The title of the blog is from the Bible. It is Nathanael's response to Philip when he depicts Jesus as a native of Nazareth and claims that Jesus is the messiah spoken of by Moses and the prophets. (Nathanael and Philip later went on to become the disciples of Jesus.) I am writing this blog to explore some questions regarding human judgment and its basis. To be more precise, I am trying to see how we, as individuals, use prejudice and knowledge of history as basis for judgment interchangeably with the change being apparently seamless. I will narrate a few instances that have spurred my thought in this direction.
I remember someone once explaining to me that the seeming contradiction between Marx and current Marxists on the state providing for elementary education was to be explained by the change in the nature of the state during Marx’s time and that in the current Marxists’ time. He explained how over a period of time the welfare state emerged which was probably different from what the state was in Marx's time. He built a narrative that was compelling in its logic and rich with detail. I also remember an English lecture which I attended as part of my pre-degree course where by describing the French society of the time, the teacher breathed a life into ‘ The Three Musketeers’ by Alexander Dumas which I had missed during my earlier reading of the story.
More recently, I came across someone suggesting that depicting a corporate organisation as a partner of two Non Government Organisations (NGOs) seemed strange and that having to do so is a source of slight discomfort. The source of the discomfort was the difficulty in seeing entities of competing ideological positions partnering each other. On another occasion I came across someone inventing a story about an East German and thereby socialist links of a corporate organisation which explained its attempt at strengthening the government delivery of certain public services as part of its agenda in Corporate Social Responsibility. The reality is that the corporate organisation had West German links and was likely to be one with a ‘capitalist’ agenda. To be fair, the inventor of the story used it only when people were finding it difficult to reconcile to the fact that a corporate organisation can support the state and not necessarily continually attempt to weaken the state.
Before going further, I must define what I mean by history and prejudice. Put simply, to me, prejudice is based on an unsystematic analysis, whereas history is based on systematic analysis, prejudice is not based on logic and evidence, whereas history is. To me the latter two instances are possibly those where prejudice hinders understanding whereas the former two are instances where knowledge of history aids understanding. In the latter two instances, the perception about corporate organizations formed through exposure to particular strands of theory (or ideology) do not seem to explain the situation to the two individuals and hence the responses. But to me the issue here is not going into the details of the situation and the theory. Simplistic readings of theories tend to provide us with convenient categories and then our mind conjures up hypothesis disguised as conclusions, with the conjurer himself deluded by the disguise. Closer examination of the theory and also the situation would have probably revealed the complexities involved and could have provided the individuals with a more accurate explanation for the situation they found themselves in.
My concern is why they did not go into the details. As an initial hypothesis, I think it was because they unwittingly made a seamless transition from knowledge of history to prejudice as their basis for judgment. The seamless character of this transition is probably because this prejudice is not delinked from the knowledge of history. It is a particular understanding of the historical processes that gave the categories and concepts which they used to understand the events around them. However, in spite of the tremendous amount of work that goes into the establishment of these categories and concepts, they are abstract and have to be contextualized to be a useful basis for analysis. Secondly there is always the risk of them being dated. Given this scenario, one is often perilously close to making erroneous analysis unless one exercises extreme caution. But the ultimate deception that can delude even the trained mind is the possibility of the understanding being able to explain certain phenomenon but actually that understanding may not be anywhere close to the ‘correct’ understanding. The world of natural sciences is also not free of this. We thought that the genes determined many things about human life. But with the new understanding in the light of the work on genetic mapping, that seems to be an inaccurate understanding. As we stretch the boundaries of the known we feel the vastness of the unknown. Caught in this reality of human existence, judgment seems improbable. But we are forced to make judgments and that is the reality of human existence.
Going back to the title, Nathanael was in a situation where he was being told that the man without sin, the messiah prophesied about by Moses and others was a native of Nazareth. Nathanael asked the question "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" in disbelief; a disbelief based on probably his negative image of Nazareth as a place. The future King of Israel cannot be from a city like Nazareth. But this was based on analysis which did not factor in God's design. But to his credit, he was willing to reexamine his position and reexamine he did with wonderful results for him. The story holds a lesson for us all including for non believers. Reexamine, revalidate our theories. See them from diverse point of views and believe that these are but tentative hypothesis.
I remember someone once explaining to me that the seeming contradiction between Marx and current Marxists on the state providing for elementary education was to be explained by the change in the nature of the state during Marx’s time and that in the current Marxists’ time. He explained how over a period of time the welfare state emerged which was probably different from what the state was in Marx's time. He built a narrative that was compelling in its logic and rich with detail. I also remember an English lecture which I attended as part of my pre-degree course where by describing the French society of the time, the teacher breathed a life into ‘ The Three Musketeers’ by Alexander Dumas which I had missed during my earlier reading of the story.
More recently, I came across someone suggesting that depicting a corporate organisation as a partner of two Non Government Organisations (NGOs) seemed strange and that having to do so is a source of slight discomfort. The source of the discomfort was the difficulty in seeing entities of competing ideological positions partnering each other. On another occasion I came across someone inventing a story about an East German and thereby socialist links of a corporate organisation which explained its attempt at strengthening the government delivery of certain public services as part of its agenda in Corporate Social Responsibility. The reality is that the corporate organisation had West German links and was likely to be one with a ‘capitalist’ agenda. To be fair, the inventor of the story used it only when people were finding it difficult to reconcile to the fact that a corporate organisation can support the state and not necessarily continually attempt to weaken the state.
Before going further, I must define what I mean by history and prejudice. Put simply, to me, prejudice is based on an unsystematic analysis, whereas history is based on systematic analysis, prejudice is not based on logic and evidence, whereas history is. To me the latter two instances are possibly those where prejudice hinders understanding whereas the former two are instances where knowledge of history aids understanding. In the latter two instances, the perception about corporate organizations formed through exposure to particular strands of theory (or ideology) do not seem to explain the situation to the two individuals and hence the responses. But to me the issue here is not going into the details of the situation and the theory. Simplistic readings of theories tend to provide us with convenient categories and then our mind conjures up hypothesis disguised as conclusions, with the conjurer himself deluded by the disguise. Closer examination of the theory and also the situation would have probably revealed the complexities involved and could have provided the individuals with a more accurate explanation for the situation they found themselves in.
My concern is why they did not go into the details. As an initial hypothesis, I think it was because they unwittingly made a seamless transition from knowledge of history to prejudice as their basis for judgment. The seamless character of this transition is probably because this prejudice is not delinked from the knowledge of history. It is a particular understanding of the historical processes that gave the categories and concepts which they used to understand the events around them. However, in spite of the tremendous amount of work that goes into the establishment of these categories and concepts, they are abstract and have to be contextualized to be a useful basis for analysis. Secondly there is always the risk of them being dated. Given this scenario, one is often perilously close to making erroneous analysis unless one exercises extreme caution. But the ultimate deception that can delude even the trained mind is the possibility of the understanding being able to explain certain phenomenon but actually that understanding may not be anywhere close to the ‘correct’ understanding. The world of natural sciences is also not free of this. We thought that the genes determined many things about human life. But with the new understanding in the light of the work on genetic mapping, that seems to be an inaccurate understanding. As we stretch the boundaries of the known we feel the vastness of the unknown. Caught in this reality of human existence, judgment seems improbable. But we are forced to make judgments and that is the reality of human existence.
Going back to the title, Nathanael was in a situation where he was being told that the man without sin, the messiah prophesied about by Moses and others was a native of Nazareth. Nathanael asked the question "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" in disbelief; a disbelief based on probably his negative image of Nazareth as a place. The future King of Israel cannot be from a city like Nazareth. But this was based on analysis which did not factor in God's design. But to his credit, he was willing to reexamine his position and reexamine he did with wonderful results for him. The story holds a lesson for us all including for non believers. Reexamine, revalidate our theories. See them from diverse point of views and believe that these are but tentative hypothesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment