(no subject)
Mar. 17th, 2005 03:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThe idea of self-determination is very popular in the US. By this, I mean the belief that each of us possesses a completely unfettered agency for free-will, and therefore need only think for ourselves in order to keep ourselves immune to advertising, addiction, poor habits, financial ruin, and so on. Add this to the belief that each person is on exactly the same page with regards to awareness and (potential) assertiveness and free will, and you will get many of the following conclusions:
People who break the law are mostly just scofflaws,
People who engage in alternative sexual expression choose to be perverts,
People who experience financial ruin are usually just irresponsible or lack the foresight to prepare,
People whose health deteriorates or who gain weight just don't know how to take care of themselves properly,
People who don't "see the light" (religiously, philosophically, politically, etc.) are just misinformed or disagree to be deliberately obstinate,
and so on.
I'm not necessarily saying that this viewpoint is incorrect, but it seems to me that it depends on the truth of the idea that there is some separation between body and mind -- that is, that the mind is an unfettered spirit which is "trapped" in flesh. We are each of us, on the level of mind, essentially equal in our freedom of will; therefore, we have no real excuse to allow our judgment to be clouded.
The difficulty there, is that the evidence is starting to point strongly to the likelihood that mind and body are not easily distinguishable, and in particular to the chance that experiences and culture actually wire our brains and affect our moods, limiting our volition in certain ways. I described much of the evidence that's taking shape here.
Given the established connections between upraising, culture, experience, nutrition, climate, etc., and mental states, I think there's a good chance that we are not on an equal playing field with regard to self-determination. Those who have a high degree of self-determination find it hard to understand how someone could be limited in their self-determination, and conclude that they perhaps aren't "trying hard enough" when, in fact, the issue lies in the ways people's brains are wired differently.
One difficulty is that our religious and political philosophies all depend on there being some sort of equal playing field -- whether we all have a high degree of self-determination (justifying libertarianism) or a low degree (justifying authoritarianism). Libertarianism tends to become open-season on the disadvantages, while authoritarianism keeps individualists from soaring. Is there a way to develop a hybrid political system that protects the disadvantaged AND ALSO allows individualists to take advantage of their self-reliance?
People who break the law are mostly just scofflaws,
People who engage in alternative sexual expression choose to be perverts,
People who experience financial ruin are usually just irresponsible or lack the foresight to prepare,
People whose health deteriorates or who gain weight just don't know how to take care of themselves properly,
People who don't "see the light" (religiously, philosophically, politically, etc.) are just misinformed or disagree to be deliberately obstinate,
and so on.
I'm not necessarily saying that this viewpoint is incorrect, but it seems to me that it depends on the truth of the idea that there is some separation between body and mind -- that is, that the mind is an unfettered spirit which is "trapped" in flesh. We are each of us, on the level of mind, essentially equal in our freedom of will; therefore, we have no real excuse to allow our judgment to be clouded.
The difficulty there, is that the evidence is starting to point strongly to the likelihood that mind and body are not easily distinguishable, and in particular to the chance that experiences and culture actually wire our brains and affect our moods, limiting our volition in certain ways. I described much of the evidence that's taking shape here.
Given the established connections between upraising, culture, experience, nutrition, climate, etc., and mental states, I think there's a good chance that we are not on an equal playing field with regard to self-determination. Those who have a high degree of self-determination find it hard to understand how someone could be limited in their self-determination, and conclude that they perhaps aren't "trying hard enough" when, in fact, the issue lies in the ways people's brains are wired differently.
One difficulty is that our religious and political philosophies all depend on there being some sort of equal playing field -- whether we all have a high degree of self-determination (justifying libertarianism) or a low degree (justifying authoritarianism). Libertarianism tends to become open-season on the disadvantages, while authoritarianism keeps individualists from soaring. Is there a way to develop a hybrid political system that protects the disadvantaged AND ALSO allows individualists to take advantage of their self-reliance?
