Skip to main content

The Should Fallacy

In the history of this world, there is perhaps no form of marketing or protracted syntactical destruction that could ever aspire to achieve as much as the word should has attained in the English language.

As much as we rely upon language to convey and interpret meaning, those messages are only worth as much validity as they carry with them. 

In dissemination, the remainder becomes hollow conventional wisdom.

As it turns out, many purveyors of the word should have been selling you ideological snake oil.

The Should Fallacy

All beliefs are harnessed through axiomatic distinctions. This author claims not to have any solutions to this world's many perceived problems, as no honest economist will report anything more than a menu of tradeoffs; moreover, I represent only my own beliefs intimately and inseparably hinged to the limits of my own experience and understanding. This is the human condition, a perpetual struggle to maximize one's lot in life while minimizing the attending struggle.

The human condition is always such that the individual may only represent himself and his perception, which he or she has come to conveniently accept as his or her own useful reality.

To assume that such a reality is ubiquitous is to undermine the possibility of alternative dimensions of thought, belief, experience and perception, which is a claim against the value of the most atomic and fundamental aspect of the individual, and incidentally that which humanity perceives as community, civilization, or society.

Nothing should or shouldn't be. These words disguise a more sophisticated collection of underlying dynamics which often systematically collaborate to effect the consequences or results which escape the individual who is admittedly unable to capture, translate, reconcile or rationalize the phenomenon in his or her own limited sphere of comprehension.

In the end, the reader might benefit from a more thorough examination of the word should before or after sensing the intuitive demand to employ its utility in conversation. In these cases, consider the context and ask why or why not it should be that way. This will aid in the reader's understanding of world dynamics and precisely why the word is a mere disguise for limited human understanding or the dispirited pursuit of it.



The Subjectivity of Should


All human behavior and thought is rational. It is and can be nothing more or less. One's relative inability to understand one's experience or position is not sufficient cause to undermine or discredit this natural dynamic.

In the end, we may agree or disagree; however, this alone fails to justify any claim on the extent to which a case should or shouldn't be. These are merely opinions in a world saturated by them.

No answers can be absolutely known. Truth is only that which man is willing to accept, and then willing to perpetuate, the latter continuing into that which becomes tradition or axiom-laden theoretical dispositions tested only occasionally by a minor segment of the population bearing once more only an alternative set of built-in assumptions, effectively tilting the conversation toward a fresher zeitgeist, but hardly anywhere nearer to universal truth.

This author's guiding principle happens to be that of freedom.

Of course, all discourse may be immediately obstructed by this axiomatic distinction, as this world is full of all types who may make claims against the value of freedom. Are they wrong? No. Are they right? No. They just are. Just as nothing should or shouldn't be, right and wrong are human conventions which dilute the otherwise clearer and purer understanding of human action.

Opinions increasingly populate this planet only to eventually become concrete "evidence" or "tradition" against which all progressive understanding must then operate. This will not only aid in one's ability to understand and empathize with others, but also with one's own self.

And this not only convolutes the meaning of truth, but it makes it far more difficult to find in the tumultuous storm of emerging social inertia which displaces the value of truth in favor of the convenient platitudes and various forms of sophistry which have served those who continue to stock the shelves of intellectual fan fiction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…