i've always been pro-choice. or so i thought.
in a utopian world, choice would come out of some unknown distribution that is a function of an individual's constitution and nothing else. unfortunately, an individual's constitution is also a function of socio-cultural influences that they accept or oppose. as a result, Choice turns out to be a function of socio-cultural trends and influences, rather than conscious radical, tailor-made stands taken as per individual characteristics.
so, where am i going with this? choice is, unfortunately, shaped by trends and cultural backgrounds. therefore, when someone says 'matter of choice', i'm compelled to smirk snidely.
as one of my professors sometimes says - do i believe what u just said?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree. An individual’s thought and actions are just samples from a distribution which is a function of the socio-cultural trends. But then, life should be boring when it is not – where is the contradiction? I am fond of writing via analogies, so here’s one – all thermodynamic systems are spiked distributions of mechanical properties, like energy, pressure (relative standard deviation ~ 10^-10). However, what makes the universe interesting and dynamic is the presence of fluctuations. All dynamics, such as boiling of water, blowing of winds or sky turning blue by sunlight are caused by these fluctuations. Rare large fluctuations cause more interesting things like chemical reactions and isomerism. The fun in our lives comes from experiencing these daily fluctuations, which can be as small as having a good dinner, catching up with an old friend, playing a guitar or as big as surviving a car crash. The size of the fluctuations is determined by ‘thermal energy’ of the system. People who have more ‘thermal energy’, have larger fluctuations – they tend to do more crazy things in life and are interesting to talk to because they have more stories to share.
Post a Comment