Well after a long period of laziness I gave my mind a chance to wander about a bit and these thoughts/questions just came into my head. I thought I'd write something about it because I know that if I don't do it right now then I probably never will.
So this post is actually more like thinking out loud.
I am particularily thinking about respect for freedom, respect for the other point/points of view, and how it evolves and forms.
At first I was thinking about the differences in these respects between first and third world countries. Having lived 24 years in a 3rd world country, and having read/heard a lot about first world ones, I am under the impression that respect and tolerance for the other point of view is a lot more common among the more advanced nations.
So how does a nation's moralities relate to its economic state....
Narrowing my scope down a bit, I began thinking about those differences among the people of the same nation. I have had the privilege of dealing with lots of people from very vastly different social classes. And by mere observation I have found out that the more intellectual and/or educated a person is, the more open he usually is to new ideas and opposing points of view.
This naturally means more respect for others' freedom and being able to live with the fact that different does not mean worse. To be able to say "I recognize that you have different beliefs, I may have a different set of beliefs or views on things, but that doesn't mean I think any less of you. And I do respect you and your set of beliefs/views"
So maybe this is why more advanced nations are better at that (on average), because they are more intellectual/better educated.
Does this mean that this respect is taught rather than human nature? Are human beings essentially selfish? How did humanity develop that?
Am I making any sense at all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"Look me in the eye
and if you see familiarity
Then celebrate the contradiction"
It's the second time in less than 15 minutes on two different blogs.
As a region that witnessed the birth of the most popular and powerful relegions on the planet. The confrontation was unavoidable. Every religion seemed to shake a foundation of the establishment.
So the pharos pursuid Moses till he split the red sea and fled to Sinai, The Jews porsecuted Jesus, the infedels of Mecca porsecuted Mohammed and drove him out of Mecca.
When the three religons developed into recognizable powers, the confrontation on the posession of the holy places.
This is a region whose history is primarily build up on conflicts of beliefs. Breing in continuous wars develops a sense of us and them, and if you are not with us then you are against us. An attitude that slowly crept its way to the way function and think on our daily lives.
I guess the west isn't any different or tolerant. afterall the most destructive wars that this planet has witnessed (WWI & WWII)have started and ended in the west.
My take is that religion and beliefs aren't major aspects of their mindset. They would kill for power and money, but not religion or at least not anymore. Since the rainessance weakened the hold of the church, and the muslim power demise in spain and turkey, religion took a step back to politics and common intersts which seemed to be the main catalysts of conflict in the last two decades of the 20th century.
The Europeans who invaded America weren't any tolerant towards the indians or africans whom they regarded as slaves. The indians formed a considerable threat to their power aspirations, while the africans were condemened just because the color of their skin. It wasn't a conflict of beliefs, coz no one exchanged them. You had churches for blacks and churches for the whites. Same beliefs, yet there was a burrier.
So while the west had the luxury of choosing what to believe in without pre-conceptions of what is right ot wrong, the difference in religious beliefs wasn't much of problem.
Here the story was different and it led to the levels of intolerance we percieve in our daily lives:
emm
I better go before i lose my train of thought
I would expect that you wouldn't comment on the spelling mistake or else " EL Dalma Hatkhdak"
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool...
i was actually reading your comment and thinking "I hope chris doesnt comment on the spelling things" :D
I always think of it as apathy sold as tolerance, but i guess Adam's Mom would be in a better position to judge
After reading My first comment again:
Waaw: That was a lousy piece of writing!!!!
lousy typographically indeed, good points though.
I'm still waiting for adam's mom to have more time on her hands to elaborate on her views on the subject.
Post a Comment