SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
What was it that one learned through a great books curriculum? Certainly not "conservatism" in any contemporary American sense of the term. We were not taught to become American patriots, or religious pietists, or to worship what Rudyard Kipling called "the Gods of the Market Place." We were not instructed in the evils of Marxism, or the glories of capitalism, or even the superiority of Western civilization.
As I think about it, I'm not sure we were taught anything at all. What we did was read books that raised serious questions about the human condition, and which invited us to attempt to ask serious questions of our own. Education, in this sense, wasn't a "teaching" with any fixed lesson. It was an exercise in interrogation.
To listen and understand; to question and disagree; to treat no proposition as sacred and no objection as impious; to be willing to entertain unpopular ideas and cultivate the habits of an open mind — this is what I was encouraged to do by my teachers at the University of Chicago.
It's what used to be called a liberal education.
The University of Chicago showed us something else: that every great idea is really just a spectacular disagreement with some other great idea.
Bret Stephens's speech warrants a full read. It makes valuable points that we all need to hear, even on SN.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday September 27 2017, @02:43PM (1 child)
> I agree with essentially all the article, my only fear is that in doing this I have missed the point...
+1 Funny. But perhaps you might have missed my point as well.
I wrote my post like that because I feel the author is inconsistent on these issues. He does (presumably on purpose) talks about intelligent debate. So he is not that convinced by his own idea and added this subjective adjective.
I am very aware of the silliness of trying to decide where to put the line between good and bad opinions (should have made that clear). But, at the same time, I can perfectly understand people that ban speakers because they fear what they are going to say. And I did indicate why: there are consequences attached to having some people give their opinion. And I am not prepared to say free speech is better than a riot (not saying it is the other way round either. I just do not know).
What I disagree with is that I do not think people have lost their ability to disagree but that the ones that did int he past are in the minority now. And I do not think that is fixable in the short term.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 28 2017, @03:20AM
I suspect the speaker would be fine with your pointing out inconsistencies of his. It's part of the ethos he subscribes to (i do, too, as a fellow alumnus of his). Be ready for him to come back at you with sharper reasoning than before, though. It's the beautiful dialectic that can arise when we do not let each other get away with mental laziness; everyone gets smarter.
Washington DC delenda est.