My second article. the first is below.
Thinking about Thinking
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Over two centuries ago Voltaire revealed our current American notion of free speech. This very same principle encouraged Columbia University to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to speak in New York on September 24.
Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University prompted controversy from all sides. Ahmadinejad is a prominent critic of western power and Iran is seen as a significant nuclear threat. The media was enthralled. During his appearance, Ahmadinejad went so far as to question the historical validity of the holocaust.
Ahmadinejad stated, “…if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?” Ahmadinejad and others support different approaches to the history surrounding World War II.
From a political or historical perspective the statement is certainly controversial, some would argue laughable. However, the speech also raises interesting questions about the implicit, more philosophical issues, of belief and free speech.
Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust is particularly interesting because in America the freedom to make such a statement is upheld. Contrary to this, in many European countries, most notably Germany and Austria, the same statement is a punishable offense. For obvious reasons, the Holocaust is a very sensitive subject in these countries; there is a strong obligatory feeling for coming to terms with the brutal reality of the past.
In February of 2006 David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Vienna Austria for his denial of the Holocaust. In lectures he gave in 1989, Irving denied that gas chambers were used for mass killing at Auschwitz. In April of 2007, the European Union passed legislation making it a punishable crime to deny the Holocaust.
The historical equivalent of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded room, questioning the extent of the Holocaust is treated as anti-Semitic hate speech which encourages racism and violence. Essentially this is a personal belief, contradicted by vast historical evidence in this instance, which impedes on the freedom of others.
Ethically and morally these are intuitively contentious, even wrong beliefs. Nonetheless, with the words of Voltaire echoing in our minds, we uphold Ahmadinejad’s right to free speech even if his beliefs drastically oppose our own. The critic will insist we have an obligation to protect the ears of the uneducated from slanderous ignorance. But is legislation the right way to go about this?
Does our notion of free speech rest on the childish idea that sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me? E.U. legislation implies that a personal belief can be detrimental to society. Anyone who has ever been a victim of hateful speech knows that words can be damaging.
So what is the relationship between belief and action? If a person believes that minority groups are inferior, they may or may not act discriminatorily towards these groups. If a person believes that a personal relationship with God is the one and only road to salvation, they may or may not discriminate against unbelievers. Is it the belief or the action which is wrong? There is a fine line. How do we decide to outlaw one type of expression and not another?
I want to agree that a person should be punished for promoting hate and violence, but where do we draw the line? By treating ill formed beliefs in a serious manner we only give credence to absurd theories.
If it is illegal to make an outrageous claim against the validity of the Holocaust then punishing other marginal beliefs is only a small step away. Maybe legal action is not the right way to approach this; intellectual discussion and education may be more appropriate solutions.
We must remember, the right to free speech allows a minority to speak out and instigate positive change. America’s founding fathers and Voltaire were rightly attracted to preserving free speech to allow for an open flow of ideas. Legally limiting the right to voice a belief, no matter how controversial, directly limits the freedom of us all.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thinking about philosophy
It is nearly november. I haven't written anything exciting in quite a while. I suppose i'm too busy with classes and studying and GREats. I have been writing for the school newspaper. i'm supposed to write a philosophy/world issues column and it hasn't been fantastic, but i'm working on it. I decided that i would post my articles, pre-edited versions, here.
Thinking about Thinking
The desire for knowledge seems to be a significant part of our human nature. Children are never satisfied with answers like, “I’ll tell you when you’re older”. They don’t accept, “Because that’s just how it is.” The search for knowledge is driven by a curious desire to understand the world we inhabit. Like inquisitive nine year olds with a hammer and the family stereo, we are all pounding away at the world, taking it apart, and occasionally learning something.
Students in every discipline pick apart the complex structure of the universe in their own manner to learn how it functions and why it came to be. The term philosophy stems from the Greek word philosophia, meaning friend or lover of wisdom. If it is accepted that a desire for knowledge is part of our human nature, then in many ways we are all philosophers.
It is a misconception to think that philosophy is a theoretical study of abstract ideas with no application to practical life. I will soon graduate with a degree in philosophy and my grandfather still slyly hints that he would be getting into the health profession himself.
Ethical concerns such as euthanasia, abortion and even justifications for war are all founded in philosophical problems. I think most scientists would agree that the debate between evolution and creation is not so much a scientific debate as it is a philosophical debate about the nature of the scientific method. This misunderstanding has caused passionate, but basically unwarranted, controversy in high school biology classes across America.
In Chinese Philosophy, a course offered at Juniata, students learn that the foundation for ancient Chinese government was very often linked to the philosophical discussion of human nature. The same thought can be applied to government in the United States today. Considering human nature, to what extent should the government be involved in our personal lives?
If human nature is inherently malicious, then it seems that the government should have more control to keep society in balance. In fact, maybe the general public should not be consulted at all and strict laws need to be enforced for the general good. On the other hand, if human nature is inherently positive and good, then we could conclude that there is no need for the government’s hand in personal matters. The public would be able to make the right choices on an individual level. Excessive control would be unnecessary and hence a waste of time and money. What does current government in the United States say about human nature? And more importantly, is it right?
The notion of ‘analytic thinking’ has almost become a cliché catchphrase for any respectable liberal arts education. However, this is not to say there is nothing behind the idea. Analytic thinking involves breaking down ideas and arguments to understand each piece and how they contribute to the whole. Philosophy is largely analytical in that it advances forward by assessing an argument, finding weaknesses and constructing a new argument with fresh ideas.
Aristotle, a famous ancient Greek philosopher wrote, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” The study of philosophy requires the ability to entertain ideas that are drastically different from your own. The student is forced to view the world from a different perspective.
Thinking analytically is not only applicable to philosophy or philosophical issues, but is well suited to prepare the student for any endeavor they may undertake. One example is the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). This is a test often required for students applying to graduate school. It includes an analytic writing section where the student is asked to analyze the reasoning behind one argument and present his/her perspective on a given issue.
Philosophy utilizes an analytic mode of inquiry to undermine the foundations of all that we know. It also builds new foundations for that which we do not yet understand. Of course many other disciplines also promote analytic thinking. Philosophy is simply thinking about thinking. An education involving philosophy can lead to a fulfilling life and has many practical applications. Most importantly though, it will prepare the student to think for themselves.
Thinking about Thinking
The desire for knowledge seems to be a significant part of our human nature. Children are never satisfied with answers like, “I’ll tell you when you’re older”. They don’t accept, “Because that’s just how it is.” The search for knowledge is driven by a curious desire to understand the world we inhabit. Like inquisitive nine year olds with a hammer and the family stereo, we are all pounding away at the world, taking it apart, and occasionally learning something.
Students in every discipline pick apart the complex structure of the universe in their own manner to learn how it functions and why it came to be. The term philosophy stems from the Greek word philosophia, meaning friend or lover of wisdom. If it is accepted that a desire for knowledge is part of our human nature, then in many ways we are all philosophers.
It is a misconception to think that philosophy is a theoretical study of abstract ideas with no application to practical life. I will soon graduate with a degree in philosophy and my grandfather still slyly hints that he would be getting into the health profession himself.
Ethical concerns such as euthanasia, abortion and even justifications for war are all founded in philosophical problems. I think most scientists would agree that the debate between evolution and creation is not so much a scientific debate as it is a philosophical debate about the nature of the scientific method. This misunderstanding has caused passionate, but basically unwarranted, controversy in high school biology classes across America.
In Chinese Philosophy, a course offered at Juniata, students learn that the foundation for ancient Chinese government was very often linked to the philosophical discussion of human nature. The same thought can be applied to government in the United States today. Considering human nature, to what extent should the government be involved in our personal lives?
If human nature is inherently malicious, then it seems that the government should have more control to keep society in balance. In fact, maybe the general public should not be consulted at all and strict laws need to be enforced for the general good. On the other hand, if human nature is inherently positive and good, then we could conclude that there is no need for the government’s hand in personal matters. The public would be able to make the right choices on an individual level. Excessive control would be unnecessary and hence a waste of time and money. What does current government in the United States say about human nature? And more importantly, is it right?
The notion of ‘analytic thinking’ has almost become a cliché catchphrase for any respectable liberal arts education. However, this is not to say there is nothing behind the idea. Analytic thinking involves breaking down ideas and arguments to understand each piece and how they contribute to the whole. Philosophy is largely analytical in that it advances forward by assessing an argument, finding weaknesses and constructing a new argument with fresh ideas.
Aristotle, a famous ancient Greek philosopher wrote, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” The study of philosophy requires the ability to entertain ideas that are drastically different from your own. The student is forced to view the world from a different perspective.
Thinking analytically is not only applicable to philosophy or philosophical issues, but is well suited to prepare the student for any endeavor they may undertake. One example is the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). This is a test often required for students applying to graduate school. It includes an analytic writing section where the student is asked to analyze the reasoning behind one argument and present his/her perspective on a given issue.
Philosophy utilizes an analytic mode of inquiry to undermine the foundations of all that we know. It also builds new foundations for that which we do not yet understand. Of course many other disciplines also promote analytic thinking. Philosophy is simply thinking about thinking. An education involving philosophy can lead to a fulfilling life and has many practical applications. Most importantly though, it will prepare the student to think for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
