freemason version of double think famous masons and the statement were not responsible for the New World Order
Teslacoils 2006
Doublethink
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Doublethink (known in Oldspeak but never used as reality control) is an
integral concept in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four, and is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs
simultaneously, fervently believing both, and being unaware of their
incompatibility.
Contents [hide]
1 Origin
2 Real-world doublethink
3 References
4 See also
5 External links
[edit] Origin
According to the novel, doublethink is:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies
while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become
inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it
back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the
reality which one denies-all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For
by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a
fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on
indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1]
Another quote from the novel, when Winston starts to think about
doublethink as he exercises:
His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To
know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while
telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions
which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in
both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while
laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that
the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was
necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was
needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply
the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety:
consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become
unconscious of the art of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to
understand the world [sic] 'doublethink' involved using doublethink.[2]
As Orwell explains in the book, the Party could not protect its iron
grip on power without degrading its people and exposing them to
constant propaganda. Yet, knowledge of this brutality and deception,
even within the Party itself, could lead to disgusted collapse of the
state from within. For this reason, Orwell's idealized government used
a complex system of "reality control". Though the novel is most famous
for its pervasive surveillance of daily life, reality control meant
that the population (all of it, including the ruling elite) could be
controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday
language and thought. Newspeak was the method for controlling thought
through language; doublethink was the method of controlling thought
directly.
Newspeak itself incorporated doublethink, as it contained many words
that create assumed associations between contradictory meanings. That
is especially true of words of fundamental importance, such as 'good /
evil', 'right / wrong', 'truth / falsehood', and 'justice / injustice'.
Doublethink was a form of trained, willful blindness to contradictions
in a system of beliefs. Doublethink differed from ordinary hypocrisy in
that the person who was "doublethinking" had to deliberately forget the
contradiction between his two opposing beliefs - and then
deliberately forget the fact that he had forgotten it. He then had to
forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this process of
intentional forgetting, once begun, continued indefinitely. Orwell
describes this endless process as a kind of "controlled insanity."
In the case of workers at the Records Department in the Ministry of
Truth, it meant being able to falsify public records, and then believe
in the new history which they themselves had written. (As revealed in
Goldstein's Book, the name of this Ministry is itself an example of
doublethink: the Ministry is really concerned with lies.)
Additionally, doublethink's self-deception allowed the Party to
maintain both huge goals and realistic expectations: "If one is to
rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense
of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's
own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes." Thus,
each party member could be a credulous pawn, but would never lack
relevant information. The party is both fanatical and well informed,
and thus unlikely either to "ossify" or "grow soft" and collapse.
Doublethink would avoid a "Killing the messenger" attitude that could
disturb the Command structure. Doublethink thus functioned as a key
tool of self-discipline for the Party, to complement the state-imposed
discipline of propaganda and a police state. Together, these tools hid
the government's evil not only from the people, but also from the
government itself, but without the confusion and misinformation
associated with more primitive totalitarian regimes.
Doublethink was critical in allowing the Party to know what its true
goals were without recoiling from them, avoiding the conflation of a
regime's egalitarian propaganda with its purpose.
Over the years since Nineteen Eighty-Four was published, the term
doublethink has grown to be synonymous with relieving cognitive
dissonance by simply ignoring the contradiction between two worldviews.
Some schools of psychotherapy such as cognitive therapy encourage
people to alter their own thoughts as a way of treating different
psychological maladies. See cognitive distortions.
[edit] Real-world doublethink
Some people think that doublethink is a concept unique to Nineteen
Eighty-Four, and others think that it is a real psychological function.
Among those who consider doublethink real, there are two conflicting
definitions:
"believing contradictory beliefs for reasons of practicality,
convenience, and/or emotional stability" or
"enjoying the malicious pleasure of the contrast between what one
believes to be true and what one knows to be true."
Both of the above can be observed to exist.
The second definition explains the affinity for opposites (e.g. war is
peace, freedom is slavery, etc.), because opposites maximize the
contrast with the truth. It also explains Newspeak words that consist
of two contradictory definitions, especially among words of fundamental
importance such as 'truth / deception', 'good / evil', etc, as such
malicious doublethink creates an affinity for making such deceptions
deeply ingrained in one's thinking, and therefore very subtle. The main
antagonist in Nineteen Eighty-Four, 'O'Brien', made explicit note of
such maliciously deceptive subtlety when he told Winston that
(paraphrased) 'in the future, the oppression will come in increasingly
subtle forms'. That means that the second definition is closer to the
doublethink of Nineteen Eighty-Four, but the similarity with the first
definition is also notable.
Some people also believe the dialectic to be an example of real-world
doublethink.[3]
jwardl
real.
"Teslacoils 2006" <englando...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1166260974.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
lar...@holbrookmasons.org
> And if it's mentioned in a work of FICTION by a famous author, it MUST be
> real.
I agree and disagree.
Teslacoils 2006
as double think
good call Larry would of slammed you on that one!
WISDOM AND DIALECTIC
by Gordon L. Ziniewicz
The Love of Wisdom
1. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote many dialogues,
thought-experiments in the form of conversations involving a number of
characters. These dialogues (about thirty-five in all) are based on
Plato's real acquaintance with important thinkers, politicians, and
other citizens who walked the streets of Athens. In most of these
intellectual "give-and-takes," the chief character is Socrates, a savvy
old guy who was fond of critiquing the political and cultural status
quo. Socrates insisted that what counts in life is to cross-examine
one's own ideas, as well as the ideas of others, particularly those who
don't really know what they are talking about, but think they do.
2. In The Symposium (the setting is a banquet or drinking party), Plato
has Socrates and his companions discuss the origin and meaning of
"love" (the Greek word eros). Despite his companions' high praise and
somewhat bawdy comments about "goddess Love," Socrates claims that Love
is not a god, but rather the child of two parents -- Plenty and
Poverty. Love, he maintains, is something between "having" and
"lacking." We think we know what we are looking for and that we would
recognize it if we found it, but we are still searching for it.
3. The same goes for having and lacking when it comes to wisdom --
reliable insight into the things that matter to us in our everyday
lives. We look for wisdom, because we think it will give us some peace
of mind, some "enlightenment," some clarification of the otherwise
foggy ups and downs of experience. We want to make sense of things. We
want some sort of a map of the whole, what it all means, and how best
to navigate it. We know that experience counts for something, but only
if we learn from it, reflect upon it, conclude something from it.
Experience without "reason" or understanding, doing and undergoing
without a clue as to the meaning of it, are not enough. We get through
live successfully by soaking ourselves in it, while staying alert,
critical, and thoughtful.
4. Philosophy is traditionally referred to as the "love of wisdom." The
word itself comes from two Greek words -- philos, which means "friend
of" or "love of," and sophia, which means "wisdom," in the sense of
highly developed skill, expertise, or know-how when it comes to the
most important things, such as how should one live one's life, what are
the highest priorities, what does it all mean, what is our place within
the "scheme" of things. What counts in the quest for wisdom is to keep
going. In this quest there are successes and failures, problems and
solutions. Sometimes, the object of the search seems close at hand, and
things feel right for a change. Other times, wisdom is elusive. The
attitude of the philosopher is one of wonder and humility. Wonder is a
feeling of awe and bafflement before a universe that is both
extraordinarly beautiful and troublesome. We feel humble, because we
realize that understanding it all is way beyond our power.
The Limits of "Human" Wisdom
5. Socrates (and Plato) were very hard on those who pretended to know
what they didn't really know, especially when this foolishness had to
do with how to live well or how to govern wisely. Socrates believed
that self-appointed "experts" who considered themselves wise, lacked
the humility, curiosity, and self-knowledge that characterize the
philosopher. One who thinks himself or herself wise is far from wise.
In Socrates' view, God alone is wise. Human wisdom consists in
realizing our humanity, of understanding ourselves as limited seekers,
and in appreciating the distance between partial human understanding
and complete divine wisdom (complete knowledge of all things). Socratic
ignorance is self-understanding or critical self-awareness, that
appreciates the difference between being a human being and being a god.
6. Philosophical "wisdom," in the human and limited sense, is a habit
of mind that never tires of asking questions, examining "established"
views of things, weighing beliefs on the scale of experience, and
testing ideas against other ideas. It is an approach of
open-mindedness, skepticism, and inquisitiveness. It is an attitude and
way of seeing things. It knows better, not beause it "knows more
things," but because it "knows" them differently. It is both
intellectual and practical, because wisdom about what is going on
includes practical wisdom about how to live well and stay focussed on
the things that really matter. Philosophy does not compete with
specialized sciences or other "fields of knowledge." It is an outlook
or "method" which animates, welcomes, and unifies all types of inquiry
and search for evidence.
7. Philosophy is as individual as individual people are. It is tailored
to the intellect and temperament of unique persons who hope to discover
a view of the world as a whole (world-view) and the place of human
beings (including themselves) within that whole. In this activity,
there is both movement and rest, seeking and stopping for a while.
After much experience and thinking, we might arrive at a temporary
way-station, a world-view, a perspective, a "philosophy." If we remain
honest with ourselves, self-critical, and open-minded, we do not make
any such way-station a permanent home. That would imply superhuman
wisdom. Rather, after a short stay with ideas that seem valid and
fruitful at the time, we once again take to the road -- think things
over again, revise our opinions, come to new conclusions. New
experiences challenge old answers; new suffering revokes old
generalizations.
8. According to William James, the process of thought includes a series
of "perches and flights." After a period of questioning, reflection,
and discovery, we arrive at a point of relative stability -- we perch
for a while. We are content with our results, for the time being. Then,
seeing new problems or new lines of inquiry, we move on -- our thought
takes flight. Thus, Philosophy is both result and process. As "result,"
it is a view of things and includes ideas or beliefs which are more or
less coherent, consistent, and organized. A system is an ordered and
coherent set of ideas. In a system (belief-system), ideas do not
contradict one another. Ordinarily, our personal "philosophy" is full
of opinions that do not belong together. Thinking attempts to resolve
inconsistencies among ideas, as well as to reconcile and adjust ideas
to the hard facts of lived experience. Indeed, every conscious person
has a "philosophy" (as belief-system or world-view). The activity or
process of philosophy is to think about "philosophies" -- to evaluate,
test, and revise ideas that we and others have and use.
Question: Where do ideas come from? How many of them can we really call
our own? Name some "external sources" of ideas.
Traditional "Branches" of Philosophy
9. Ideas cover a wide range of territories. We can break these down
into what are called the traditional "branches" of Philosophy:
Metaphysics: theory of reality as a whole, what does it mean for
anything to be, why are things the way they are.
Philosophical Psychology: theory of human nature, role of
consciousness, understanding of perception.
Ethics: theory that examines purposes (teleology -- study of ends),
principles, and values and the art of making good choices or moral
decisions.
Cosmology: theory of the natural universe.
Logic: examination of the principles of correct reasoning, including
the nature of valid reasoning and the nature of scientific method.
Social and Political Philosophy: study of human social structures and
forms of government.
Philosophy of History: study of cause and effect patterns and basic
trends in history.
Epistemology: theory of knowledge, what can we know or not know.
But the list goes on, almost endlessly. We can talk about Philosophy of
Science, Philosophy of Mathematics, and Philosophical Anthropology. The
term "philosophy" can be associated with any attempt to reach a unified
view of any aspect of our lives. We hear politicians refer to
"philosophy of campaigning" and coaches talk about their "philosophy of
offense or defense." In each case, what is indicated is a collection of
ideas -- more or less refined and ordered -- about a particular aspect
of reality. In the most general sense, in a particular individual,
philosophy is a way of looking at things that includes and holds
together all "sub-philosophies." It is the "big picture" which includes
all other areas or "fields."
Philosophy as System and Process
10. Philosophy is both result (set of views about reality) and process
(activity of thinking and investigating). Some traditional academic
philosophers have emphasized the result side of philosophy. We call
them "system-builders." As the pyramid-builders of Egypt built their
monuments stone by stone, so system-building philosophers stack ideas
upon ideas (beginning with foundations and working their way up) and
endeavor in this way to construct an awesome and complete picture of
reality. Among these system-builders were Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, and
-- the most ambitious of them perhaps -- Hegel. Hegel attempted in
words to weave the final and absolute world-view, one that would
forever settle all disputes and bring an end to controversy. The
trouble with philosophy preoccupied with answers is that it aims to
bring an end to philosophy as inquiry and thinking. If all the answers
are there, the search is over. Philosophies which emphasize finished
results (system) tend to endanger and suppress Philosophy as process
(thinking). System-builders often claim that their answers to the basic
problems of existence are certain, true, and indubitable -- or could
be, with a little more revision and modification. The problem with
believing you have the right answer is that you are likely to stop
asking the question and even more likely to stop listening to opposing
points of view. Systems can become rigid, even dictatorial or
authoritarian.
Question: How would Socrates react to system-building? The Greek word
hybris (used in Greek drama) referred to the human tendency to put
oneself in the place of God and to forget that one is a human being.
Discuss the benefit and the danger of being certain of something.
11. System-builders often place more emphasis on having the truth than
seeking it, on knowing than learning, on being right than on thinking.
They tend to worship the finished product and demean the producing.
Philosophers who emphasize process counter: What if truth is not a
thing we can put in our "hip pocket" or wear "on our sleeves"? What if
there is truth, but we don't know when we possess it? What if truth
"possesses us" more than we can possess it? What if truth is
existential rather than intellectual? What if there is no such thing as
"absolute truth"? What if being right and knowing we are right are two
different things? Then we must be more humble about our theories; we
must see them as forever needing further testing and criticism and
judging in the light of life-experience (which, whatever our "fixed"
views, never stands still). Life flows, changes, bends, twists, and
turns. The process philosopher maintains that theories should be as
fluid and changeable as life itself is. The result-orientated thinker
might counter-argue: what is the point of a journey that never ends,
traveling that never arrives, process without result? Process is not an
end-in-itself. What is aimed at is an outcome, not the aiming itself.
Question: What happens if the quest of the "quest for wisdom" is made
absolute? Like verbs without objects? What is the proper attitude to
take toward our own opinions? Is this itself a hard and fast opinion,
set in concrete?
12. Let's put the opposition in terms of means and ends.
System-builders often see thinking as a means to an end, not worthwhile
in itself. In this view, building a system is like building a house.
Building (with all the effort involved) is the means. Having a place to
live is an end or goal. Once you finish the house, you don't have to
build anymore. In a similar way, once you have a "philosophy," you
don't have to think anymore. You have an answer to every question; you
are an expert, a "wise person," a know-it-all. Like many people who
work only for their retirement, so many system-builders work for the
day when no one will have to think anymore -- only retire or rest in
their perfect house of pat answers. It is in this sense that Kant uses
the term "dogmatic slumber," the sleep of rigid thinking, as it were.
>From the standpoint of philosophy as process, the dogmatist is asleep.
Question: How can one steer one's life between fixation on results, on
the one hand, and wandering aimlessly or stressing "activity for its
own sake," on the other hand?
13. System-builders often give rise to their opposites -- the skeptics,
the system-destroyers. These sometimes maintain that truth is
impossible, that theories are but sandcastles (Nietzsche), playfully
built up and soon destroyed. For them, it is the thinking itself which
counts, not the need to secure a result. So we have a contest between
authority-figures and rebels, those who build in stone and those who
break things down. We are inclined to use both approaches. We know that
life is too complicated and unpredictable to understand completely, but
we would like to have some idea of what is going on. We're not going to
put on some "philosophy" and have it fit out lives perfectly, like a
suit off the rack. We want to listen to what others have to say -- even
the system-builders, but we want to think for ourselves. We also
believe that thinking is worthwhile in itself, even apart from answers
we come up with. We are hard on ourselves and others when we or they
are "thoughtless," when we or they act without awareness of what we or
they are doing. We wince when others believe some bit of propaganda
without thinking about it, when they parrot the opinions of this or
that person, when they make or do something without planning in
advance. We believe there is value in thinking before, during, and
after much of what we do, especially if what we do has important
consequences for ourselves and those we love.
14. In summary, philosophy is the activity of thinking that arrives at,
weighs, and revises opinions about ourselves, our world, and our
relation with that world. More precisely, philosophy is the acquired
habit or tendency or disposition to think about what we are about --
what we believe, what we do, what we hope, what we make, what we feel,
what we are, where we belong, what we are for others and what they are
for us.
15. Philosophy is the quest for wisdom. The motive or desire that
stimulates thinking is the desire to know, the itch to find out. We are
frankly puzzled about our situation. But no answer brings thinking to
an end; rather, every answer stimulates new thinking, breeds new
questions. Thinking and its results whet our appetite for more
thinking. Thus, we have the cliche, "the more you know, the more you
know you don't know." Every answer is both an end to one process of
thinking and a fresh beginning of new thinking. From one perspective,
thinking is a means and a settled opinion is an end. From another point
of view, every opinion is a means, a basis, an instrument, a tool for
new thinking.
Question: Is this view too optimistic? Does this view square with the
facts? Why do people think at all?
Thinking and Dialectic
16. Thinking is a habit. That means we are not born thinkers. We become
thoughtful or philosophical by practicing thinking, as one must
practice playing the piano. There are, of course, certain situations
that make anybody stop and think, even one who normally doesn't think
or question very much at all. A death of a loved one, unemployment,
homelessness, divorce -- in a word, a crisis -- will often evoke
thought; but it is a good idea to develop a ongoing habit of thinking
that operates in even non-critical situations. If we practice thinking
about lots of things, not only will our lives make more sense (have
more meaning), but we will do what we do a whole lot better, handle
social relations a whole lot better, and be more prepared and less
prone to collapse in the big situations.
17. There are many kinds of thinking, too many to name here. Even our
subconscious dreams are ways of figuring things out. The artist may do
his or her thinking in the medium of concrete images, as the musician
may think with musical tones. In a sense, every work of art is a kind
of argument leading to a conclusion.
Question: What happens when we think? Name some varieties or forms of
thinking. What is the goal of each?
18. Socrates describes thinking as a conversation one has with himself,
a debate (an "argument"), wherein one argues both sides (pro and con)
of a question. It is interesting to observe that for the Greeks,
philosophy took place in public in the form of debate and dialogue with
others. In this sense, private reflection was seen as secondary and
derivative. Plato's dialogues are processes of thought that are given
the literary form of public debates.
Question: In what ways is dialogue or thoughtful conversation with
others more likely to be objective or to reach a true conclusion? Why
is it hard to debate honestly with oneself?
19. Thinking in this sense is dialectic or the process of weighing
alternative points of view, of arguing both sides of a case in order to
determine which view is true or has more evidence (reasons) to back it
up. It is as if an opinion were brought to trial and our mind were
constrained to act as both prosecutor and defense attorney, summoning
all sorts of witnesses (reasons and facts) to support their respective
clients. Dialectic is an argument or debate (not heated necessarily)
that we have with ourselves. Alternative or opposite points of view are
presented and reasons are advanced for believing or disbelieving each.
On the basis of this evidence, the mind judges or reaches a conclusion.
It chooses one opinion over the other. But double jeopardy does not
hold. The same opinion can be tried many times -- and ought to be. For
each new trial yields new evidence and reasons for believing. Opinions,
if they are worthwhile, become stronger when tested. Thus, it goes
something like this:
(1) Statement of opinion, (thesis) e.g.: "The purpose of human life is
to seek pleasure and to avoid pain."
(2) Positing of alternative, (antithesis) e.g.: "The purpose of human
life is not to seek pleasure and to avoid pain."
(3) Showing reasons (intellectual, moral, emotional, factual) for
believing and/or disbelieving each. (pros and cons).
(4) In light of the evidence presented, affirming one or the other
opinion, judging it to be "true."
20. Dialectic is very similar to the process of deliberation, which is
the thinking we do in order to make an intelligent decision about what
to do or how to act. Debating with oneself concerning alternative
courses of action (what we should do) is called deliberation. Argument
or deliberation in this sense ends with a decision. Decision-making is
the culmination of a process of deliberation or consideration of
alternative possible behaviors. One weighs the pros and cons of doing
this or that, largely in terms of achieving the best consequences or
remaining faithful to values and principles. When our thinking is more
theoretical (how we see things) than practical (what should we do?) or
aims at thinking a certain way (hypothesis) rather than doing this or
that, it is called dialectic. Dialectic is the exercise of considering
reasons for believing (evidence, proof, consistency) alternative
possible views in order to reach some new conclusion or have a deeper
understanding and appreciation of what we already believed to be true.
In either case, we are changing our minds, because even defending what
we already believe changes the quality and solidity of that belief.
Ideas with reasons for believing them are different from ideas held
casually or without "testing."
21. Dialectic or crossexamination of an idea or belief comes to an end
with a judgment or verdict based on the weight of the evidence or
"reasons." Just as debate with another person ends when, for the time
being, both parties agree (or agree to disagree), so dialectic with
regard to a particular belief ends when the mind is finally in
agreement with itself or concludes. Very often, the thinking mind
postpones this judgment until more evidence, advice, and experience can
be gathered. And, since double jeopardy does not apply to thinking, one
is always free to crossexamine old ideas over and over again, as
scientific hypotheses are constantly subject to reinvestigation.
Question: Give an example of deliberation. Give an example of
dialectic. Provide reasons pro and con.
Question: Is it possible to think without disagreeing with oneself?
Question: Why consider opposing views with supporting evidence if you
are satisfied with the opinions you already hold?
Question: Why are some people afraid to consider alternative views,
afraid to "think too much"?
22. The key to thinking as deliberation or dialectic is negation --
being able to entertain the "no" or the "not" or to let in the words
"maybe not." When considering any view, we can say to ourselves, "Maybe
not." That sets the stage for a debate in our minds. This is often
called methodic doubt or denying a thesis for the sake of argument and
further understanding. Doubt is the tool of a careful mind, a mind that
wants to make sure, to test its views. Doubt is also the instrument of
a careful (prudent) deliberator (who wants to do what is best). Doubt
allows a person to give a full and fair hearing to both sides of any
issue. Methodic doubt, applied to our views for the sake of thinking,
is not to be confused with lack of conviction or existential doubt
(when we really don't know what to believe). In fact, it is often the
one who lacks conviction (is not sure of being right subconsciously)
who is afraid of doubt, thinking, and alternative views. Very often,
dogmatism (holding to one's opinion rigidly) is a veneer for deeper
uncertainty and insecurity. On the other hand, once the "examination"
of dialectic begins, there is always the chance we may change our views
in the light of new evidence or reasons.
Question: Do doubt and debate weaken or strengthen worthwhile opinions?
Back up what you say with reasons and examples.
23. The history of philosophy (as history of ideas) provides ample
material for thinking. There are numerous alternative and opposing
points of view regarding the meaning of human life, the role of human
society, the existence of God. One can add to these views one's own
consonant and dissonant views. In the end, perhaps the student of
philosophy returns to what he has thought before, as a traveler learns
from abroad how good it is to be home. But the ideas and the thinker
are not the same; both have been deepened by the venture. Heraclitus
said, "One cannot step twice into the same river." After thinking, even
if one thinks the same, one thinks the same differently.
Presuppositions
24. Presuppositions are opinions that influence other opinions or
actions. They are often hidden, even to the one who holds them. Part of
the work of thinking is to uncover hidden presuppositions that operate
"behind the scenes" and influence both thought and action. A prejudice
is a kind of presupposition. Thus, we can ask of every opinion that we
examine: What does this opinion presuppose? What more general opinion
or opinions are implied or "operating" behind this opinion? When the
most general presuppositions about human life, society, non-human
nature, and God are brought to light, these too can be tested,
examined, weighed, "cross-examined" in the court of dialectic. In this
way, even the most "sneaky" and subterranean presuppositions can be
properly evaluated.
25. In a sense every opinion is a presupposition. Insofar as we already
have opinions and bring these opinions with us into our discussions and
activities, we presuppose them or believe them in advance --
beforehand. It is impossible to have a completely empty or open mind.
Our conscious and our subconscious mind is teeming with opinions
borrowed, fabricated, inherited, or acquired. Our parents, the media,
our peers, our educators, the books we read and the videos we view --
all put "ideas in our heads." The task of Philosophy is to scrutinize
this collection, to make sure we agree with all of our views and that
they agree with one another and with "reality." We intend to test these
opinions against facts we experience and values we hold dear. Thus, one
purpose of thinking is to expose hidden presuppositions to the light of
day, to the light of reason. This project requires that we not be
defensive about the opinions we possess (clinging to them tenaciously),
that we be willing to weigh them against alternative views (dialectic).
26. One presupposition often held is that ideas are harmless, that what
people believe or think are their own business and need not affect
theirs or anybody else's everyday life. While it is true that some
ideas have little or no influence on one's actions (they are
compartmentalized and filed away), other ideas do influence or direct
speech and action. A prejudice is a presupposition or view held in
advance that determines how one will act with or treat others. In fact,
one might say that every idea is a kind of "prejudice" that predisposes
us to think or act in certain ways, a kind of rut or habit of thought
that inclines us to lean in a certain direction.
27. Just as individuals have opinions, presuppositions, prejudices, and
predispositions, so whole cultures and societies have sets of views or
cultural presuppositions (habitual ways of thinking or "customs") that
guide and direct thought, speech, and behavior. Our own American
culture is an intricate fabric of historically held views and
presuppositions. Thinkers test these cultural approaches, interrogate
them, and weigh them. They avoid blind loyalty and encourage growth and
self-correction in themselves and in society as a whole. Thus, thinkers
are social critics and are therefore often considered dangerous by
citizens who defend the status quo or prevailing views of things.
Dialectic loosens the tight grip of old untested views. The "maybe" and
"maybe not" of dialectic keep the mind democratic by entertaining a
plurality of alternative views, even as public debate encourages growth
in social democracy -- unity and community based on diversity,
difference, and debate. Dialectic is the fruitful habit of being on
good terms with oneself even as one argues with oneself, as dialogue is
the fruitful habit of being on good terms with others (friendship) even
as one debates openly and honestly with others.
Question: Describe how presuppositions might influence thinking and
behavior.
Printer-Friendly Version