An anti-conformist & contrarian view

One of my constant philosophical internal struggles is comprehending the tribalism in human species as it overpowers the more harmonious social bondage we should have inherited from our primate ancestry. From my basic understanding of the primate behaviours, the primate social bondage is far less tribal at least within their own species.  However, as humans, we tend to bond as tribes than as a collective species. This is an intriguing subject as the people who seem to be against the innate tribalism then inadvertently fall into the very same bucket. I for one have to admit that in spite of my best efforts I have exhibited that in my own life.

I once considered myself a Marxist or a communist. I do miss those days when I could form a bond with the fellow Marxists but I don’t believe Marxism as a global solution anymore. Nowadays, I call myself a Marxist only when I have a get under the skin of a bunch of free-market capitalists. I don’t think I can be a Marxist as even Karl Marx wouldn’t be one today. The causal factors which led Marx to do his work don’t exist today. Quoting the Danish Philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, “Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.” I do not think I can reverse history to go back to those old days. So belonging to these tribes will only come at the peril of restricting my thought and not learning.

For some time now, I have decided not to associate myself with any group. To put me into any of the groups mean, I concur with the view of the group. To continue to belong to that group when my views contradict the group is the very definition of non sequitur. I consider this true with everything, leftist, Marxist, liberal, socialist, feminist and to even some extent atheist etc. I am much more comfortable in calling myself into anti tribe than a tribe. I consider myself an anti-theist than an atheist, an anti-male chauvinist than a feminist, an anti-authoritarian than a leftist, an anti-conservative rather than a liberal and so on.

Over the last few years, I found almost all the public movements are shades of grey, the altercations between the public intellectuals have been personal attacks rather than ideologies and above all simple philosophies like free-speech, right to peaceful dissent and civil liberty have different meanings for different people. I also found some crazy people who capitalised on these divides. This has also coincided with the entire social media hysteria, lack of journalistic honesty from the mainstream media and finally everyone with a pen and studio calling themselves a journalist. I definitely see the positive side of this story but I can also see how crazy this has become.  I also realised that the current crop of people who call themselves the gatekeepers of the left have ended up with a thinner skin, thicker ego and lost the ability to have a sensible conversation with adversaries.

Therefore, I want to move from the cult mentality to the issues. I want to do this by using the same approach I use in my consulting role. I want to break down problems into facts, opinions and people. My approach can be broken down into the below four points.

• Take stance on issues based on facts. If facts change my stance changes.
• Call our hypocrisy, lies, and anti-fact behaviours
• Provide feedback to people based on issues and not based on opinions, or simply avoid ad hominem
• A converse of the above, never agree with opinions because you like the person
• Inductive fallacy – Avoid generalisation based on probability or carefully chosen pieces of evidence

I feel the present status of most discussion is a false dichotomy. If you are in the United States, then you are either a Republican or a Democrat. If you are in the United Kingdom, you are either a Labour or a Conservative.  My stand depends on the issues and not what the liberal or conservative philosophy says. The below table demonstrates the need to move from the cults of the left to the points on the right. I want to leave the usage of left and right to just this table and not what the meaning has become.

In doing so, I want to be extremely tough on few behaviours listed below.

1. Using one’s rights to erode other’s rights or using freedom against itself
2. Moving from left to right or vice versa
3. Calling everything a faith

Using one’s rights to erode other’s rights or using freedom against itself is a seriously dangerous trend. It is the incongruence where people want to use freedom of expression to shut other’s freedom of expression. The classic examples are when people want to stop speakers as they are offensive, especially when the audience is supposed to be adults. It has taken extreme forms in the recent years. You see the terrorists use the secular values in Europe to propagate religious intolerance. You see the students in colleges revolting against everything that they do not like to hear. Offensive speech and hate speech should not be stopped as the modern day acceptable speech was offensive few years back.

I am tired of this phrase moving from left to right or vice versa. I see the former more than the latter. As an audience to shows like the Rubin Report, I see these people a lot. However, the problem is very simple, just because you don’t agree to the left doesn’t mean you are going to agree to the right. That is a false dichotomy and people who do that have to be called out. It is not a journey if you learn people on one side are wrong as a natural consequence people on the other side should be right.  To simplify, if we find that Obama was wrong an issue it doesn’t mean Trump is right. It is a naive way to look at the world. Such people haven’t demonstrated any learning. It is again a tribal behaviour. You made a hasty decision assuming that everything was right in one tribe. You learnt it is not true. Instead of moving out of all tribes, you have joined the opposite gang with the same approach that made you join the first tribe. This is not an evolution as Dave Rubin generally wants to put. It justifies moving out but doesn’t justify moving into the next one.

The third one is a very tiring and a circular reasoning issue. Most people who say this start with the reasoning that faith is someone innate and end with that. Faith is something which evidence can’t break. Anti-faith is a behaviour where my position is based on the evidence presented and will change when evidence suggests the contrary. Let me take the most common faith, faith in god. The logic used to justify the existence of god is either because there is no conclusive theory to confirm the source of something or a based on stories of some individuals. The former is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.  The latter is a mere extension of the faith. Now you need to have faith in other individuals who in turn will become the proof of god. This fallacy is called an appeal to authority.  If god appears in front of me and other’s in an undeniable way and consistently, then we will all start accepting God. Then God is not faith anymore, it is based on evidence. So, the logic still remains, believing in evidence is not a faith. It is like saying accepting truth is a faith. This carefully constructed wordplay intended to make the repeated assertions as a proof of the proposition.

I feel passionate about the topics listed above and the philosophies underneath. I want to do my best by basing it facts and logic rather than a cultish or mob hysteria. This would mean that I want to take stances against everyone I agree with on another issue. Truth has no obligation to be pleasant to me or even good for humanity. I want to be happy with truth instead of basing my life on lies.