Dogma, in essence, is applying truths without considering their conflicting counterparts. Undertaking the intricate task of balancing pros and cons in our minds is akin to complex mathematical equations. This complexity escalates when we must weigh the relative importance of competing truths.
The problem arises when we insist on a single belief being the ultimate truth, neglecting the relevance of differing perspectives in various scenarios. Our world is filled with advocates for compassion or strict justice, defenders of tradition, or proponents of societal reconfiguration. While many dogmas carry elements of truth, they require balancing with alternative approaches.
The virtues of compassion, kindness, and mercy are indisputable, but they are not one-size-fits-all remedies. There are instances where the application of these virtues can lead to unintended harm: excessive compassion towards adults can neglect children's needs, and misplaced kindness towards criminals may lead to additional victims. Even trust, a valued virtue, can sometimes be misplaced, resulting in tragic outcomes.
Political philosophies often revolve around single-word approaches, creating a tendency to avoid balancing opposing principles. The crux of political issues lies in the imbalance between order and chaos, novelty and tradition, justice and mercy. If you are not constantly weighing these opposing forces in your mind, you have succumbed to dogma.
Our current methods of debate are flawed. Broadcast media, for example, lacks an effective feedback or correction mechanism. It's difficult to trust entities that spread information without allowing for feedback. Those who control the media are often motivated by power or profit, using their control to propagate their dogma or addict us to content that promotes anger or hatred.
The time-based nature of broadcast news and infotainment is particularly damaging. Each time-based broadcast is designed for a different audience, limiting its depth and preventing it from building on previous broadcasts. Organizing content by time not only removes context but also prevents the grouping of related issues. This leads to a constant reiteration of shallowly addressed topics that fit within the average viewer's attention span.
To address this, we need a paradigm shift in how we communicate and debate. We need a system that allows for in-depth analysis and feedback, one that does not oversimplify complex issues for the sake of filling a time slot. Only by breaking away from dogma and encouraging a multifaceted perspective can we hope to make meaningful progress.
Dogma: Applying truths without regard for other truths:
The act of balancing pros and cons is a complex task, particularly when it involves weighing competing truths. Our world is replete with advocates for compassion, staunch defenders of justice, preservers of tradition, and champions of societal transformation. The fallacy emerges when we cling to a single belief as the infallible truth, disregarding the varying contexts that could shift its relevance.
While many dogmas harbor elements of truth, they require counterbalance from alternative perspectives. Virtues such as compassion, kindness, and mercy often hold true, yet there are circumstances where their application can inadvertently inflict harm. Trust, another highly-regarded virtue, needs to be tempered with caution. Blind, short-term compassion may inadvertently reward and perpetuate detrimental behavior.
Political philosophies that shun the balancing of conflicting principles foster an imbalance between order and chaos, tradition and innovation, justice and mercy. We must continually strive to strike a balance between justice and mercy, and discern when more order or chaos is warranted. The refusal to question these aspects implies a surrender to dogma and an unwillingness to embrace the complexities of our ever-evolving world.
No comments:
Post a Comment