There is very likely not any unvarying "normality" in a culture larger than a handful of people, and even then, a community comprised of just two people could have great variation in personality and outward actions, with each society of any size beyond this having the potential to reduce to sub-communities. If there is/was true conformity to a given lifestyle that is "normal" for a given culture, it could always be one moment away from fluctuating, and even if people act the same outwardly due to social pressures, they could still harbor wildly individualistic personalities that they keep to themselves. After all, people are individuals. For all the obsession in some people's minds with fitting into arbitrary or irrational cultural norms (or "norms"), individuality and the truths of individualism remain. Being normal can be a total illusion in some cases and an utterly idiotic thing to desire in others.
Any disparity in everything from how language is used over time to the dining customs and musical styles of different regions would exemplify how normality is not truly normal across time and geography. The word "gay" once was culturally used in reference to happiness, while now it is often used in a very different context to specify a particular sexual orientation, to give just one instance. There is no fixed standard of normality in this world, certainly not one that is fixed by logical necessity rather than happenstance cultural forces that are themselves capable of being altered. In fact, what constitutes a specific person's normal behaviors even when living in isolation could change over time. Someone who hypothetically lived away from all other humans for their entire life might not exhibit the same habits at all times. Where it is found, normality in these senses is arbitrary; it cannot possibly be worth devoting one's attention to beyond one's subjective wishes, and that is if what is "normal" in a specific case is not erroneous.
Normality is not the same as rationality, as much as some might confuse the two. It is also not the same as morality, the latter of which is objectively good, if it exists, regardless of any culture's norms or any individual's personality and is about what should be done rather than the behaviors that are being practiced. The two might not overlap, and even if they do, people's behaviors might be morally good by happenstance in that they are not actually trying to be moral or that they believe in correct moral ideas for invalid reasons, like social pressures or subjective appeal. It might be normal, for instance, for a society to despise animal cruelty, but if this is only out of tradition or emotionalism, then animal cruelty being evil would not mean actual rationality is common in this society. Now, there is nothing irrational about being "normal" in a given way if the standard beliefs or behaviors of a community are rational and righteous or if the behaviors specifically are amoral.
Beliefs can still only be valid when they are both true and verifiable through logical necessity. Believing in something due to social norms is asinine and all who do so are of course fools. Adhering to philosophical ideas or behavioral expressions of those philosophies, which are all true or false independent of what a person or culture might want, is only valid on the basis of intentionally assenting to accurate concepts without making any assumptions along the way. Yes, this will put someone at odds with almost any culture, making them abnormal on one level. Furthermore, to actively strive to be unique or self-guided for non-fallacious reasons cannot be erroneous on its own, but, nonetheless, to reject ideas and practices just because they are prevalent in one's society is fallacious. Rationalistic awareness and righteousness do not have to exclude normality, as unlikely as it is that they will ever become the typical characteristics of any community outside of a small group of friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment