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}
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".