 |
| A 16th century clockwork monk. |
The Electric Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.
- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
There is a certain irony in the number of posts that spread across social media that decry the various pitfalls of social media: A video or comic exaggerating the tendency for no one to look away from the perpetual onslaught of glowing screens we are surrounded by, often by our own choice. Mockery of and "How Not To" lists about all the inane posts on the trivial details of our lives that contain neither interesting nor useful information, adding to the overwhelming trend toward white noise in the content of social media. And, as Facebook adds and enhances an algorithm to filter through the clutter of content to attempt to deliver us the cream of the social media crop (while also giving Facebook an excuse to demand money for delivering content to fans), growing concern mounts that Facebook will devolve into an echo chamber, delivering us only the content that conforms to our existing preferences, feeding back into our biases, and failing to provide challenges to our ideas or intellects.
Although it is certainly a possibility that Facebook's filters will exacerbate our existing biases, pointing fingers at Facebook only serves to distract us from the fact that these biases exist anyway, and that without addressing our own fallacies (such as blaming external factors like websites for our failures) we will continue to find the same faults reproduced in whatever media we use. Similarly, complaints about the noise on social media and the tendency to prefer even this noise to direct, personal interaction is like blaming a hammer for not pounding the nail in properly — the tool is only as useful as our use of it. Certainly, tools can be faulty, but even then if we continue to use them instead of replacing them, then we forfeit our right to reasonably complain.
 |
| "Truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror." |
Social media, like any form of communication, is only as useful as the messages we use it for. Being social creatures by nature, it is only natural that we desire to communicate. Moreover, as is a recurring theme in my writing, communication is our most effective tool for combining our efforts with those around us, expanding our influence and growing ourselves. The thing we need to remember, though, whether using social media or speaking with someone directly, is that communication is important, but so is having something worth communicating.
The tendencies toward self-gratification and reinforcement and a preference towards shallow, low-risk interactions seem plenty prevalent in person; social media just tends to amplify our noise. Small talk prevails and discussion of deeper matters such as religion and politics is often taboo. We avoid offending each other because we are so easily offended ourselves, seemingly incapable of fathoming that anyone might have and even adhere to an opposing point of view, or that we could tolerate such differences in people.
Often we see the opposing view not as a passing disagreement but as an affront on beliefs we hold dear. Other times, we seek validation because we do not believe others see us the way we see ourselves, or because we fear we are not living up to our own expectations. As with much of our lives, problems arise because of the disparity between what we expect to be and what is, often because what we think should be is what we think we deserve. Problems arise because we fail to challenge our own beliefs — we fail to determine how much our beliefs reflect actual truths, and moreover we fail to examine how much these beliefs actually matter.
________________
Yet, surrounded by both our own beliefs and those of others, it becomes difficult to remove ourselves from the context of such beliefs to consider their efficacy. Perhaps, like social media, the Electric Monk as a tool reflects its wielder. Granted, the Electric Monk is so far purely a construct of science fiction, but the important use of the tool is not that it believes things for us, but it frees us from having to believe those things. Why could we not, then, simply take a moment every now and then to stop believe anything, to simply observe, and to determine what beliefs arise from what we can ourselves determine?
 |
| "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - René Descartes |
How far, then, can we doubt our beliefs? Should we believe in our own existence? Surely, cogito, ergo sum. What about others? We can witness their behavior, and it certainly seems intelligent, at least sometimes. But what about our perceptions? Can we not believe we observe something that is not there or fail to observe something that is? Whether or not we believe what we perceive, we have no other evidence to act upon besides our perception, so we might as well use what we have. Object permanence seems a safe enough belief, but it is still only a belief. However, until evidence starts to suggest that there is a flaw to my assumption of object permanence, I am comfortable believing in it. It certainly so far seems a useful assumption that things continue to exist when they are not in my immediate perception.
Easy enough so far. What about the real challenges? How can we attribute our emotional responses to the world when our emotions are purely in our own heads? What are we doing with our lives, and why? Is there a God? If there is, what then? If there is no God, what then? I do not know what you believe, and, moreover, telling you what to believe would defeat the purpose of suggesting the pursuit of our own individual understandings grounded in truth instead of derived from logical fallacies or the dictates of others. If you are curious as to my beliefs, you will find many of them in my writing, and moreover I welcome anyone to further explore their curiosity by leaving a comment.
Eventually, though, we inevitably encounter questions we cannot answer and beliefs we cannot prove with pure objectivity, observation, and reasoning. The first things we must ask is what happens if our belief is wrong? I have been lead to believe by various articles that water has been found on Mars. However, I have not visited Mars, nor do I ever expect to, and therein will likely never have direct proof of whether there is water on Mars. Yet, if there turns out to be no water on Mars, I doubt my life will be significantly altered. I might have to change my beliefs slightly, and I imagine the nature of the scientific articles I read will change. What about more immediate things? I have never seen an atom, for instance, not even by using any sort of electron microscope — the workings of which I would in turn have to have some faith in. Yet what I know about chemistry is supported by the evidence I encounter in my life, and therein, like object permanence, so long as that holds true, I am comfortable accepting such beliefs.
What of beliefs we cannot prove and questions we cannot find answers to, even through evidence provided by others? The first thing we must do is ensure that the beliefs do not contradict evidence, even if neither evidence does fully justify them. Secondly, we must consider alternative possibilities and weigh why any one holds more merit than others. Lastly, we must consider the consequences of a belief.
Is there a God? As I have said before, I am agnostic, lacking even context for a definition of what a god is to begin assessing available evidence. Nevertheless, I can examine the question: Does the belief in God or the absence of God contradict available evidence? If we maintain a belief in young-Earth creationism, perhaps. Otherwise, the nature of a possible God is so arcane and abstract that it can easily be defined to be supported by or contradictory to available evidence, depending on our desired endgame. Similarly, alternative possibilities are difficult to consider when we do not know which ones play into the definition of God.
What then, of the consequences of the belief, one way or another? Morality and meaning can be found outside of the context of a God — a pursuit I have devoted much of my thought to. On the matter of an afterlife, all I know is that if my destiny postmortem is determined so decisively by my answer to an unanswerable question, it is done so by a deity I do not wish to follow. I hope that, if there is a God, He is as merciful as dictated in some sources, and that my efforts to seek and share truth are as valuable to Him as they have been to me. If, somehow, I am wrong, then in the end I hope to be less worried about myself and more worried about the good I have done for others. Indeed, there is probably more use trying to do good in Hell than Heaven.
________________
Not long after we are introduced to Adams' Electric Monk in Dirk Gently, we find that it had already begun to malfunction, specifically believing all sorts of unusual things:
Yet whether we believe in the existence or nonexistence of God or in uniformly pink mountains and valleys, problems arise when we fail to consider whether available evidence supports or contradicts our beliefs. Moreover, when these beliefs dictate our actions, we can be hindered ourselves or even led to hinder others. We cannot let our perspectives of ourselves be determined by our or others' beliefs, nor can we let those beliefs alone dictate our actions, whether on social media or anywhere else in life. Neither can we dictate the beliefs of others; we can only hope to point out the same truths we have discovered, but it is up to others to discover these truths for themselves. Moreover, when they point elsewhere, we must be willing to accept the possibility that we are the ones in error and consider the possibilities they present. Even if we find we are correct, we may find that their view is just the truth from a separate perspective. Otherwise, should they err, we are best able to help them by leading them from where they are, not by shouting at them from across a gap. And, most of all, never forget that we must occasionally put aside our beliefs and question, as far as possible, all things.The Monk currently believed that the valley and everything in the valley and around it, including the Monk itself and the Monk's horse, was a uniform shade of pale pink. This made for a certain difficulty in distinguishing any one thing from any other thing, and therefore made doing anything or going anywhere impossible, or at least difficult and dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment