Concrete vs. Theoretical

Comprehension of Appropriateness (Part #3)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The issues raised by such assumptions, and any effort to explore their possible significance, can be relatively easily avoided by taking either a 'concrete' position or a 'theoretical' position. This can be used as a practical illustration of the dilemma to be discussed subsequently. 

For those emphasizing a 'concrete' perspective, such questions appear to be a device to avoid getting to immediate grips with pressing problems and devising practical solutions to deal with them. What needs to be done appears obvious and the only difficulties in implementing such solutions are the ones created by those who resist unreasonably the envisaged steps. Because such groups can be defined as unreasonable, they can also be defined as part of the problem which needs to be remedied. The merit of this position is that it can indeed respond effectively to current crises by ignoring subtleties of significance, whether for a wider geographical area, for a broader social context, or for a longer period of time. The approach to the time dimension is one of intense focus on the present, ignoring longer term perspectives in a spirit of 'let us cross each bridge as we come to it'. Such effectiveness is effectiveness according to short-term rather than long-term criteria. 

For those emphasizing a 'theoretical' perspective, the pressing need is seen to be one of understanding the processes involved, in terms of some appropriate model, in order to be able to make an informed appropriate decision at some future time, when sufficient insight has been gained. The question of when that moment will be is avoided, because the commitment is to understanding and not to deciding and implementing particular decisions. Any practical response to the crises of the present are thus avoided, with the possibility of continually postponing the moment of decision by the need to obtain further insight to render it sufficiently appropriate. This perspective solves the problem of other competing schools of thought by declaring their arguments to be poorly formulated, ill-informed, or in some subtle way inappropriate. 

Within neither of these emphases is it considered appropriate to envisage the possible inappropriateness of the priorities which emerge from pursuit of that emphasis. Neither can envisage constraints on its own relevance or conditions under which the other may be more appropriate. The fact that both approaches are actively and usefully pursued in society is a result of considerations which neither emphasis could articulate within its own perspective, and certainly could not justify.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]