Help
Sign In
dogma
September 2009 
The Pluralist Paradox
Posted on Jan 11th, 2007
by 
Donan
Donan
There is much disdain in a pluralistic society for dogma--so much so that modern pluralist society will tolerate virtually everything but intolerance. One simply must have an open mind and accept as valid all view points…this has become a sort of moral law in western society today. It is, however, a misunderstanding of the pluralist ideal.
The problem is that a truly open mind must accept as a possibility that the morally condemning dogma of another could possibly be right, or at the least that the holder has a right to find their own moralistic arguments, however evolved or devolved they may be, so long as they do not violate the rule of just law.
But prevailing practice does not see the inherent paradox as contemporary society attempts to force the dogma of the all-tolerant open mind down the throats of those who are perceived to be behind in their understanding of the open and relative nature of truth. Language is continuously reshaped to firmly plant zealotry of any kind into the generalized mass graves of a misconstrued pluralist ideology.
Deep down it feels right that we should accept everyone; "judge not", after all. And if your belief structure makes a claim that my belief structure (or seeming lack thereof) is invalid then your belief structure is clearly intolerant, and by judging or condemning my moral choices--even hateful, and it will not be tolerated.
Thus an open mind in pluralistic society either tolerates dogma--even dogma that condemns open minded pluralistic society--or becomes entangled in its very own closed minded pseudo-pluralistic dogma.
Access: Public
um, I'm confused… where does the part about discernment come in? Like, for example, somebody says, “These illegal aliens are ruining the country. They don't deserve the same human rights we have, because they are illegal.” And let's say that I personally disagree with them on many aspects and attitudes that I'm interpreting and also hearing fairly directly. I can discern that they are wrong for me. I would not take action from this point of view. However, the person has the right to say these things and take, as you say, any action based on just law that follows from these beliefs. My preferred response (that I can't always, of course, do but I'd like to) is to see the person as being afraid, and send the person love (but not political support). How does this fit into your concerns about tolerating dogma?
this is where pluralism shines. You have the opportunity to argue the fallacies that you see in their position…for instance, you could gently ask them to explain to you the difference between human rights and the privileges of a citizen. With a few leading questions you could leave them discovering the moral repercussions of their position–chances are they have never reached far enough to touch them. In the process you might see aspects of the questions that you had not previously seen and walk away stronger, more discerning and perhaps even changed in some small way–that is pluralism in action. Of course there will always be those who are intentionally obtuse, but they too serve a purpose in an open minded society–the best way to sharpen steel is with a dumb, flat rock.
A few weeks ago I made a vague reference to Plato's philosopher king. In The Republic, Plato envisioned rearing the ideal good king in isolation from poorly considered viewpoints, from all conflict, even from sad and tension filled music. The idea was to rear the child with no knowledge whatsoever of things that were not of the good and thereby rear an enlightened child. But I don't think the result would be a good king because the adult child would not know what to do with conflict having never built the structures to resolve it. I think Plato's philosopher king might very well lack the discernment required to recognize the bad idea of a clever ideologue when it rolled across his table. I am not certain that he would grow into a philosopher–though the shell shock from the horrors of selfish humanity might well turn him into one if it did not destroy him first. The point being, pluralistic society works only when it is truly pluralistic (no bounds on thought)…we build the logic structures required to differentiate and improve by processing and storing bad ideas (as invalid), as well as validating and storing the good ideas.
Democracy still feels like an on-going experiment to me. It is poked and pushed this way and that. The seeming contradictions grow stranger and stranger. Strange bedfellows. The ACLU appears to be an absurdist black comedy at times. And yet it is also the bellwether for what appears to go unnoticed by many about democracy. That pluralism is really a kind of dialectic. As I get older my appreciation grows for what was created 230 some years ago. If for no other reason than that I am fascinated by how this system continues to be relevant to supposedly “time sensitive issues”. Also the parallels between Plato's Philosopher King's hermetically sealed life and Buddha's life are interesting. Donan, be careful with the word obtuse. Did you ever see the movie,The Shawshank Redemption? Just kidding.
All government, particularly all social contract based government–even the mind of humanity itself–is a loose ongoing experiment of sorts. Even as you, an individual, continuously change, so too does the interplay of multiple individuals. Complicate this with an ever-changing mix of the past influencing thought whilst being forgotten and repeated. Theme and variations on society.
If we could ever find a way to consistently turn out benevolent dictators who allow their people even the freedom to overthrow them–but rule with such grace and love that the people never desire it, some form of democracy seems a good idea. Further, if we could convince humanity in general to care more about life than ideas or things we might find government obsolete…i do not expect that this will happen for even if we were to somehow eradicate all human suffering, this does little to eradicate simple greed.
As for obtuse, I have no idea what you’re saying ;-)
Notice the way so many Cubans talk with such reverence about Fidel Castro. And others wish he would die quickly. One's experience is primary to the creation of an attitude about someone. Each person brings his or her world to the milieu in such a way that we can only hope for commonalities that bring us closer. Are we having the same experience of anything. We really can't know that with any certainty. This is where faith and acceptance obviously come in. So, how to end the need for greed? Does greed arise from inbalance or from some innate sense of satisfying a need? Tim Robbins starred in the Shawshank Redemption, a wonderful film about ,well, redemption. Sentenced to a long term prison sentence, his character takes it upon himself to educate himself and change his prison with a library. The warden is a self-agrandising guy who will only allow what will ultimately benefit him. To this end the convict, in a moment of total frustration, tells the warden he is being obtuse. This gets him a month in the hole. Obtuse reminded me of that scene.
i guess that i should have used the sarcasm tag.
<sarcasm> As for [intentionally] obtuse, I have no idea what you're saying </sarcasm>
Also, I should have said, “…until then some form of democracy seems a good idea.”
Good one Donan. Flew under my radar. Ron
Donan, I liked reading what you wrote here….it was a great verbal and grammatical ride!
I wonder if you would care to add your two cents to the philophy of Jacob Needleman that I have been doling out in pieces on the Planetary Enlightenment pod….specifically this post, as I see it relates to your blog…..