Member Forums > Ender's Book Club
Freedom of Speech
Ender:
By the way, there is no prerequisite for reading one or both of the authors in order to post. You don't have to, either. I think the prompt (above) suffices for background, at least for the purpose of this thread. I would change the thread title to "Freedom of Speech" but I can't without modifying each post individually =(
Edit: lol actually I found you can do this easily if you mod two forums. Move it to another forum and check "change this thread's subject" and "change every message's subject". Then move it back.
Off Topic is so useful : )
Sidoh:
I'm not sure I'm comfortable conceding that something should be or should not be based only on its effect on social progress. I will agree that this is an important consideration, but I don't think I agree that it's an ultimate end.
Maybe we should start off by hardening some concepts, though. What is meant by social progress? Does this involve advances in science, more sensible and stable policies, etc? Is there a succinct definition for the concept that Arnold uses?
truste1:
oh oh where's that thread I posted sometime ago?
Ender:
--- Quote from: Sidoh on March 18, 2009, 10:32:25 pm ---I'm not sure I'm comfortable conceding that something should be or should not be based only on its effect on social progress. I will agree that this is an important consideration, but I don't think I agree that it's an ultimate end.
Maybe we should start off by hardening some concepts, though. What is meant by social progress? Does this involve advances in science, more sensible and stable policies, etc? Is there a succinct definition for the concept that Arnold uses?
--- End quote ---
Arnold actually doesn't say social progress. He uses an end that's a bit more vague -- though vagueness leaves interpretation / flexibility... not always bad.
He says that culture is the pursuit of perfection. He says that everyone has a "best self", and that culture strives to evoke this "best self" in every individual person. He doesn't necessarily say that the best self can be achieved, but that we can continually mould ourselves into something that is closer and closer to it. It is like a limit point.
Culture is then an end in itself. Arnold differentiates between what is a means to an end, and what is an end in itself. He gives a laundry list of things that are just means to an end, which he labels "machinery" -- technology and freedom are two such things. However, the two concepts that are ends in themselves -- the only two -- are culture and the State. The State has this status because it helps diffuse culture.
Ender:
Thus I was misleading when I said social progress. The end is really an individual thing, not a social thing. Though social progress is obviously a byproduct of culture -- if you improve all the individuals, society improves.
To be more concrete (I realize this is the second part of your question) I think that Arnold's personal bias (he was a poet, academic, and intellectual) would imply that the "best self" is necessarily moral and intellectual. Thus culture would include advances in the arts, sciences, and public policies.
Would culture homogenize, and violate liberties? I think some degree of homogenization is a necessary part of any culture, good or bad, but there would be plenty of room for individualization. And are liberties really that sacred anyway? Obviously culture would not be 1984-ish. It would be more like Renaissance ideals. But liberties are not that sacred anyway, IMO. I agree with them, but think of how they go to waste in the vast majority of the population.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version