Admirable Enemies

Admirable Enemies

Samuel Bird 

Do they really think that? How could they? Is it because they are blind or dumb? They really have working brains and pumping hearts, and they managed to conclude something so alien to what it is that we believe? Before we navigate abandoning our beliefs or taking these parties to battle, this variance is something to explore. There is an epistemic contingency to all facts that are not self-referential or tautological. By this, I mean that if something is not most blatantly and properly basically true, it could be otherwise. There is some mind somewhere that thinks something different from what you do on almost everything. The most seemingly self-evident facts that you possess, are not possessed by others who we can at least identify as seeking after and identifying evidences. How could this be? The assumptions that engage us with our being can vary sufficiently to make a near-infinite swath of possible conceptual holdings. If our Esse Maxim is one way, one thing could be true, while in another, false. Perhaps it would change what values we will have sought after, which changes what is effectively true to us. While we are unique and separate entities and variables, we can find some solace in the shared ground of the world. We occupy the same territory as each other, and with it are at least identifying the same instances, even if we are using different lenses and as different sorts of things. To help narrow it down, there is only a certain series of Esse Maxims that are not self-defeating, and our being’s nature is shared enough, that we are similar sorts of things. In short, we are similar but not identical, looking at the world through varying, but as a certain series of things, to find one type of world to make sense of. As an outcome, this would not result in every possible position being defensible, but enough of them, to allow for logical sophistry and large conceptual variance. 

Since there is such contingency for how we find the world, should we not attempt to do so? With the metavalue of existent engagement, it is necessary that we find the world, though it is contingent on how we do it. You can believe all sorts of things, know nothing, and must only do one type of thing in a moment to not be self-defeating. This forces us to commit to the unknown. What you believe is contingent, but you’re believing in something is necessary. Now that we get to this point, it makes room for ourselves and other minds to have thoughts, but it does not soothe the problem of others thinking otherwise. How could something matter so dearly to me, and my newfound enemy find it to be detestable? The contingency and commitment can afford us enough grace to pass along. Every effect is proceeded by a sufficient cause. One straw less than the needed amount, and the camel’s back is not broken and only strained. This theory only affects causality and it’s sequencing. For example, our foe thinks x. We can run x throw our worldview and values to identify how we must find it. Perhaps it ends up being ugly, evil, untrue, and meaningless. How can we make sense of how another mind could have failed so poorly? While we are limited in our talents and access to see or even infer into other minds, we can remind ourselves of that necessary causal fact. Every effect is proceeded by a sufficient cause. It is necessarily the case that there is something such in a person’s being, to either allow or necessitate that they believe a certain thing. Something of their assumptions of context creates their candidates for belief. You may notice this does not change your evaluation of their idea. You would or could still find it evil. However, it changes how we relate to them as we are aware that they have reasons to believe such, even if they are not accessible to us. Are they necessary reasons they must to believe what they do? Perhaps not, but they would be allowed to believe it at least, and perhaps their will then broke the tie to decide what the outcome was. 

Let us think of a murderous thief. How could he think to do this? We must be careful here. We are prone to make the mistake of thinking others are more conceptually similar to us than we actually are. Empathies and sympathies are wasted on a mind we are so materially different than. We can, however, say that this individual has enough conceptual facts to allow for this. Perhaps the world owes them something, they have no ties to the rest of humanity, or we aren’t real. Then, their will as anger or hedonism could make a value to act on within this varied conceptual model. This is not to say that we are all even in this endeavor. If I work all my days to bask in what is and someone does not, I am at least slightly more likely to approximate how things are. There are also some thoughts, that are immediately at odds with our nature and the nature of the world. That is why there is only a series of types of things that are believed. Since we only have those beliefs to compare to each other, we only see how they contrast, but I think it is remarkable just how much we believe the same. I have never seen two competing parades which one celebrated truth, and the other falsehood. I have not seen a political party that said that all sorts of beings should be negated, and one that did not. Rather, much of the territory of assumptions is shared between groups. However, they can still effectively seem so at odds. While there might be a party for life and one for death, you may argue there sort of is. Perhaps you would say your party is for the protecting of life and the other against that life. For this reason, it seems like our beliefs are at odds, but it is rather where we find ourselves in the world. 

There is no limit to the degree people will refuse to understand each other when they speak. Let’s say we have two countries whose food supplies and border access to resources are pressing them into war. It might be effectively wise to foster nationalism and hate for the other country so you can win the war, but you are only at odds because of where you are in the world. The beliefs are the same. Life is better than death, and we have the first duty to our nation and people. Ideologically, they are identical. However, it is rather how they are situationally pitted against each other that places them at odds. Knowing this, as citizens should we abandon our nation and people and let ourselves lose the war as we notice how contingent this all is? Not necessarily. We would just be wise enough to step outside of ourselves to really see what is going on in our enemy's mind. Let them be evil and foolish if it protects your fragile sense of self, but we still must ask why they did such so that we can at least respond to that. I often see people not acknowledging the depth of reasoning their foes use against them, which then only leaves them with damaging blindspots. Perhaps they are worried they will find accidental grace, but maybe it is worth considering. Perhaps we must still stick to our people and their survival, but even if we do, it is beneficial to see outside of that for a moment. Additionally, I see a deep refusal for people to admit that we are situationally at odds. I think of the most heated points of conversation and notice a pattern. When arguing for something, the proponent is hyper-aware of the value added by his belief. If against, he is hyper-aware of the detracting values. The secret to our world is that everything costs something. Not only do we need a sufficient cause for an effect, but we risk the alternative state not coming to pass. You can’t both eat a candy bar and have that same bite for tomorrow. We are at all times resigning ourselves to one point in the world that could be otherwise but must be some particular instance. Wanting to be fair to all locations in the world, we can’t become a mist and be everywhere. That place we then must commit to faces us against another location. We then will refuse our foes, but forget the complexities of judgment. With us always weighing alternatives, there is no such thing as sheer good choice, but the net good choice. That net comes from a ranking of the weighting of the different variables involved in the choice. Our enemy's beliefs will always have something we can value, we just cannot value the net outcome of their actions or ideals. This only comes because of one sensitive and tender place we weigh one category of evaluation as more or less important. It is then hard to say they are fools. In fact, no one will keep you more honest and unhypocritical than your critics. 

I have a favorite example of all of this in my mind. In my day and age, there is a conversation about whether we are under or over-populated in terms of our environment. People fight and debate passed each other with little resolution. The reason why, is because we are both in differing senses. In terms of what our planet can healthily sustain indefinitely, we are overpopulated. In terms of our national, governmental, and social structures, we are underpopulated. We will struggle to exact resources from the earth, while not having enough people to take care of older generations and invest in the system. The secret here, is that these two facts are at odds. We can easily say that it is better for someone to be alive, but here we have to ask if it is better that many people live, or fewer people have a better quality of life. I have thoughts here, but none are worth sharing. What we can note is that wherever you find yourself in this debate will be contingent enough to be arbitrary. No matter how we don’t like to concede this to our foes, either choice will have its repercussions. If we worry for the planet, we will be able to have humans living here longer, but we will have a collapse of the social systems that keep us alive. If we keep those systems alive that keep us alive, we will kill off the planet that allows both. Some will see that these two issues are at odds, and they will pick something between the gradient, but to some degree, they are to blame for the society or planet dying. In shouting matches they will blamed for betraying one of these. I know there is a reason leaders don’t admit the humility they approach an issue and the nuances involved. Socially, it is seen as a weakness enough that they would never touch it. So what must we do? I don’t know. What I am hoping we see is that we are at odds here. We both want what is best for our kind, but what that means could change everything. We can pretend the other has no basis, but in the end, we only harm ourselves. Whatever we choose, we also must be careful to not commit because are second guessing ourselves. The older I get, the more I am not threatened by what others think differently. I am more curious and feel aided by what they add. I can bear to hear otherwise, and not let my blood pressure spike. Perhaps I am even honored by a worthy opponent. What am I really suggesting here as the imperative? If you want wisdom, see what other minds hold that you don’t. Try to understand why, but still be loyal to your Esse Maxim. Feel free to contend for your faith, fight for your values, and sacrifice for where you find yourself in the world. However, perhaps we are left with the wisdom still, that we were at odds with admirable enemies.