Philosophy
There's a new webforum that just started called the Citizens' Symposium. The idea is to take a topic and ask a couple of bloggers from different points of view to write a short essay and respond to the others, then throw it open to general discussion. It's a wonderful concept and the first one is up. It's topic is free speech and in this initial symposium, I play Agathon. Please take a look at the essays, they are quite interesting.
It has had me thinking about free speech again. In my piece I ask whether free speech is an end or a means. I argue in line with the classic Enlightenment view that it is a means to good political discourse which is necessary for a functioning democracy. As such, we allow all all voices a seat at the table until what they are saying proves false. Then it works like March Madness, it's a single elimination tournament, get falsified and you're eliminated, voted off the intellectual island.
But one of the other commenters has me thinking about the virtues of false statements. There is always the epistemic reason given so eloquently by William Whewell in the 19th century who argued that falsehoods are the gateways to truth, that they may not bring together the right facts for the right reasons, but they just might bring together the right facts in a way we had never considered before. Logically, even the loser get lucky sometimes.
But then there is the thought that we build up immunity to a disease by being exposed to it. If we live in a germ free environment, we make ourselves more susceptible to illness. This virus metaphor seems the perfect segue for consideration of Don Imus. In my symposium essay, I argue that we need to encourage a wide variety of viewpoints by limiting free speech -- eliminating both falsehoods and bullying speech. This is where Imus gets condemned. But could it be that I'm wrong and the best way to eliminate the power of the bullies is not to eliminate the bullies, but to have them around in order to learn how to fight back effectively? By keeping around a few germs, does it keep us on our intellectual immune system and allow our public discourse to remain healthier or are they more like a cancer and if any is present will it just keep multiplying, pushing all other cells out of the way until it takes over the space held by authentic civil discussion, killing the body politic?
- The 2nd Amendment, Military Spending, And Abortion: A Curious Conservative Conundrum
Contemporary American conservatism has a deep commitment to originalism as a means of interpreting the Constitution. We need to understand the words of the Constitution, they argue, in the sense that they were intended by the framers. The Constitution...
- Is Campaign Finance Reform Dead? Should It Be?
Getting elected means getting your message out and that means advertising. Advertising means money and that means donations. In the decision Buckley v. Valeo, the Court asserted that money was speech, political speech is protected by the First Amendment...
- Whose Speech Act Is This?
The notion of an utterance seems simple enough. I have a thought I want to express. I select words and a tone in which to express it. I say those words in that way. But what if the words aren't yours, but you still say them? Quoting someone else still...
- Don Imus, John Henry Faulk, Chris Rock, And Offensiveness
Brothers, Sisters, and Transgendered Comedists Everywhere, This week good brother Hanno asked "So where is John Henry Faulk in the pantheon of comic saints? And ought comics get more leeway when it comes to tolerating offensive behavior?" The question...
- Neil Degrasse Tyson - Space As Culture
Recently, with his characteristic passion and erudite informality, Neil deGrasse Tyson delivered the keynote speech at the National Space Symposium, and continued to make the case, as he has recently, that we ought to increase funding for NASA and...
Philosophy
Imus and Freedom of Speech
There's a new webforum that just started called the Citizens' Symposium. The idea is to take a topic and ask a couple of bloggers from different points of view to write a short essay and respond to the others, then throw it open to general discussion. It's a wonderful concept and the first one is up. It's topic is free speech and in this initial symposium, I play Agathon. Please take a look at the essays, they are quite interesting.
It has had me thinking about free speech again. In my piece I ask whether free speech is an end or a means. I argue in line with the classic Enlightenment view that it is a means to good political discourse which is necessary for a functioning democracy. As such, we allow all all voices a seat at the table until what they are saying proves false. Then it works like March Madness, it's a single elimination tournament, get falsified and you're eliminated, voted off the intellectual island.
But one of the other commenters has me thinking about the virtues of false statements. There is always the epistemic reason given so eloquently by William Whewell in the 19th century who argued that falsehoods are the gateways to truth, that they may not bring together the right facts for the right reasons, but they just might bring together the right facts in a way we had never considered before. Logically, even the loser get lucky sometimes.
But then there is the thought that we build up immunity to a disease by being exposed to it. If we live in a germ free environment, we make ourselves more susceptible to illness. This virus metaphor seems the perfect segue for consideration of Don Imus. In my symposium essay, I argue that we need to encourage a wide variety of viewpoints by limiting free speech -- eliminating both falsehoods and bullying speech. This is where Imus gets condemned. But could it be that I'm wrong and the best way to eliminate the power of the bullies is not to eliminate the bullies, but to have them around in order to learn how to fight back effectively? By keeping around a few germs, does it keep us on our intellectual immune system and allow our public discourse to remain healthier or are they more like a cancer and if any is present will it just keep multiplying, pushing all other cells out of the way until it takes over the space held by authentic civil discussion, killing the body politic?
- The 2nd Amendment, Military Spending, And Abortion: A Curious Conservative Conundrum
Contemporary American conservatism has a deep commitment to originalism as a means of interpreting the Constitution. We need to understand the words of the Constitution, they argue, in the sense that they were intended by the framers. The Constitution...
- Is Campaign Finance Reform Dead? Should It Be?
Getting elected means getting your message out and that means advertising. Advertising means money and that means donations. In the decision Buckley v. Valeo, the Court asserted that money was speech, political speech is protected by the First Amendment...
- Whose Speech Act Is This?
The notion of an utterance seems simple enough. I have a thought I want to express. I select words and a tone in which to express it. I say those words in that way. But what if the words aren't yours, but you still say them? Quoting someone else still...
- Don Imus, John Henry Faulk, Chris Rock, And Offensiveness
Brothers, Sisters, and Transgendered Comedists Everywhere, This week good brother Hanno asked "So where is John Henry Faulk in the pantheon of comic saints? And ought comics get more leeway when it comes to tolerating offensive behavior?" The question...
- Neil Degrasse Tyson - Space As Culture
Recently, with his characteristic passion and erudite informality, Neil deGrasse Tyson delivered the keynote speech at the National Space Symposium, and continued to make the case, as he has recently, that we ought to increase funding for NASA and...