The quick definition of the words is and was for the context of this thought experiment is simply: is; currently, was; has been but not currently.

What is the point of this thought experiment?

The point of this thought experiment is to put into perspective views one might just ignore, based on personal or instilled thinking. Many may not see a difference in is/was and lump them together as if the same thing has been said.

Deeper thinking while expanding the paradigm

Say one looks back at an old diary entry they wrote years ago, this entry contains thoughts or opinions that they no longer have:

The statement pizza is my favorite food is very subjective at the time in a persons life. Their taste buds have expanded since the journal entry and this is no longer the case. This is an easy example of was. A person’s taste buds could have changed, they could have found a food they like more, or maybe they now relate pizza with a bad life event. There is no argument that pizza isn't their favorite food.

Now let’s make the context more polarizing and extreme:

Stating in public or making a remark on a social media website saying God hates fags and they should all die is close minded. This could be brought on by how one was raised, personal beliefs, or culture at the time. Since the time of the statement however, the person no longer believes this. They since may have grown, became more open minded, or maybe had a loved one come out, forcing them to try and understand. Is this person homophobic or was this person homophobic? The answer may not be black and white for some. Even though this person has evolved in their thinking, the argument of is and was might still be defaulted to is.

Let’s take this a couple steps further without the diary:

A person commits a heinous crime to the harsh degree of murder or rape. At the time of the incident, the person very likely thought that it was okay. Since then, they’ve payed their dues to society and no longer thinks this way. Although they’ve evolved in their mindset, many now will think this person is a murderer or is a rapist. There is no was, those titles are cemented in to this person whether they’ve truly changed or not.

What was the point of those?

The point of those examples is to show how an extreme can shift the possibility of is never becoming was. Although the examples are not even close to being the same, the ending was – the person has since changed and no longer thinks that way.

Now we shift the thought to; can a person change

For many, this depends on their personal morals and how they perceive the world. An extreme can cause a person to refuse to think critically. In the first statement, pizza is my favorite food, everyone can see that this is not the case anymore when one says they’ve changed, no one will argue that pizza still is their favorite food. In the last statement of rape or murder, many will not even engage in a discussion about the persons change. They see them as evil and will only ever see them as evil.

For this next thought map, picture earth. Split the planet up into these three parts: the core, everything between the core and ground, and everything above the ground.

On the outside we can see weather change, we can experience it. No one thinking above an infantile level is going to think that it will always be sunny, or that it will only ever rain. Under the ground, we have tectonic plates. Many people will not experience a change in them (like an earthquake.) We know they happen and that the evidence of change goes much further than the ground shaking. Still some, albeit like very few, will refuse to believe it. The core is much different than the first two examples. We are told that it changes, but outside of a very few, no one will experience any change that will influence their lives in the slightest. It is not worth taking the time to wonder if it is changing or not.

More to the point of this experiment, it is easy to say the earth’s core was always like it is now. It is the same as it has always been and cannot change from the core we know now.

Evolution relative to the thought paradigm

Before there were humans, many organisms roamed the earth. The raw instinct of wanting to survive and pass down our DNA is literally in our genes. If it is not a basic instinct for an organism, then they are doomed to become extinct. Surviving hundreds of millions of years depends on passing on our genes.

If one organism is being preyed on by a predator, they aren’t going to take the chance of maybe this one predator has changed, a mistake will end it for them. If one of the organisms’ own kind starts killing others of the same species, you leave them behind as they are now permanently labeled as a danger.

This has been passed down all the way to man. We know to stay away from, say, bears because they are a danger. A mentally healthy person wants to pass down their genes.

Evolution in critical thinking

Humans are able to think passed basic instincts. We can survive as a species without our past primal instincts. When talking about intelligent life, that was our way of thinking in some aspect but is our way of thinking in others. If an individual takes another’s life, our genetical response is to mark that person as a permanent danger, regardless if they have changed since the event or not.

Critically thinking passed evolution

The argument is now are humans not only capable, but willing to believe in core redemption. As stated above, in the past – before critical thinking – that may have ended as a grave mistake. The human race as a species is now above that line of thinking. We know there is weather, we know tectonic plates move, and we are able to rationalize that the earth’s core can change. That line of thinking now must be applied to other aspects of our lives.

Closing thought experiment

You, a family member, or someone you know quite well makes a mistake. Maybe they have unaddressed mental problems and does do something bad; murder, radicalize an entire race or group of people, or says pizza is their favorite food. Would you want to be redeemed in the eyes of society? Would you want your mom, dad, family friend redeemed? It is much easier to forgive a person close to you, but that shouldn’t rule out forgiveness for those around you, especially those you can see the evidence of. Evidence of any change should not be ignored.

Dear professor Amla,

Attached is a thesis based on my thinking and rationales. Through relating change and critical thinking, I am trying to persuade a reader to think about our society as a whole – to put them on a grander scale than their immediate circle. I would appreciate feedback and any stray thoughts you may have on the subject.

Thank you,

Liam Adler