Just to formally introduce myself:
I'm Jeremy.
I'm a musician.
I work in accounting.
I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-women's rights pro-animal rights pro-all kinds of life socialist capitalist environmentalist kind of guy. (Read: do your own thing, make the best informed choice, be yourself and help others when you can. And above all, don't hurt anyone or anything if you can possibly avoid it.)
You can contact me whenever you want via the myspace link in my profile. In case you, like me, are lazy and just want to go there now, it's http://www.myspace.com/tw1st3d_reality.
I encourage dicussion (with me and amongst each other) via comments and such. My goal is to spark intellectual philosophical debate and to make people think 'outside the box.'
Live right. Enjoy yourself. Think.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Pick your stupid slogan...
Why are we all so ready to define ourselves based on simple slogans set forth by someone else?
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
-- Noam Chomsky, from The Common Good, 1998
The slogans we use to define ourselves 'pro-life' 'pro-choice' 'liberal' 'conservative' 'socialist' 'capitalist' etc do nothing to further our actual positions on any issue at hand. They only serve to, as Chomsky said, limit the range of debate.
The terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' have been defined within the 'acceptable spectrum' to apply only to abortion issues. What happens if we try to expand the definitions of these terms to include all life and all choice?
It has become expressly unacceptable to challenge one who calls themselves 'pro-life' for example, on the merits of their argument in relation to sport hunting. You don't need the kill for food, you don't need the hide for warmth; you just want to kill that animal because you have to prove to yourself and your friends how much more power you have (or, more correctly, your gun has) over the animal in question. How does that resonate with a 'pro-life' stance? How does war resonate with that stance? I understand that at times, war is a necessary evil, but at others, it is not. (I won't go into my tirade on war here; that'll be another entry.) How about the death penalty? If you call yourself 'pro-life,' shouldn't you be pro all life?
The slogan opposite 'pro-life' is 'pro-choice.' How is choice an alternative to life? Should we instead call those who claim the 'pro-choice' stance 'pro-death?' I think not. No one is 'pro-death.' No one wants people to die. If you claim to be 'pro-choice,' however, shouldn't you be in favor of all choice? At what point to you stop supporting choice and start supporting a decision? I've long thought that 'pro-choice' is a pretty poor choice to make if one is seeking a self-defining term.
How about 'liberal' and 'conservative?'
I'll start by defining them as Webster shows (this will only be the first entry, the true definition of the word, not it's bastardized form that we hear every day):
Liberal: 1. Favorable to progress or reform.
Conservative: 1. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
So one, at it's very core is all about change, while the very core of the other is about resisting change. Aren't we all, by our very natures, conservative? No one likes change. No one rolls out of bed and says "I think I'll turn my life upside down today." That doesn't necessarily mean that change is bad, it just means that we, as humans, are rather resistant to it. Sometimes, change is necessary. Do these terms really define us as fully as we like to believe. Do the people claiming to be 'liberal' really want to change everything around them? Everything about themselves? Do they seek to be the ever changing chameleons that defy any definition? No. Neither do all who claim the 'conservative' mantle strive to always stay the same.
No one wants to stagnate, and everyone seeks some sort of stable definition. We all fall somewhere between the two terms. These terms are horrible definers...
We, as people, need to seek to find new ways to define ourselves. We need to stop trying to define ourselves with catchy slogans. Life is bigger, grander than that. We are not 'pro-life' 'pro-choice' 'liberal' 'conservative' at heart, we are people. We are individuals. Defy definition. Be yourself.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
-- Noam Chomsky, from The Common Good, 1998
The slogans we use to define ourselves 'pro-life' 'pro-choice' 'liberal' 'conservative' 'socialist' 'capitalist' etc do nothing to further our actual positions on any issue at hand. They only serve to, as Chomsky said, limit the range of debate.
The terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' have been defined within the 'acceptable spectrum' to apply only to abortion issues. What happens if we try to expand the definitions of these terms to include all life and all choice?
It has become expressly unacceptable to challenge one who calls themselves 'pro-life' for example, on the merits of their argument in relation to sport hunting. You don't need the kill for food, you don't need the hide for warmth; you just want to kill that animal because you have to prove to yourself and your friends how much more power you have (or, more correctly, your gun has) over the animal in question. How does that resonate with a 'pro-life' stance? How does war resonate with that stance? I understand that at times, war is a necessary evil, but at others, it is not. (I won't go into my tirade on war here; that'll be another entry.) How about the death penalty? If you call yourself 'pro-life,' shouldn't you be pro all life?
The slogan opposite 'pro-life' is 'pro-choice.' How is choice an alternative to life? Should we instead call those who claim the 'pro-choice' stance 'pro-death?' I think not. No one is 'pro-death.' No one wants people to die. If you claim to be 'pro-choice,' however, shouldn't you be in favor of all choice? At what point to you stop supporting choice and start supporting a decision? I've long thought that 'pro-choice' is a pretty poor choice to make if one is seeking a self-defining term.
How about 'liberal' and 'conservative?'
I'll start by defining them as Webster shows (this will only be the first entry, the true definition of the word, not it's bastardized form that we hear every day):
Liberal: 1. Favorable to progress or reform.
Conservative: 1. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
So one, at it's very core is all about change, while the very core of the other is about resisting change. Aren't we all, by our very natures, conservative? No one likes change. No one rolls out of bed and says "I think I'll turn my life upside down today." That doesn't necessarily mean that change is bad, it just means that we, as humans, are rather resistant to it. Sometimes, change is necessary. Do these terms really define us as fully as we like to believe. Do the people claiming to be 'liberal' really want to change everything around them? Everything about themselves? Do they seek to be the ever changing chameleons that defy any definition? No. Neither do all who claim the 'conservative' mantle strive to always stay the same.
No one wants to stagnate, and everyone seeks some sort of stable definition. We all fall somewhere between the two terms. These terms are horrible definers...
We, as people, need to seek to find new ways to define ourselves. We need to stop trying to define ourselves with catchy slogans. Life is bigger, grander than that. We are not 'pro-life' 'pro-choice' 'liberal' 'conservative' at heart, we are people. We are individuals. Defy definition. Be yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
