I don't know if there is a name for this, but there is a consistent failure in which we humans engage where we make rules to mandate our future behavior that we think will cover everything. These attempts always fail because no future set of circumstances can be predicted with precision. There are too many variables within existence itself to come up with a caveat-free description of (or for) anything, now or in the future.
This problem plays out in everything from a simple promise between two friends to entire criminal justice systems. No matter what words are said or put down on paper at any point in time, there will always be cases where they do not accurately, fairly or completely cover a future set of circumstances.
Along with the problem of not being perfect fortune tellers, this problem exists for us humans because language itself is not up to the task. It is not a tool with an ability to remove all ambiguity, no matter how it's used.
Despite this easily recognizable situation, we still create dogmatic declarations that are to be seen as so perfect as to be unalterable, but this exception-free goal gives us nothing but problems. We would be so much better off if we would accept the notion that we will constantly need to adjust to the ever-changing and unpredictable situations in which we find ourselves.
As mentioned at the start, I don't think there is a name for this (at least I can't find one). It's a kind of Delphic incorrigibility, but that phrase is too clunky to make sense for most people. Maybe one day a proper name will come to me.
This problem plays out in everything from a simple promise between two friends to entire criminal justice systems. No matter what words are said or put down on paper at any point in time, there will always be cases where they do not accurately, fairly or completely cover a future set of circumstances.
Along with the problem of not being perfect fortune tellers, this problem exists for us humans because language itself is not up to the task. It is not a tool with an ability to remove all ambiguity, no matter how it's used.
Despite this easily recognizable situation, we still create dogmatic declarations that are to be seen as so perfect as to be unalterable, but this exception-free goal gives us nothing but problems. We would be so much better off if we would accept the notion that we will constantly need to adjust to the ever-changing and unpredictable situations in which we find ourselves.
As mentioned at the start, I don't think there is a name for this (at least I can't find one). It's a kind of Delphic incorrigibility, but that phrase is too clunky to make sense for most people. Maybe one day a proper name will come to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment