WELCOME TO PALLET TOWN!!
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Whee! I am free from the shackles of academia. Well, at least for a little while. As NS beckons soon, I figured that I should grab the opportunity to give my 5 cents worth of crap about things that I see every now and then. ( my friends think I will not survive SOTAC, LOL ) There are so many things that pass us by but we often don't or cannot afford to take the effort to analyse them. When this happens, we may become blind to fallacies in many things mainstream.
Most of the time, people take for granted that anything mainstream is 'correct'. However, being mainstream simply implies its orthodoxy. Heliocentric-ism was orthodox but today we all know that Earth goes around the Sun. To digress a bit, let me tell you of an exchange between a famous philosopher (forgot his name) and his friend.
Philo: Why do people assume that the sun goes around the earth?
Friend: Because from our view, the sun goes around the earth. I suppose that's why.
Philo: How would it have looked from our view if the earth was to revolve the sun instead?
Alright, if the genius of the philosopher has not gotten to you yet. Go get your husk checked. It might be empty ( or you could be a theologian? )
Having demonstrated that orthodoxy does not necessarily translate to truth, we must never trust completely what we observed in everyday life. I remember reading The New Paper last week and came across a curious article on the controversy surrounding the movie, The Golden Compass.
The article reports on the decision by some religious organisations to boycott the movie because the movie was perceived to have subtle themes which are contrary to religious values. (notice the bigotry of religion?) Since, I have not watched the movie, I have no capacity to comment on the saga and whether there were really any Anti-Christ themes.( yes, they used 'Anti-Christ )
Not as if I am interested to do so anyway. Remember that my issue of interest today is the concept of orthodoxy.
Zooming into the article, I noticed that a Christian had commented that she would not boycott the movie because doing so will proliferate conflicts and that faith is not about being argumentative. This comment paints a beautiful portrait of the calm and rational faithful. Or is it? To many people, this comment is a perfectly orthodox comment; people should not be in conflict, being argumentative brings immediately to mind of a scenario of flaring tempers and possibly violence. Doesn't it? I beg to differ.
I wonder why should the religiously faithful avoid debate and argumentation? Is it because it is obvious that their beliefs do not stand up to the logical rigours of argumentation? Is it because they realise that it is better to obey the wisdom of avoiding battling a lost cause? Besides, why is debate and argumentation even undesirable in the first place?! Debate and argumentation are the tools by which we bring conflicts to order, it should not be viewed as the bringer of conflicts to order. Only through debates and argumentation can we be exposed to the viewpoints of both parties and ultimately let the magic of logic (wow, it rhymes) take over and come to a mutually-accepted conclusion. How can this even be bad? Besides, debates and argumentation also have the ability to raise consciousness. Raising consciousness is one of the most powerful catalysts for societal progress. Think universal suffrage, abolition of racial discrimination and efforts against abject poverty in the world.
However, there is only a fine line between raising consciousness and being a conflict-monger. Still that does not mean that we should avoid argumentation and debate all together. Abandon a peaceful path to disagreements and forgo societal progress. You decide whether it's worth it.
That was an example of how much we can pick up from reading a single comment. My point, once again, is orthodoxy must not be taken at face value. If we commit the unfortunate error of doing so, we might just be taken for a ride by people who come along and claim that I am tall. :D
9:34 PM;
