Dear Friends,
It seems to me, there are philosophies that are compatible, incompatible, and semi-compatible. One could use a vector diagram to determine the relationship between them. If the vectors (arrows) go in opposite directions, then we could say the philosophies are incompatible. If they point generally in the same direction, then we could say they are compatible. Those that are ninety degrees off may be called semi-compatible. When illustrated like this the idea seems obvious. If two philosophies literally have opposite goals, the vectors point in opposite directions, they are fundamentally incompatible. That should be obvious, but it’s blurred by spurious arguments. One such argument is that everyone thinks the same, wants the same things, and is motivated by the same ideas.
When I was a child I believed everyone thought the same. That’s the childish belief that all vectors point in the same direction. In other words, we all want the same things, think the same thing, and have the same likes. That is clearly not true. Otherwise there would be no need for the myriad of alcohols, TV shows, and car types. The fact that there is a requirement to meet different tastes in cuisine is proof we don’t all think alike. So the claim we all think alike is spurious. Yet we accept it without thought. This kind of fallacy blurs reality. Such blindness allows absurdities to be entertained. Crazy ideas like all cultures are equal, suicide bombers just want a better life, tribalism goes away once a migrant hits the shores of Europe, among others. Opposing vectors… oppose.
As I grew up I realized everyone thinks differently. I also thought we all at least had the same goal, just a different path to it. So at most some vectors would be perpendicular, but leaning in the same direction. I used to say, we both want to get to the other side of the barn, the question is which side do we go around? Now I realize that many people don’t want to get to the other side of the barn at all, they are happy right here (no vector). Still others would like to run in the opposite direction (opposed vectors). A few actually do want to get to the other side but have legitimate disagreements on which side to go around (parallel vectors). Then there are those who want change but have no idea what that change would be (perpendicular vectors).
Now that I’m an old fart, I suspect everyone thinks radically differently from each other. This is why a person’s philosophical vector could point in any direction. Moreover, that vector could change depending on environment. I suspect Trotsky’s vector changed after he fled to London. Plus a single person has a multitude of vectors depending on the level of identification. This allows us to recognize absurdities, people we can align with, those who we might align with, and identify those that are opposed to what we believe in. When a trans activist aligns with an Islamist, their vectors oppose in all ways but one. That one aligning vector being the overthrow of the West. This makes them poor allies, however, because their vectors are so opposed they must come into conflict at some point.
Once you understand that other people may have literally the opposite motivations, ideas, and feelings than you do, the world makes much more sense. In this paradigm, every vector has its own direction. Most align with the predominant local societal myth, but others can point in the opposite direction. If enough vectors align in opposition to the societal norm, the societal norm will change to suit the vectors. While this is an eclectic way to look at people’s motivations, thoughts, and goals, I think it gives a perspective that could help our understanding. If for no other reason than to recognize that everyone thinks differently. That alone is wisdom that many, including me, don’t learn until later in life. I also suspect we are led into all sorts of traps by the childish notion… that we are all alike.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
