: people like to put things in dichotomous categories. But nature, and reality in general, doesn't. . .
See, I was thinking about some of the real nasty political and ethical and moral fights people have. And one thing that hit me is that people really put things in one box or another: "This is alive, or it's dead. This is male or it's female. This is right, or it's wrong. This is a canine or it's a vulpine."
And nature doesn't work that way.
Example: I was reading a creationist web site at one point -- I do this sometimes -- and they were talking about how stupid evolution claims were. They were dismissing some clear evidence that several species of modern whales came from a common ancestor. They said something along the lines of, "So what? One kind of whale changed into another kind of whale. They're still whales! God created whales and they remained whales! There's a difference between a whale beoming a whale (which CAN happen according to our 'theories'), and a hippopotomus-like-critter becoming a whale, which can't."
And I said, "Sure, but do they CARE that they're whales? 'Whale' is a name that WE HUMANS stuck on this beast. The animal itself doesn't care if it or its ancestors were in one box or another."
Another example. We think, things are "alive" or "dead". But that's not how the world works. There's stuff in between. Viruses, for instance. They're not alive, they're not dead. They're somewhere in the middle.
And I was thinking about the abortion debate: "A fetus is a human being right from the time of conception!" "No, it's not, not until birth."
Of course, in reality, a developing fetus doesn't suddenly become a human at conception, or suddenly at birth, but rather slowly becomes more and more human through the pregnancy. It doesn't go from 0 to 1 instantaneously at conception, or at birth, but rather takes the entire time of pregnancy to slowly go from not-human to human. And it's always in an in-between state.
I don't know. It's just something I've been thinking about.
See, I was thinking about some of the real nasty political and ethical and moral fights people have. And one thing that hit me is that people really put things in one box or another: "This is alive, or it's dead. This is male or it's female. This is right, or it's wrong. This is a canine or it's a vulpine."
And nature doesn't work that way.
Example: I was reading a creationist web site at one point -- I do this sometimes -- and they were talking about how stupid evolution claims were. They were dismissing some clear evidence that several species of modern whales came from a common ancestor. They said something along the lines of, "So what? One kind of whale changed into another kind of whale. They're still whales! God created whales and they remained whales! There's a difference between a whale beoming a whale (which CAN happen according to our 'theories'), and a hippopotomus-like-critter becoming a whale, which can't."
And I said, "Sure, but do they CARE that they're whales? 'Whale' is a name that WE HUMANS stuck on this beast. The animal itself doesn't care if it or its ancestors were in one box or another."
Another example. We think, things are "alive" or "dead". But that's not how the world works. There's stuff in between. Viruses, for instance. They're not alive, they're not dead. They're somewhere in the middle.
And I was thinking about the abortion debate: "A fetus is a human being right from the time of conception!" "No, it's not, not until birth."
Of course, in reality, a developing fetus doesn't suddenly become a human at conception, or suddenly at birth, but rather slowly becomes more and more human through the pregnancy. It doesn't go from 0 to 1 instantaneously at conception, or at birth, but rather takes the entire time of pregnancy to slowly go from not-human to human. And it's always in an in-between state.
I don't know. It's just something I've been thinking about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-29 12:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-29 12:15 am (UTC)So I'm cool with it from HIM.
I just don't get what everybody ELSE'S excuse is.
Well it's just so much EASIER to ignore the [confusing] facts
I addressed this recently in my own journal under Labels, Purpose, Understanding. I say post-Roman, because most other cultures I am aware (Jewish, Oriental, African and American-Indians) of do not do this at all, and take a much healthier and realistic holistic view of the Universe. There are no borders.
This issue is also discussed at length, using both of the examples you use (evolution & conception), in the very entertaining book The Science of Discworld. Check it out, you might find it a fun read. Jack Cohen is a serious scientist and knows his stuff :-)
Re: Well it's just so much EASIER to ignore the [confusing] facts
Date: 2003-06-30 10:21 pm (UTC)But I'd have to seriously disagree with your statement that Judiasm doesn't have dichotomies or put things into boxes.
Of course any sweeping statement about a religion which is thousands of years old is difficult, but there are several areas where Judiasm is actually rather adamant about dichotomies. For example, the rituals around food. There are things you can eat. There are things you can't. Black and white. This comes straight out of the bible. (Of course, there are arguments about things, including which category the species Xiphius Gladius falls into. Or whether it's important to follow the rules. But they're there.)
The Rabbis also delighted into putting things into boxes. One thing they loved doing was making a grid. For example, there's trait A, B, !A (not A), !B. They then say that there are four types of people:
A !A -------+-------+--------+ B : AB : !A, B : -------+-------+--------+ !B : A, !B : !A, !B : -------+-------+--------+Hmm... an example might make this clearer. OK, from Pirke Avot[1] (Part of the Mishnah[2]): Ch. 5, #12: There are four character traits among people: Some say: "Mine is mine and yours is yours" - this is the average trait. (However, some say this trait is characteristic of Sodom[3].)
"Mine is yours and yours is mine" - this is the trait of a peasant[4];
"Mine is yours and yours is yours" - this is the trait of the saintly;
"Yours is mine and mine is mine" - this is the trait of a scoundrel.
(Translation from Siddur Sim Shalom). This pattern isn't isolated -- chapter 5 of Pirke Avot has several other examples of this kind of thinking.
Now, I don't want to say that Judiasm is all about dividing things into distinct categories. There are definitely examples of things which have shades of gray - for example, there were many different levels of holiness in the time of the temple, ranging from the "so Holy that people can't go there" all the way down to "not really holy, but not really not holy". And something that I love about the Rabbinical way of thinking is that they were quite happy holding two contradictory statements in their heads simultaneously. But I don't think it's fair to ignore the urge to categorize in Judiasm from the most ancient days to the present.
[1] Commonly translated as "Sayings of the fathers" or "Ethics of the fathers"
[2] The Mishnah's from about 200 CE; it's among the earliest Rabbinic works we have.
[3] Sodom is mentioned in Genesis; the people there weren't very nice.
[4] The hebrew is "Am ha aretz", which literally means "man of the earth"
Re: Well it's just so much EASIER to ignore the [confusing] facts
Date: 2003-07-01 04:33 am (UTC)There are Laws, which are a form of order which G-d imposes on reality, and then there are Rabbinic interpretations of Laws, which are a form of order which humans create. And I think that the Rabbis are aware that all of their lists of four and lists of three and judgements of whether a particular stove is kosher or not are exercises of human activity.
But, yeah, Judaism dichotomizes quite a bit: tamei/tahor is the most obvious example, and a Rabbi's main job, historically, would have been making judgements about whether a particular object or activity was tamei or tahor in a particular circumstance.
Then again, Judaism measures and quantifies, in a way that discourages absolutism: "How MUCH maror must be consumed in order to fulfil the mitzvah or maror?" And it recognizes levels of observance -- an action may be forbidden, discouraged, neutral, required, or meritorious, for instance.
So, in general, I see Judaism as a religion that is really big on categorizing, but which recognizes the artificiality of such categorizing.
Yes
While in Judaism we say "NO way! these distinctions are entirely ours, and only of at-present limited use to help our discourse".
A good example would be Shabbat ==> We say that only G-d can know exactly when a day begins, or ends, so we tack on an extra twenty minutes at each end of observed Sabbath time. Even regarding Tahara vs. Tumah, the Talmud does go into a lengthy discussion on something being half-half, the premise being a person with "unclean" hands, who then immerses ONE hand in a river (I can try and find the exact source if you like).
And while I do agree that the type of two-attribute table you bring is quite common, this is also often brought in cases where the A&B or !A&!B are the most interesting. Examples would be the differences between Behayma and Khaya. Or physical sexual attributes in humans, with regard to gender-limited commandments for Androgynous or sexless people. Who are like either, but also like neither. It is important to keep in mind that the Mishna uses these structures mostly as a learning tool, as originally the entire Mishna was Oral-only tradition.
An Am-Ha'aretz, is not a social-economic label equivalent to peasant. Rather it's a much more complex statement on the level of one's learning (or lack thereof). Maybe a closer translation would be "commoner". There was of course a large overlap with the peasantry, but it's a different type of distinction. Quite a few of the "peasants" where considered "Haverim", and thus not an Am-Ha'aretz.
Re: Yes
Date: 2003-07-04 05:40 am (UTC)[Roman] type of thinking creates severe "blinds" to various ideas, or even types of ideas. There is a great stubbornness to insist on this, even in face of "Known Facts [Tm] AKA the "Because We Say So" factor.
I think that one of the strengths of the Rabbinic tradition - especially in the Talmud - is the flexibility involved in it. The Rabbis (taken as a whole) were not stuck in one mode of thought. They appropriated ideas that they found valuable, putting their own unique spins on them. For example, the Passover Seder has many parallels to the Greek Symposia, while also having unique aspects important to Judiasm. Also, the fact that the Talmud includes disagreements encourages discourse and discussion.
in Judaism we say "NO way! these distinctions are entirely ours, and only of at-present limited use to help our discourse"
There is definitely this strand of thought in Judiasm. I think that Judiasm sees some distinctions which are inherent, but many of them are man-made. And, of course, the interface between the two means that distinctions,when you look really hard at them, often aren't straight black lines as much as grey blurs.
To use your example of Shabbat, high noon on Saturday is definitely Shabbat, and high noon on Wednesday is definitely not Shabbat. That is the inherent distinction. However, as you point out, it's not clear exactly when Shabbat must begin and end, so to be safe it starts at sunset but ends an hour after sunset. And then to be extra safe, "normal" candle lighting time is 18 minutes before sunset. And, of course, one may start Shabbat early. Or end it late. So the answer to the question of "is 6pm on Friday Shabbat" or "is 10pm on Saturday Shabbat" - even if the date and location were specified - cannot be absolute.
An Am-Ha'aretz, is not a social-economic label equivalent to peasant. Rather it's a much more complex statement on the level of one's learning (or lack thereof). Maybe a closer translation would be "commoner".
Thank you. That's what I was looking for... I don't like the Sim Shalom translation of that word. Hertz translates it as "empty-headed" or "boor".
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-29 05:21 am (UTC)things. This dose not fully explain the issue. Mostly
I believe it comes down to people are stupid sheep.
Most people never really learn/are taught how to critically
think about things. Thus not only do they want simple answers
for things, they want to be told the simple answers.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-29 06:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-29 07:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-29 08:19 am (UTC)This has been something on my mind a lot lately too, though in a different sense than how you describe. I think modern society needs more rites of passage and more tolerance for ambiguity.