It's been a while since I last posted. The reason is simple: I don't have time to talk about my life. A lot has happened, as always, but I suppose I'm gonna have to skip a few important things.
When I compare the way people respond to my ideas, from Adrienne to other people, I see a clear difference: Adrienne is a pure libertarian and others make it seem like they are but just aren't. What I mean by that is the following: When I (or someone else) talks about an idea, people's first reaction is to find faults to it, to criticize it and tell me what they think would be a better answer. In fact, we use what has been done for a long time, a false libertarianism. On the surface, people let others say the things they want to say, and then they answer by saying whatever they want (since they also have freedom of expression). But this isn't what is happening exactly. When people respond, they correct what the first person said by arguing that they know more or that what they know is better. I suppose I do not have to say that except for mathematics or languages, nothing else is known for sure (and it isn't because we can observe something that it is true; that's called Logic 101). Hence their arguing is completely useless, but they think it's okay to do so since they have freedom of expression.
The problem with that is that this arguing makes the first person feel bad about this thing. His idea was an IDEA, not a truth, and the first reaction of others is to destroy his idea with another one (which isn't a truth either). And how do one react to this? Well, the person is pissed off. He will start to believe his idea is right and he needs to protect it (since he has been attacked), or he will just listen to the other persons and believe what they say, or he will just forget all about it. (there might be other options, but I don't really have any idea in mind.) But the individual liberty here is not respected. It is actually completely shut off. When you answer "Shut up! You're wrong, I know the truth!" you tell the other person that his way of thinking and expressing himself is wrong, and obviously you force that person to take a position on what was an idea. So you might transform an idea into a belief.
Now, to go back to Adrienne. What she would say after one has said anything would be a positive response. She would praise the person, saying things like "You guys are so smart!" And what does this create? It creates a real libertarian space to talk about whatever one wants with complete freedom of expression. And in Adrienne's courses it was the first and only time I saw something like that. Now, with my current courses, I really miss Adrienne.
I think it is similar to prejudices. For example, when someone says he does not have prejudices, this is just a belief the person has. Whether that person really has prejudices or not depends on much more. But the person wants to defend the idea that "not having prejudices is right", hence there is already a contradiction. Why do people feel the need to express what isn't a truth nor an idea, but just "what everyone says is right"? Prejudices have been perceived as the worst thing ever, and even if some people say they have prejudices, they all know it is "bad" to. And it's that part I hate because it just doesn't make sense at all. Having prejudices has been considered a bad thing, and you will get criticized as soon as you say one, and this criticism will force you to either believe they really are bad or that you are the one who is right and they are wrong. (sorry if it took me time to get to this lol I think I'm really tired and my brain isn't all there, but it's still logical :) )
When someone says something that doesn't make sense at all or is out of the conventional, I get thrilled. Why? Because that person doesn't fear the stupid criticism he will get in no time. That person really is using his freedom of expression. But for how long? How long will it take before he falls in the conventional? It's hard to be one against everyone. And so instead of criticizing others, why not praise them for having ideas, and praise them even more for having "crazy" ideas that make no sense? Only then we will have individual liberty.
And before I get criticized for not thinking too much, I will add that even if someone seems to be arguing over something doesn't necessarily means that he thinks what has been said is wrong or anything, but maybe he only wants to add something to advance the idea to a further level. I do not say this is not a good way to learn, but still, it's like saying "look, you got part of it, here is what you forgot". But what that person doesn't mean is "Oh, you're idea is so great, I love it! I also thought about this other thing that is similar, what do you think?" But then again, said in the wrong way, it might influence a positive response ("yes! that's also a really good idea!" while the other person didn't actually have time to think much about it but was influenced by the words of praise given...) This example raises many more examples, but hopefully if we stop trying to argue about our ideas and just listen to what others have to say and praise them for having ideas, I think these problems might not occur.
And it's getting really late so I should work a little bit on homework or stuff :)
No comments:
Post a Comment