Frankly, no one enjoys displays of teenage angst, but for some reason this week, the idea of "truth" versus "pretense" has surfaced on more than one occasion. So...like any AP English student would, I started to think about truth and the things that we accept as truth. Why do we trust certain people and distrust others? Is it really all dependent upon our past extensional experiences with that person, or is there something more? We tend to trust family members over friends, so is blood really thicker than water?
On second thought, the definiton of truth is a verified or indisputable fact (www.dictionary.com). I know that we touched up on this in the beginning of the year with Haykawa, but let's take it a step farther. Maybe, most of the time, it isn't the statement that should be argued against. Maybe, just maybe, it's the person. Like the previous post tells us, if lying ceased to exist, this would no longer be a problem, but because it does, it remains a thorn in our side. By arguing against a statement rather than against the person, aren't we saying that someone is or embodies the language they use and vice versa? Doesn't the speaker and his/her speech become one? But then this defies the separation of the symbol vs. the symbolized.
I think I originally started this post in hopes of reaching another conclusion, but I seem to have touched on something completely different. I hope it makes sense. It's hard to explain through writing, and probably would be in person, too! Thoughts?
(Sam Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
First of all, I think that the people that you choose to trust really depends on a person's semantic environment. A person is able to trust another because they have learned from past experiences that trusting that person is not harmful, perhaps even beneficial. I think that these people tend to be family members because we are naturally closer to them. After living with your family for most of your life, you learn to depend on them and therefore, trust them more than others. However, there are definitely cases where people are more likely to trust their friend more than a family member. Trust really does depend on how the person has acted in the past rather than the blood, or lack thereof, that two people share.
Addressing Sam's other point, I think that the person telling lies and whatnot should be the one argued against, but I do not think that this becomes a problem of the symbol vs. the symbolized. When people communicate a thought, they use the symbols, the words, that they think will be able to get the job done best. Therefore, they are responsible for which symbols they use and how others perceive those symbols.
In other words, I don't think that the speaker is necessarily connected directly with his/her speech. Instead, the speech is connected more often with a person's opinion or view on something while the speaker is recognized as being responsible for the symbols he/she chooses.
But if we're meant to take responsibility for our actions (the things we say/do), shouldn't both be treated as one entity? I mean, why else would we have to worry about what we say if our speech didn't affect us directly in some way? Let me give an example.
Let's say a parent has a rather rowdy child. If that child were to misbehave in public, they parent would have to deal with his/her child's mess. The parents is responsible for the child's misbehavior, and therefore we see the child's conduct and the parent/parent's actions as one. I now realize this was a pretty mediocre example, but I really hope I got my point across.
(Samantha Maliha)
The person and their actions/speech are indeed related. They are not, however, directly related in a one-to-one fashion. A person is the sum total of their experiences and their actions in response and triggering the former.
Most people tend to, as Sam mentioned, judge others on the single action that they can most directly identify. As they do that, however, they lose the ability to see the "person" behind the action by relating the single experience directly with the person.
Trust comes from understanding and most family members are trusted more wholeheartedly because they tend to understand you and your environment/circumstances more than outsiders. Why? Because they have almost some sort of obligation to help you--like you said, blood is thicker than water. This is especially apparent in other cultures where the family and each individual are much closer.
I agree entirely with Grace. While an individual and his/her actions are related, the issue of trust arises because of other individuals' unconscious narrowing of perspective which leads to a belief that "individual = single action." Whatever action that others happen to remember more vividly than others is the "symbol" to which they will automatically associate the "symbolized" (the speaker).
Sam's general questions regarding truth intrigue me: "Why do we trust certain people and distrust others? Is it really all dependent upon our past extensional experiences with that person, or is there something more?" I feel as if there IS something more.
Don't we often hold preconceived notions regarding certain people? We sometimes have a tendency to judge people with whom we are not even well acquainted, despite the fact that we don't know have the slightest clue how the person acted in the past. To give the most obvious example, one particular factor which plays a large role in the development of such notions is social/racial stereotyping. Are there other factors? I'm actually having a bit of difficulty pinpointing them because I realize that the most likely reason why we may not trust a person with whom we are not well acquainted is simply that he/she is a mysterious stranger, not for any other specific reason. Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
Well, whether we trust or distrust someone is influenced both by our experience with that person, our judgments of them, and our preexisting bias. Naturally, how that person has treated us in the past plays a large role in our trust or distrust, but as human beings, we tend to filter things as they come in. Studies have shown that attractive people have always been considered nicer and more trustworthy, which is a clear case of our judgments being swayed by our bias and opinions, not by actual experience.
After all, although the Enlightenment put forth the idea that all people are rational, many times we act irrationally (Romanticism). A bond of trust requires the open mindedness of both parties, but we can always be misled by our perceptions and feelings.
Post a Comment