"A philosopher-people would be a people of searchers, and a people, under pain of death, must know and not search."--Louis de Bonald, Recherches Philosophiques
The usual arguments for free speech assume that the state always needs to be testing its official beliefs. In some ways, this is rather dumb. Individual people must firmly believe that many things are true, if they are to live; societies must also firmly believe that many things are true, if they are to live.
A man who believes nothing can do nothing, for all action is for the sake of what you believe to be good. Thus, modern man is characteristically vacillating and spontaneous in his action; swift to follow what appears good, and equally swift in abandoning its pursuit. He is free only to be inconstant, because his freedom consists in being unmoored from any fixed position. And so he is a man who seems to be nothing inside, because he has never dedicated himself to anything outside himself.
A society that believes nothing, similarly, can also do nothing. The United States is also vacillating in its policies, switching them from year to year with the emotional whims of the voters, the power of the lobbyists, and the events of the moment. Because it believes nothing, it will only wander aimlessly until, as do all things that follow nothing, it descends to nothing.
The idea of a society that believes nothing contradicts your own Dicta, no. 4. There is no such thing as believing nothing, there is only trading one set of beliefs for another.
ReplyDeleteThe main benefit of free speech is to prevent a central authority from imposing its beliefs on the people. This is exactly why the communists were so much against free speech.
Glad to see you, fschmidt. I've always admired the knowledge of history you display in your comments--and your comments over at Throne and Altar on my false accusation of atheist communities were quite accurate (apparently there are no three-deep replies there, thus comment here). I've implicitly associated communities with relative homogeneity of belief, due to various reasons, and so unjustifiably assumed you would want a relatively homogenous community (of atheists).
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of implicit beliefs--
To be sure, every society embodies a set of beliefs--as does the life of a man who, to speak colloquially, "believes nothing." I suppose the point would be that a man who "believes nothing" acts as if a certain set of beliefs were true--say, hedonism--even if he is quite ignorant of utilitarian philosophy and never explicitly formulates his beliefs. He might even deny that he believed the principles on which he acts; he has inherited and been controlled by a system of belief in his attempt to free himself from it. So he believes nothing (explicitly) while believing something (implicitly, as he is controlled by his beliefs).
Similarly, the society that "believes nothing" acts on an implicit set of beliefs, even if it never explicitly formulates them. But because they are not explicit, they can easily begin to contradict themselves and there is no rational way of deciding between them. Thus, it is easier both for such a society to impose their beliefs on others in a tyrannical fashion (because they don't realize it) and it is easier for such a society to fail, vacillate, and act inconsistently and badly (because their motivations are unconscious and irrational). And the same is true for such individuals.
Free speech, I would say, is always and only relative to the community in which one lives. Absolutely no community ever has tolerated everything, and what is tolerable will be dictated by the moral codes. Beliefs are always imposed; the only question is which, and to what degree.
Yes, while no one can believe nothing, many believe that they believe nothing. And these people are real trouble.
ReplyDeleteYes, beliefs are always imposed; the questions are which, to what degree, AND how and by whom. The "how and by whom" matters. Tyrants can quickly destroy traditions, as Mao did in China. It is better to have free speech and have beliefs imposed by persuasion. Christ used persuasion to spread his beliefs.
I think a community must have homogeneous values, but does not need to have homogeneous beliefs. When I visited Tibet, I saw the common people worshipping various idols in the Buddhist temples. I asked a Buddhist monk if he believes in these idols. He said no. So I asked why these idols are in the temples. He said that the idols help guide the common people on a better path. In Eastern religions, belief is not central. What is central is how one lives. Belief is only a means to that end. I share that view. In the West, Plato believed in absolute truth and he made truth central to all thought. This was absorbed by Christianity where, unlike Judaism, belief is considered more important than action. But if you consider a community of diverse beliefs but shared values, such a community could work well as long as one of those values is not to force one's beliefs on others. As long as atheists don't attack Christianity, there is no reason why atheists and Christians who share values couldn't share a community. But if the values in a community aren't fairly homogeneous, then the community cannot effectively hold together.
That is a fascinating difference between East and West. I hadn't known that; thanks.
ReplyDelete