A
platitude is defined as:
"a remark or statement, especially one
with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or
thoughtful"
As the
definition indicates, platitudes are statements that, though the vice of sheer
thoughtless, inconsiderate repetition, are devoid of any real meaning; their
power comes not through the bold proclamation of the truth, but through the
soft oppressiveness of their reiteration.
I believe
most of our society's moral dialogue takes place through the meaningless and
incessant exchange of platitudes. Rather than crafting intelligent and
respectable arguments to examine and explain a moral stance, and thus bring the
conversation before the seat of logic for adjudication, the social norm is to
craft witty one-liners full of poetic charm and simplistic brevity, which
brings the conversation out of any discernible logic and into the intellectual
equivalent of a bar fight, to where there is no adjudication and the winner is
the one who resists the urge to break down in a tantrum of spouting off
slippery-slope scenarios and analogous comparisons to Hitler.
As such,
I have come to hate the moral platitude. Statements like "A person is a
person, no matter how small" and "Its my body, I can do what I want
to" have hijacked a massively crucial moral debate and turned it into the
battle of the bumper sticker slogans, while chants like "Adam and Eve, not
Adam and Steve" and "Marriage equality for all" rob us of having
a deeper conversation about what marriage really is. I truly
believe our society deserves a better way to have a moral conversation.
As such, I want to take the chance to examine and dismantle moral
platitudes; I want to knock them off their pedestals and dissect them for
examination. I hope that, by shattering these slogans of stupidity and
battering these bastions of banality, we can all come to appreciate a better
way to engage in moral discussion.
The
platitude I want to undo in this post is a classic: "Get with the
times". I hate this saying primarily because it is a cop-out, an outlet, a
negligent dismissal that suffocates moral conversation before it can ever get
off the ground. Like most platitudes, this one is often a poorly
disguised excuse for an unwillingness to think.
More
often than not, the line "Get with the times" is invoked when a
position is proposed that is unpopular or "old-fashioned". For
example, should a person suggest that women ought to aspire to lead domestic
lives rather than professional lives, that person ought to be prepared to hear someone
else telling them to "get with the times". Or when someone
proposes the use of incense and organ in Catholic Liturgy rather than
liturgical dance and a jazz ensemble, they shouldn't be surprised to be told to
"Get with the times." The foundational premise behind this
statement is that the opponent's position is not with the times, and it should
work to become more with the times. But here is the big problem:
What, on God's green earth, does it mean to be "with the
times"?
The
simple answer to this question is this: to be "with the times" is to
reflect within your beliefs, practices, prerogatives, etc. that which is the
contemporary norm for those beliefs, practices, prerogatives, etc. But
this complicates things, because it assumes that the contemporary norm is what
is supposed to shape people's thoughts and practices, instead of the other way
around. It becomes a "chicken or the egg" paradox, in which we
ask whether the contemporary norm shapes individuals, or whether individuals
shape contemporary norms? If the former option is true, then there should
never be any change in the norm, meaning "the times" are static, and
"getting with the times" is merely conforming to a static norm.
However, if the latter of the two options is true, then we really can't
say we ought to "get with the times," as any proposal could
facilitate a necessary shift in the norm. In either scenario, we see its
hard to really support a claim that the norms of "the times" are a
truthful measure of a position.
"But
Joe!" cries a prophet of the modern mentality, "what about
progress?!" Ah yes, I suppose I would not be speaking fairly if I
did not address progress, because the virtually unanimous approach to bypassing
the weird "chicken vs. egg" scenario described above is by clinging
to the notion that society progresses. Now, what is typically meant when
we mean progress? If we examine how we've learned history and
anthropology, we quickly see divide the history of our species by the
complexity of our technology and we divide our civilization base on the
complexity of our socio-economic structures. Hence, we have time periods
like the "Stone Age", the "Bronze Age" and the "Iron
Age", as well as categorizations for society such as "Hunter-Gatherer",
"Agrarian", "Industrial", and "Post-Industrial".
We like to describe ourselves and our history by marking achievements of
technological and social achievement. And, for the most part, there's
really nothing wrong with this. Humans have achieved a substantial amount
in our relatively brief history. However, there is a dangerous temptation in
reveling in our prestige: Perfectionism.
Now, this
is not psychological perfectionism ("I'm going to clean this house until
it sparkles!"), but philosophical. Don't confuse the two. When
I say perfectionism, I mean this: the belief that human effort alone has, can,
and will advance the essence of humanity towards a state of greater perfection.
Its the idea that our achievements mark a substantial change in
humanity. This idea is a sort of philosophical analogue to Darwinian
evolution, in which the mechanisms of the evolutionary process yield superior
creatures. Like evolution, perfectionism believes that the mechanisms of
time and society yield superior humans. This idea paints human history as
the story of getting better as a species, meaning things that are in the past
are not as good as what is in the present, and certainly not as good as what is
future. Its the idea that, by and large, we're better now, as a
generation of a species, than our ancestors. Most discussions of
"progress" operate with an implicit dimension of perfectionism.
Because of this, we can now see the deeper meaning behind most uses
of the phrase "Get with the times". When someone says "Get
with the times", they are (probably) saying something more along the lines
of this: "Your position is out of line with the master trend of
human progress, and as such, it works to hinder/undo our progress towards
greater human perfection. Reject your backwards, regressive ideas, and adopt
contemporary ideas and cooperate with human progress!" Sure, its a
bit more wordy, but its direct and explicit. Most of all, it makes the
phrase's fundamental problem clear: It is based upon a lie.
Human
beings do not progress; there is no such thing as perfectionism. This is,
perhaps, one of the greatest lies of our generation, and it hoodwinks far too
many people, especially the elite and educated. Allow me to explain.
Though the myth of perfectionism makes sense upon first glance, the
real question behind perfectionism is: "Are human imperfections beyond our
capacity to fix?" Or, more simply, "Is Original Sin a
reality?" The answer, resoundingly, is yes. These questions
shape the two basic positions in this debate. In the one corner, orthodox
Christians see original sin as the fundamental problem; human nature is
distorted in a way that only God can repair. If original sin is real,
there can be no such thing as human progress, for the only progress is through
repentance and grace. In another corner, progressive-minded people see
ignorance as the fundamental problem; human nature suffers only from a lack of
knowledge, and the more we learn and educate each other, the better we will
become as people.
The
reason why Original Sin is real and perfectionism is a very
optimistically-foolish heresy is simple: no matter how smart or advanced people
are, they have to choose, and as often as ever, we choose poorly. Look to
the 20th century as an example: we made such brilliant advancements like basic
accounting computers, durable air frames, precision machinery, and, among the
greatest discoveries, nuclear fission and fusion. However, presented with
all of these advances, we had to choose what to do with them, and two world
wars, multiple genocides, and 50 years of being a button's push away from
nuclear annihilation seem to show that we did choose any better than we ever
have. We haven't become better human beings, we've become more efficient
human beings; we've streamlined the processes of both production and
destruction rather than making ourselves more productive and less destructive.
All the advancements and progress human beings have made throughout history have given people more choices, and even better choices, but what never changes is the act of choice itself, and it is importance to make clear the distinction between the two. In every choice, there is the object of choice (That which is chosen), the chooser (That which is making the choice), and the act of choice (The actualization of a possibility into an actuality). That which can be called “human progress” is an advancement of the range and sophistication of the objects of choice; it typically indicates that we now have more choices to choose from and better options in those choices. What hasn’t improved is our ability to choose and choose correctly. It doesn’t matter how much we learn, make, or accomplish: people, at all levels of knowledge and sophistication, make bad choices. Human beings, in and of themselves, do not progress. Original Sin prevents us from doing so.Original Sin damaged our relationship with God, and in doing so, prevents humanity from repairing the relationship through our own efforts. We are a people in need of (and, to be more hopeful, surrounded by) grace, and grace is what shall save us.
All the advancements and progress human beings have made throughout history have given people more choices, and even better choices, but what never changes is the act of choice itself, and it is importance to make clear the distinction between the two. In every choice, there is the object of choice (That which is chosen), the chooser (That which is making the choice), and the act of choice (The actualization of a possibility into an actuality). That which can be called “human progress” is an advancement of the range and sophistication of the objects of choice; it typically indicates that we now have more choices to choose from and better options in those choices. What hasn’t improved is our ability to choose and choose correctly. It doesn’t matter how much we learn, make, or accomplish: people, at all levels of knowledge and sophistication, make bad choices. Human beings, in and of themselves, do not progress. Original Sin prevents us from doing so.Original Sin damaged our relationship with God, and in doing so, prevents humanity from repairing the relationship through our own efforts. We are a people in need of (and, to be more hopeful, surrounded by) grace, and grace is what shall save us.
We do not
need to “get with the times.” Any
progress, any movement in humanity towards something better comes first and
foremost through the grace of God, given freely and received gratefully. When told to “get with the times”, we ought
to (besides thoroughly explaining the erroneousness of such an idea, preferably
using the arguments elaborated in the previous paragraphs) respond “No, get
with grace.” Modern trends and
contemporary patterns to not determine what we ought to do and not do, God does. We
shouldn’t be seeking to conform ourselves to that which is current and
progressive, but to God: He, who is timeless and true. We ought to think about “whatever is true,
whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is
pleasing, whatever is commendable, any excellence and anything worthy of praise”
(Philippians, 4:8) and know that these things come, not from human
achievements, but from the grace of God, working through man and in cooperation
with man.
