Do I believe in complete moral relativism? No. Absolute truths necessarilyI'm not entirely sure where the screwdriver analogy came from, and I'm not terribly impressed by it in its current form, but it stuck with me and I continued to mull it over, with that sensation one gets occasionally when they know their on to something.
exist: the very statement "There is no absolute truth" is itself asserting an
absolute truth. What I DO believe is that these absolute truths are understood
relative to our viewpoints and ideas. For an admittedly bad analogy, consider a
screwdriver. The "screwdriver" in and of itself is imagined to be an "absolute
truth". However, depending on one's needs and cultural background, it is
something for driving screws, something to pry things with, a shovel, a symbol
or industry, maybe even something of sacred value (ala the Coke bottle in "The
Gods Must be Crazy!"), or a number of other things. (I know that's a horrible
analogy, and I use it because I have not yet worked out the problem of truth in
a satisfactory way.)
And this feeling didn't even come from the original purpose of the analogy. It came from my arbitrary choice of comparing truth to a screwdriver.
While truth is fundamentally undefinable, I think it's possible to make the analogy of truth as a tool. Truth is the tool by which one understands and manipulates ideas. The truth in and of itself is absolute, however how it is used depends on our needs and background, and it is useless if it cannot be adapted to suit varying needs. If a screwdriver was capable only of driving screws and nothing else, it would be useless if there was nothing to be screwed (...you with the dirty minds), yet its capability to perform other tasks makes it almost univerally useful. Or if a person with no concept of drving screws came across a screwdriver, they might decide that it is a toy.
So does anyone think I'm onto something?
Posts
3 comments:
There is a term in psychology called functional fixedness, basically it means that a screwdriver is a screwdriver, and you can't use it for anything else.
I initially found the very idea ludicrous, beyond ridiculous. But then I met people who actually think that way. And they get really bent out of shape about using the "wrong" tool for the job, or using the "right" tool the "wrong" way. (Usually they hold conservative views, but correlation does not always mean causality, as anyone who's taken Stats should remember.) Still, No Mc'Guyver for you !!
i don't get functional fixedness can you put it in a example?
McGuyver (If you remember that show) does not have functional fixedness, when he looks at a butter knife he can see a screwdriver, a compass, (just magnetize it), a switch, a wedge, a prybar, a trigger, etc etc. Someone with functional fixedness will be resistant to using a rock as a hammer, a knife as a screwdriver, vice grips as a wrench, etc etc. If someone with functional fixedness doesn't have the correct tool for the job, he won't do the job, because he can't think outside the box and use something else, ie. some other tool, that, while not "correct" is "close enough" to do the job. Someone with functional fixedness wouldn't think of using a spoon to dig a tunnel. It's a SPOON! not a shovel. Hope that helps.
Post a Comment