I have been giving this more thought than usual lately, and so now it is time to blog. As I was sitting in church today, yes even I’m surprised I went, I found myself white knuckled, scowling, and waiting for a line of “special” words to come spewing forth. Luckily I held my cool and now I’m going to rant here. The question was asked, “What causes persecution?” and though I kept my answer to myself, this is what I think. As I have began to get ready for the fall semester I have been exploring different ideas about human behavior and knowledge that we base our behavior on. Ontology can be easily summed up as the study of the state of being. You could also say, what “is” is. Are humans naturally brutish, carnal, and self-interested, or are they inherently good and looking to help others? Many scriptures could point you both ways, but ultimately this brings about the debate:
If you can’t agree on human nature, how can you agree on what humans do?
Lily Allen, whose video will follow this, has a song ripping a certain sector of society because of their views about human nature. She calls their lives hateful, small-minded, and certain people have “a hole where their soul should be”. Many would see this as persecution to those who have a conservative background. Is her argument towards religion, Republicans, or possibly something else? I would suggest that she is ready to say that their ontology is wrong. Her experience with human nature allows for open-mindedness towards homosexuality. Then the debate rages on the other side as many religious groups use their own ontology about each person’s connection to many different types of deity.
If I see you as a child of God whose destiny is to help to multiply and replenish the Earth, that is your reason for being (ontology), how can I justify your commitment in a same-sex relationship? At the same time, you may take another view of the Bible, and say the right of the individual and teachings of the Sermon on the Mount supersede the commandment of multiply and replenish the earth, so the beatitudes are your basic reason for being (ontology), how can you condemn a person for acting on what they see is their basic natural feelings? Now that I have pointed out an ontological debate, how can either side ever win? If we are unable to agree on basic human nature, how can you come to any consensus about how humans act? Back to the question that was asked, what causes persecution? I have come to the conclusion that persecution is a reaction, (it doesn’t just act, but reacts to something in its environment), to an opposing ontology. As one begins to challenge the other for the acceptance within the community the other will react, restating their beliefs.
My goal is not to push my own ontology, but to enlighten all who read about this reaction caused by different views. It seems that many believe they are being persecuted for standing up for their own beliefs, (their own personal ontology), but at the same time they are persecuting others who are standing up for their own beliefs. Let us now recognize that this debate and many others are based on ontology, and middle ground might never be reached and that is why some will feel persecuted as they persecute others.
You can tell what she is singing, but it isn’t quite as offensive for some, lol.
So what do you think? Leave me a comment.
4 Sepatu Hitam Putih Termurah
1 year ago
Posts
5 comments:
Phenomenal post, Ramon, I definitely enjoyed reading your thoughts. As a nerd who is infatuated with evolutionary biology and neuroscience, I would suggest that human beings have inherent genetic tendencies that are impacted by a number of variables. Biochemical fluctuations, unique genetic sequences, as well as environmental and cultural differences all impact how we a) behave and b) perceive the behaviors of others. Keep up the great work with the blog!
I think I see where you're coming from, and I agree, although I'd probably phrase my thoughts a little differently (mostly because I don't what "ontology" means).
I think persecution comes from one group of people judging the behavior or beliefs of another group, based on their own worldview, rather than that of the group being judged. The group being judged probably lives by a set of principles or premises entirely foreign to the persecuting group.
Persecution is an evolved form of misunderstanding. To understand a group to which you do not belong, you must have empathy. Empathy requires thinking outside of the box. Thinking outside of the box requires energy. People are lazy, and thus are not naturally inclined to exert energy. Misunderstanding is the automatic default, when someone doesn't put forth the effort to understand.
Once the misunderstanding sets in, that's when it can be gradually fueled by lies, which might ultimately provoke reactions or beliefs that amount to persecution.
And of course, it works both ways. While the ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist might be too lazy to empathize with a homosexual's ideology, so too might the homosexual be too lazy to empathize with the fundamentalist. If they both took a second to analyze the premises and beliefs on which the other operates, they would likely discover that they both act consistently within their own respective worldviews.
But who wants to do that? It's much easier to cling to that which is familiar, and scorn anything different.
So what is my ontology? I guess it's that human beings are lazy. ;)
And one thing I neglected to mention:
The only way to "convert" anyone to your worldview is to backtrack to a point where you reach common ground with that person. That is, you retreat until you get to principles on which you both agree.
For example, I am a mormon. If I want to have a meaningful theological conversation with a Jew, I'm going to have to find the area where our beliefs coincide. Then, from those common beliefs, I would have to show how my paradigm is the most natural or logical result, based on the application of the principles on which we both agree.
In my opinion, until you reach that common basis, you and the other person will just be talking past each other, never addressing the real issues.
I think you are right on track. Based on your facebook status update thingy, I was expecting something really traumatic. Well, I can see how this could be taken the wrong way. I have nothing to add that the above commenters haven't already said.
I think this is a great post. As for adding anything of value, I'd have to read through it a few more times first.
I will say that reading forums/blogs written by liberals/homosexuals/feminists/NOMs/etc. has given me enough knowledge to have the empathy necessary to reduce or avoid persecution. (I'm not saying I always follow through; I can really get into debates and quickly revert back to an extremely rigid stance.) I feel that you can't really have empathy until you have knowledge.
Post a Comment