The ancient Chinese parable of a farmer as told by Alan Watts

Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.”

The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”

The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.”

The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”

The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it’s really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad — because you never know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.

Lucian Blaga, in The Dogmatic Aeon, on the self-discouragement of philosophy: “as far as the purely philosophical currents are concerned, they have a relativistic character, same as they did in the Hellenistic period. Skepticism prevailed then; pragmatism and fictionalism today.”

“The disillusioned intellect cannot muster the strength to believe in the objectivity of its creations, and is satisfied that this idea, which can be replaced with a whole swarm of other ideas, gives for a moment the opportunity of enjoying the free will of its functions.”

“This circumstance, that is, the self-discouragement of philosophy, facilitated the invasion of imagination and myth into philosophy to a great extent, eventually leading to the formations of Gnostic metaphysics, barbarian and refined at the same time.”

Anon wrote: Isfj. Recently found out that a colleague is anti vax & doesn’t believe in sci. I feel rlly conflicted now. I like her, she’s not rlly harming anyone + if I step in her shoes I can sorta get why she thinks like that. But every time she’s anti research/sci, I get v irritated. I don’t like superstitions & dislike when things aren’t based on facts. She has a lot of privilege and implies that she’s victimized & oppressed over sth she herself chose.

I and my social circle have also always been anti anti-vaxx. I guess I realized I made it my identity to be ‘liberal’, open-minded, critical thinking, accepting (which ironically includes being anti anti-vaxx). But turns out I’m a lot more judgmental and black and white than I thought. And ok I guess I judge her for her privilege. But I have a lot of privilege too. Idk. Everything I judge her for, I have a counter point for too. My thoughts are a mess. Advice?

——————-

I don’t think you fully understand what it means to be judgmental. You seem to be confusing “critical thinking” and “critical judgmentalness”. The two are not the same. It’s good that you’re sensing a problem here, as that produces an opportunity to learn and grow.

- Critical thinking involves respecting factual information, weighing information objectively, and making decisions impartially. If you are the kind of person who values the truth and acting in accordance with the truth, then you will take on the duty to clarify the facts, be fair-minded in your evaluations, and correct bad decisions that were biased or prejudiced in some way. Does this duty extend to others? Only in cases where harm is being done, and you would certainly need to justify that the moral harm is severe enough to warrant interfering with someone else’s autonomy and agency.

- Judgmentalness involves being critical for egotistical reasons, meaning that the criticism is usually unwarranted, excessive, or ultimately pointless. Usually, judgmentalness is a means to cover up a psychological problem such as an inferiority complex, helplessness, or chronic resentment. Being judgmental means you cherry-pick “facts”, you manipulate information to suit a narrative of your liking, and you make decisions that favor yourself at the expense of others. If you are a judgmental person, you don’t value truth as a high ideal, rather, you only value your own version of the truth and ignore everything else. The main goal is to ensure that you don’t have to confront the truth of your underlying psychological problem.

Full disclosure, I’m on your side of this issue, so I can sympathize. However, it’s important to acknowledge that controversial issues are confusing because there’s a lot going on that needs sorting out, which makes them open for debate. If you were in possession of the “Absolute Final Truth”, shouldn’t you and everyone automatically bow down to the power of it, because there would be no grounds whatsoever to object to it? But that’s not the case, because the issue is not as clear cut as you believe.

In other words, when it comes to debating, both sides usually have some important points to make, regardless of how poorly the participants are communicating them. This is not to say that you must relent, submit, or be friends with people you disagree with. It means that the only way forward is to acknowledge that there might be some merit in what they’re saying, even as you disagree with their approach or their final conclusions.

In your situation, you are coming from the standpoint of someone who respects critical thinking and the truth… at first. However, whenever you meet someone you strongly disagree with, you easily spiral into judgmentalness, and then start engaging in social status games. Why? Because you, yourself, equate your beliefs with your identity. This reveals something about your ego development.

This habit of identifying with beliefs creates the problem of being unable to address false beliefs without feeling personally attacked and/or using personal attacks during what should be a calm and reasonable debate. It makes communication very difficult. Being wrong is not the same as being bad, so you can call out falsity without attacking people personally, can’t you? Is it not possible to separate a person from their beliefs or behaviors?

Stepping back to be objective isn’t easy, because we each have an ego that wants what it wants and leads us to obfuscate the truth. But objectivity is necessary for developing the ability to influence and persuade people in the right way. Additionally, lack of objectivity often reveals a lack of humility that enables arrogance in your own beliefs. Walking around thinking that your beliefs are superior, you’ll often find yourself locked into resentments, warfare, or stalemates, with lots of hard feelings to go around. It’s not great for your Fe development, is it?