Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 29, 2015 in Blog, Personal, Politics | 2 comments

Memorable Journeys Take Unforeseen Detours

 

Quote-by-Karl-Marx-Question-everything

 

Enlightenment must include detours, challenging basic assumptions, and willingness to change when confronted with evidence.

 

The most worthwhile journeys can take unforeseen detours.

While the quickest route to any destination is always a straight line, such uncompromising intransigence also tends to be boring.  Taking the path of least resistance ultimately provides few rewards and little, if any, satisfaction — except for lower life forms.

I tend to be skeptical of those who say they never change their opinions.

Anyone who insists that his or her mind can’t be changed isn’t a person I usually like to be around.  I’m even more suspicious of someone who was born into a defined set of religious beliefs or a certain political philosophy and never challenges those basic assumptions over the course of an entire lifetime.  The straight-line approach certainly doesn’t require any additional time or effort, so it’s the easiest path to follow.  That’s why it’s so common everywhere.  Yet those who take such a predictable path without considering alternatives usually don’t offer much in the way of critical thinking, creativity, originality, nor innovation.

Oddly enough, changing one’s mind about something is often viewed with distrust.  Politicians who change their minds about certain issues get accused of flip-flopping.  Religious believers who depart one faith for another (or no faith at all) are judged as heretics.  Members of nationalities and ethnic groups who chose to affiliate themselves with another culture are labeled as traitors.  We don’t take kindly to the evolution of beliefs, whether involuntary or not.  Changing one’s basic covenants is not only discouraged.  It’s sacrilegious.

So too, we often look upon curiosity with intense cynicism.  In some societies, certain natural curiosities are even against the law — sometimes punishable by death!  The sexual repression of women in many parts of the world and downright oppression of gays in most societies stand as more than enough proof that the majority of people on this earth aren’t free to simply ask questions or explore any alternative possibilities.  Not just bodies have been shackled.  So too, are minds, by the billions.  Rigid conformity, in all its hideously restrictive forms, is a curse.  And the opposite of rigid conformity is liberal thought.

Nietzsche famously said, “that which doesn’t destroy me, makes me stronger.”  Those who ended up changing their belief systems often end up far more passionate about their new set of beliefs than those originally born into the caste.  For example, the activism of many religious and political converts tends to be considerably stronger among those who joined the movement voluntarily, often later in life, rather than being born into a rigid set of beliefs and then going along with the flow.  Indeed, converts reach their deepest personal convictions by swimming upstream.  It’s not easy to abandon the belief systems we were born into and pressured to remain a part of.  Hence, those of us who converted to new ideas are often more passionate than those born into the tribe and who never once departed it.  Flowing downstream in what amounts to a lazy river doesn’t instill much devotion.  This is why converts to various belief systems, whatever they are, tend to be far more dogmatic in their approach when discussing issues important to them.  That’s because they’ve seen the other side.  They were on the other side.  And they don’t want any part of it.  They don’t want to go back again.

From Moses to Paul to Constantine, all converted from Paganism and ultimately became champions of Judeo-Christian thought and practice.  More recently, nearly a century ago, jurist Hugo Black converted from being a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, eventually becoming one of the most influential liberal jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court of the 20th Century.  Then, there’s the former president regarded as one of the patriarchs of the American conservative movement, who spent the first half of his life as a New Deal Democrat.  His name was Ronald Reagan.  Innumerable other examples from human history prove the point that converts tend to more dogmatic in their beliefs than their one-route brethren.

I take pride in my conversion(s) — which were both political and religious.  I wish for that philosophical evolution to continue.

I’ve made the conversion from quasi-libertarian thought and conservative politics to the camp of democratic socialism.  For someone liberal, I’m also proudly well-versed in knowing the basis of modern conservative thought, because I once ascribed to it as a devotee.  Some readers would be shocked to know I attended the 1984 Republican National Convention.  I once served as a local precinct chairman.  I worked a year for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in Washington, DC.  In various presidential primaries between 1980 and 2000, I’ve voted for Phil Crane, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, and John McCain.  Yes, I think I know very well what “conservatism” means and what the Republican Party stands for — a view gained not from the outside, but from working on the inside.

Similarly, I understand the basic beliefs of Christianity, and particularly Catholicism to which part of my life was devoted.  I attended Catholic school.  For many years, I went to mass regularly.  I played on Catholic Church’s sports teams.  Again, my contemporary view of Christian faith stems not as much from recent criticism of it, as complete immersion in it at one time, as a believer, myself.  Now, I’m an atheist, or more precisely an anti-theist.

Reaching the opposite side of the philosophical railroad tracks, so to speak, was a relatively easy process for me.  I was fortunate to be raised in an inquisitive family, which liked to ask lots of questions.  I was encouraged to be my own person (now much to the horror of some).  We were always interested in the affairs of the world, beyond our own selfish interests.  I was taught to seek, to read, to travel, to explore, and to think.  I think that’s the greatest gift my parents gave me that was more important than anything else, other than life itself.

Unfortunately, many families (and by extension — local communities) don’t provide an opportunity for exploration.  Alternative points of view are completely shut out.  Intellectual challenges aren’t looked upon with intrigue, so much as suspicion and even fear.  Islamic fundamentalism, Orthodox Judaism, evangelical Christianity, and the dogma of Catholicism don’t open many doors.  They slam doors shut, and keep them padlocked.  A cursory glance at societies, states, and localities where one religion predominates most human activity essentially proves this.  Those religious societies are far less free and open than their non-religious or multi-religious counterparts.

I think Saudi Arabia needs a detour.  Badly.  So does Iran.  So does Uganda.  So does Mexico.  So does Israel.  So do the Palestinian Territories.  So do parts of Oklahoma and Alabama.  I’m not seeing a lot of good things happening in these places right now.  Perhaps if more of those people were to go through a conversion process, they would be better off.  The world would certainly be a more peaceful place.

A few years before he passed away in 2011, writer and social critic Christopher Hitchens was engaged in a heated debate on the topic of religion with an evangelical minister.  Hitchens was asked what his reaction would be if the so-called “second coming” of Christ were to appear before his eyes and manifest itself as an undeniable truth.  Would Hitchens then become a believer?  Hitchens, characteristically eloquent in his own manner, answered in the affirmative.  He stated that all of his belief systems were “evidence-based,” and if that evidence somehow proved the existence of a deity, he’d convert to the flock.  That question answered, Hitchens next turned the tables.  He asked the preacher if somehow evidence were to show there is no such thing as a god, would the religious man abandon his faith and become at least an agnostic, if not an atheist?  The answer was entirely predictable, of course.  The evangelical essentially replied that nothing could shake his faith.  So much for open-mindedness and flexibility.

We, philosophical evolutionists, stand by the mantra spoken earlier by Hitchens, which is and shall forever remain as follows:  “Show me the evidence.”

People who don’t change their minds about anything aren’t just shallow.  They’re dangerous.  This is especially true when the close-minded try to impose their beliefs on the rest of society through everything from the imposition of laws and restrictions to social pressures.  No matter what the belief, rigid conviction is no virtue, except the conviction that we must continue keeping our minds open, exploring, and occasionally trying out detours.

The next detour you take could take you closer to the truth than the path you are on.  At the very least, it’s probably worth exploring.  The avenues of alternative thought are not to be feared.  They are to be welcomed and sometimes taken.  That’s an idea both Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan would have agreed with.

2 Comments

  1. you worked for bankrupt idealogues? redemption is slow I guess

  2. Holy shit Nolan… you’re on a rail.

    Good 4 you.

    “Not just bodies have been shackled”

    (This one line here assures you a slow walk around the bases… grand slam… bubbah.)

    “Give n take…” ya ghatta.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php