Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
All Squares Are Rectangles...
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
in Philosophy
Just something that has been percolating in my mind this morning. A logical framework that my geometry teacher in 10th grade taught that has stuck with me over the years and have found all kinds of places it applies.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Another could be all Jedi are force users, but not all force users are Jedi.
I feel like there could be a lot more depth to go into but my mind isn't going there right now, maybe I'll add to it later.
2
Comments
C'mon, you just got me interested, and then stopped?
Seems you are wanting to talk about sets of objects…
I think its more about how we talk about groups of people. Like people who proselytize and talk down to me are Christian, therefore Christians proselytize and talk down to people. Just to be aware that this is a tendency of the mind and remember that while all squares may be rectangles doesn't mean all rectangles are squares.
I’m responding to this post bec if I’m not mistaken, I was the last to mention Christians when I vented on the political thread. So, I feel poked, hahaha,
Recommended reading :
“Separation of Church and Hate”
By John Fugelsang.
You’re right, doesn’t mean all.
Reminds me of this saying…
Not all men, but always a man.
Not all Christians, but always a Christian.
Is it an oversimplified generalization? Yes.
Can it lead to inaccurate and harmful judgments, bec it ignores the full picture and/or nuances? Yes.
But there’s a point to it. It’s emphasizing something. What that something is, is different for different people.
And yes, I think I’m aware that this is a tendency of the mind. Have I mastered my mind? No. Do my life experiences shape those tendencies? Yes.
Alright let me throw something kind of controversial back at you. (This doesn't represent my own view) Something I see commented on on certain shorts where someone is up to no good, the comment is, "its not all of them, but its always them." How do you feel about that statement? Do you feel the same?
I don’t agree with that particular example…. But my reasoning for them would be the same reasoning for me.
Here’s why. That persons life experience has usually only been seeing “them “ in that context. A context which is constructed by media, their social media feed, their like minded group, many other things.
When someone has a different experience, testimony, if you will… that’s what can change prejudices. That’s where the coming together can change minds and hearts.
MY personal experience is all kinds and types of people are up to no good. But… they gotta see that for themselves… and be open and ready to see it. A lot of folks arnt.
You said in your first post that you thought there was a point to thinking of Christians or men in that light. But that in this other instance there isn't a point and its simply down to other factors. I'm not sure that is feeling the same.
I don't really like where this conversation is going. I just think its important to treat people as individuals and not by generalizations. I don't think the "point of it", the "emphasizing of something" leads to good places.
Maybe its just my own lived experience talking? As a straight, white, man now in his 50s my whole life has been about learning to look past group stereotypes, to treat everyone with respect regardless of how they've been portrayed to me. It doesn't feel better to me just because of who its applied to.
Ok
Reminds me of
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion.
~Steven Weinberg~
At times, religion can override a person’s natural sense of morality. People who are otherwise kind and decent may commit harmful acts if they believe their faith commands or justifies them. This is especially evident in the United States today, where some have weaponised the Bible to condemn and control others.
Call me a bit stubborn, but I’ve always resisted thinking in generalised groups of the population. For me, a man or a woman is a unique individual, with a blank slate if I don’t know them. It’s just laziness of the mind to categorise people by clothing, the car they drive, the state of their body, etc.
Does that mean that I don’t believe in meaningful categorisation by groups? Yes, I think it does. You can assume that certain groups of people who share a certain upbringing are going to share certain behaviours, but I don’t think you can guarantee it.
Now that I am a bored again X-tian, a hypocrite claiming to be a vegan meat eater and one of them (as available) I can confirm:
A square is a masonic symbol (standing on the square) a them of white Cis-sers and elavated trousers and aprons. I quite like 'the-m'. Though would never join except...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Women_Freemasons
Jesus is my Brain... eh 'Life of Brian' Halleluja! John 21:17 (off to get some lamb)
I would expand it to say that any set of beliefs that has a greater/higher purpose that legitimizes the ends justifying the means can get someone there.
Suppose we identify levels:
I do what’s in my best interest
I do what’s in my family’s best interest
I do what’s in my company/social club/bowling league/church’s best interests
I do what’s in the planet’s best interest
How do we define “best” in these contexts?
This is a good question to contemplate. How are you relating it to the thread? In terms of rectangles and squares or following the last post on what it takes for good people to do evil?
It’s true that language has its limits. And it’s also true language can be twisted and utilized unskillfully or even maliciously. I think it all comes back to context and intention. Sometimes generalization or categorization is useful in a particular context. Taking the example of slavery and racism in the US. For two centuries, a group of people were the legal property of other people. The people considered as property were then freed, but the other people created new laws segregating them and preventing them from having equal rights. Eventually they became free of those laws as well, but were subsequently prevented from getting loans, buying certain homes, etc. There’s some easy ways to categorize these segments of the population to make it clear who each group is and which group had political and social power over the other. And we can say not all of one group agreed with the way things were and tried to change them. But if we’re intellectually honest, we’d also have a hard time time saying that those categorizations didn’t matter or have real consequences, especially when talking to someone who experienced those consequences firsthand.
It’s definitely admirable to judge each person by their actions, as well as viewing them as an individual rather than a stereotype or through a preprogrammed prejudice. But it’s also a skill to see patterns and privileges and injustices and the ways some groups benefit from the oppression of others in an effort to ameliorate that harm and imbalance.
I think its something of a tightrope to talk and think about real and important group differences and challenges while still honoring each person's uniqueness.