Sunday, February 21, 2016

Beliefs full of holes

There are many things I used to believe- and speak passionately in defense of- that I no longer believe.

In arguing the issues with others, they pointed out the holes in my beliefs, and I (eventually, reluctantly, painfully) saw they were right. It was unpleasant. But, I'd rather change my beliefs than hold on to something I now saw couldn't quite be the way I believed it was.

The funny thing is, they weren't always happy with where seeing the holes led me. They had pointed out the holes, assuming I would come to agree with their position, when the trouble was I already saw the holes in their beliefs, so I couldn't go there. And sometimes, what looks like a hole to someone else, is only the hole they are looking through.

The more of those holes I saw, and the more of my beliefs that had to be modified because of seeing them and fixing the problem, the more I moved toward anarchism. There were other changes, too, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.

I'm sure, looking at history, I still have holes in my beliefs left to discover. And I hope I'll be as willing to see them, when they are pointed out, as I have been in the past.

So, yes, keep speaking up. Keep trying to show people the holes in their beliefs. But if you have holes in your own beliefs- whether you are aware of them or not- don't be surprised if people don't come to agree with you, but choose a third path. Or dismiss the holes you imagine you are seeing while looking through your own.



  1. I agree. No one has it all figured out.

    That is the fun of engaging in discussions and throwing around ideas of values and principals. Sometimes a particular circumstance may demonstrate an idealistic flaw better than another.

    Ultimately, it is about getting a little closer to having it all figured out, also called learning.

  2. Replies
    1. You don't think it makes me look like a homeless vagrant like (possibly) my Jayne Cobb cunning hat does?
      That's my REALLY cold weather hat. I don't think Trump's pelt is thick enough to provide warmth.

  3. After a long discussion/argument at TMM, I now believe that using force to extract justice AFTER someone has initiated aggression, is not, in itself a violation of the NAP, because the victim is not "initiating" aggression in seeking to extract punishment or compensation from the perpetrator. Twas a long and interesting conversion.

    1. I agree, to a point. The problem I see is that so many use this as justification for revenge, and as an excuse to have a State using force. And, of course, that so many have no clue what "justice" is.

    2. Justice, as I see it, is making the victim whole, where possible or providing restitution where it is not. The difference between revenge and justice is usually that "justice" is carried out by a third party according to a preconceived system that involves checks and balances to maintain neutrality. There need be no "state" involved.