How
do we know what we know?
It
seems to me, we live in an era of doubt. An era when what we say – I stand
corrected, what we think – can and
might very well be used against us. Was it always like that? It seems like, for
the most boring intervals of history, it has indeed been like that, to the
eternal detriment of human race. But when it has been otherwise, wonders did
occur.
There
was a time when Copernicus asserted that we were not in fact the center of the
universe and when he did all hell broke loose. Well, perhaps Copernicus was not
really the first to suggest that the math did not really work out in favor of
those who preferred a more “traditional” image of the cosmos in which we live
in [Aristarchus of Samos was the first to kind of notice that we are not in
fact the center of this vast and generally inhospitable universe]. He was also
lucky enough to escape the dire consequences of his observations, as he died
before all aforementioned hell broke loose. Others were sadly not as lucky.
Galileo was forced to renounce his heretic views before the Inquisition and
Giordano Bruno perished at the stake for embracing the glaringly obvious, yet
deeply heretic conclusion that the sun is but a star, one of millions shining
through a vast universe and that other civilizations on world beyond were a
possibility.
The
notion that some opinions are best kept under wraps is not a novel one. In
fact, censorship has dogged progress like a malignant shadow since the dawn of
critical thought. Since the “population” has been defined as a mass, forgiving
no deviance and allowing no diversion, efforts have been made to control it, as
a whole. Shielding the masses from dangerous information has been deemed a
legitimate cause for as long as man has been able to register such instances,
even possibly before that. There is no other weapon considered as potent as
information. It made sense.
Perhaps
one of the earlier attempts to smother views which tended to depart from
commonly accepted, perfectly harmless consensus, was the celebrated execution
of Greek philosopher and self proclaimed gadfly Socrates. Whether or not
Socrates was an actual historical figure is beside the point. For his persona
has a lot more to teach even to today’s advanced societies than any other
persona in the course of history. Even if one was to place his invaluable
teachings – as relayed to us by his student and biographer Plato – aside, his
glorified, yet fully unjustified death (perhaps precisely because of the
complete lack of necessity of it) contains a lesson humanity simply can not
afford to miss out on: the truth is more important than life itself.
Socrates
crime was none other than unacceptable things going on inside a brilliant mind.
Unstoppable things. Things that simply needed to get out and spill into the
world, enriching it, whether one decided to accept their veracity or not. That
was well and truly beside the point. The job of the gadfly was – according to
his own words as they were relayed to us by Plato – not to dictate what we are
supposed to think, but rather to entice us to think. The conclusion was up for
grabs, even if in most of the dialogues documented – or even invented, I could
not care less – it followed effortlessly, falling like a baby through the birth
canal, obvious like the sunrise for any person free enough in the mind to see.
Yet
these views were deemed dangerous, unfit for consumption, grave enough to lead
a man to the annihilation of his very essence. Another great civilization with
the means to not only produce great ideas but also to immortalize them for
future use and scrutiny via scripture, the Chinese, introduced “honorable”
censorship law as early as 300 AD, and it all boils down to one little concept
which is so very hard to pin down: morality.
It
seemed, and it seems, everything could be justified when it came to protecting
that mindless bulk that constituted the “people”. Especially after the schism between
the powerful Churches made sure that the coveted power was adequately
distributed. At the time, it seemed, way too many documents had been in
circulation, jeopardizing unity and homogeny among the freshly divided
kingdoms. The Nicene Creed did all it could to guarantee no trouble would
arise, but, at the time, divinely inspired documents were in abundance and thus
threatening the entire thread. Once again, those hungry for power had found the
way to ensure this power stayed with them. It was called heresy and it stayed
with us for a very long time. In fact, the cunning devise to keep power where
it supposedly belonged may still be with us to this day, as way too many
otherwise modern states still have absurd pieces of legislation embodied within
their legal system in a day and age when
science has finally managed to supersede superstition – or so it seems.
Surely,
in a modern society, one should never be legally punished merely for the
contents of one’s brains, right? Apparently, not so. We are of course always
quick – and quite rightfully so, may I add – to condemn totalitarian states
which do just that [heaven forbid one has a nasty thing to say about Dear
Leader in North Korea] but if we claim to be free of the chains of censorship
we are sadly mistaken.
Protecting
people. What a noble cause! But is it really?
When
I was still a starry eyed idiot, hoping that I could one day be lucky enough to
join forces with other starry eyed idiots and actually do something to make
this planet of wrath and blood a better place for the children I may or may not
have, I had the honor of running into Salman Rushdie. Of course, at the time I
had no clue as to who Salman Rushdie was, but I was not thick and the hordes of
police officers and out of the ordinary security measures did not go unnoticed.
At the time I had not read the “Satanic Verses”. In fact, it would be years
before I did, and I freely admit to the fact that I read the Quran way before I
got to the novel which started it all. But even during those days of tequila
and boys and not much else I managed to get it straight: An actual human
being’s life was in mortal danger for the sole crime of writing a book. Was it
offensive to some? At the time I did not know. I still do not care. In my life
– of being a shameless book-eating nerd – I have read a lot of things that I
found offensive. Skin crawling, refusal to remain on this spinning planet type
of offensive. The difference is, that people like me do not generally demand
other people’s heads severed. Period. No matter what.
In
fact, some of the most skin curling, vomit inducing passages I have ever had
the displeasure to read were the exact same ones cited each time a group of
people I do not know attempt to make sure I never read or hear something they
arbitrarily baptize as detrimental to my morality and attempt to make sure it
never gets to me.
I
consider myself a fairly moral person, yet the thought of executing my neighbor
for working on a given day (Sabbath anyone?) has seriously never occurred to
me. I find the notion of “putting” homosexuals “to death” as an “abomination”,
abominable (ironically) and I fail to this day to comprehend the notion of any
kind of loving between human beings as anything less than beautiful. I have no
offspring, but if I had, I can assure anyone that I would kick anyone’s behind
should they even suggest that there is a force which may demand their sacrifice
as a playful token. And yet, the texts that are blatantly – and may I add,
quite unapologetically – advocating for
slavery, sexism, homophobia, genocide and self loathing are precisely the ones
I am not at liberty to criticize, the ones who impose morals where they are
clearly in no position to do so.
But
this goes way beyond criticism. One must never be fooled as to assume the
authenticity of a mildness that is forced by the unstoppable progress of
society. One must always seek the truth in history, during the times when the
authority now seeking to withhold information and quench opinions “for our
shake” had the upper hand. For censorship goes way past the usual “heretic
view” or “offence” to an established belief shielded from healthy criticism by
its arbitrary claims of “divinity” alone. Claims which have never been, nor
will they ever be substantiated or scrutinized the way all other bold claims
have been.
I
could of course invoke countless of instances where the self proclaimed “holy”
has claimed and received innocent human blood. From the Crusades to the witch
burning aspirations, that which can not be criticized has done a lot more than
to verbally challenge its opponents. It has done its best to eliminate them.
So,
are we free yet? The answer is sadly and unequivocally no. as long as
legislation still exists in Europe and worldwide, making it a crime to admit
having thoughts inside your brain which may contradict the established opinions
of those who would have you stoning your gay neighbors and murdering your own
child, should that child disobey you if they could, we are certainly not free.
Norway, Britain, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Poland, all have
laws making it dangerous for a person like me, an intelligent human being,
fairly educated and with access to all the information which is available
nowadays at the time of the Higgs boson and other marvelous discoveries – where
all excuses for ignorance can be discarded – to have an opinion about the
cosmos and what may or may not lay behind its existence, which contradicts that
of an uneducated, illiterate desert monger in the region of Israel back in the
time when the earth was the center of the universe, bats were considered birds
and germs were unheard of.
Consider
the source.
Are
all opinions valid and worthy? Clearly not. There is enough bat shit crazy
stuff floating around as it is. Stuff which does not strictly fall under the
untouchable holy mantle. But who is to say what should be heard and what should
be suppressed? Who is to say there is only one version of the truth out there? It
is precisely those opinions we consider abhorrent which should be given the
greatest level of protection. It is precisely those who can be most dangerous
if suppressed, and it is those which can be shot down before being allowed to
claim the position of an unlikely martyr for an unworthy cause. Freedom of
speech means freedom of all opinions. Not just the pretty ones.
In
this day and age of the internet and the constant flow of information
surrounding us like cascades of water we are running out of excuses. Are we
really willing to hand over responsibility to someone other than ourselves when
it comes to evaluating what comes our way? And if so who would be an
appropriate “authority” to do so? How do we
really know what we know if there is only one version of the “truth” available?
Are we really that shallow that we can not tell black from white unless
assisted? Would we not know baloney if
it stared at us in the face? Perhaps some of us would not. But is that really a
problem in a modern society where arguments can be shot down on merit?
Consider
the source.
If
you are in doubt as to who is oppressing you just take a moment to realize who
it is you are not allowed to criticize, said Voltaire. Pastitsio is one of my
favorite pasta recipes. It is also becoming a living example of the absurdity
that surrounds us, of the freedom we have handed over without so much as a
single complaint. A satirical age pointing out the obvious. The elephant in the
room if you may. In a country ravaged by scandal and incompetence it took a day
after a question had been posed in the Greek Parliament by the openly racist
party of Golden Dawn (as if there were not enough actually serious issues to
occupy our limited resources in) for the young man administering a satirical
page to get arrested in the land which gave birth to satire and which prides
itself of giving birth to all those ideals it no longer respects.
Did
the page pose a danger to delicate minds? You can be the judge of that assuming
of course you may be allowed to. Did
the page pose a threat to national security? Did it incite hatred? I can
honestly say it didn’t. I have been a fan of the page since the beginning
(would you like to arrest me too?) and the only pure, unadulterated hatred I have
seen was coming from those who claimed to speak for the “Christian love”
front. On the contrary, the monk the
page was spoofing was not as subtle. Direct in his hatred of Turkish people,
unapologetic in his stance, he advocated war and spoke to lizards. But he is
not on the witness stand, now, is he?
Bottom
lime is, do we really want someone else deciding what is available for us, to
read, to examine, to demolish if we must? Who is to decide what is harmful and
what is not? Do you want someone else deciding for you what you may become
aware of or not? Does a doctrine which spills so much hatred for so many
different groups of our fellow human beings have a moral standing to demand
selective silencing? Should I be expecting the police? Oh well, at least I have
an awesome lawyer…
No comments:
Post a Comment