Saturday, August 28, 2010

Re-posting quote

Update2: Oct 10 2010. I reread this post and have decided to put it back up now

Update: I feel really weird about this post now, after learning from Ketan about IHM's loss. It is true that IHM's is one of the more recent places I had seen this. But it is also true that I wasnt aware of the tragedy or even thinking about anything other than how I approach this saying myself while posting it. but it feels more than awkward right now, almost disrespectful. Maybe I should delete it...

Unto the least

I've come across a few sites that repeat, sincerely I believe, the saying:

" I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I've found this an admirable sentiment and often wanted to put it up on my blog, sidebar or elsewhere. Trouble is, I need it to be literally true. On reflection, this is what I could come up with:

"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the point of mild physical discomfort (eg. a shove) or medium-strength psychological discomfort (eg. sustained barracking) your right to say it"

and this doesnt quite come out looking so good. I'd appreciate tips on whether I should leave this up on my blog or take it down.

Oh, and how about if I agree with what you say?

Please continue to refer to my stand above, it still holds :-)

15 comments:

Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ketan said...

Hahaha!

I am a sucker for such literalism myself. I absolutely avoid extreme phrases that would not be practicable. As another instance, I do not believe in the existence of God, so I avoid phrases containing 'God', e.g., "God bless you!" or "Oh my God!", etc. But my greatest predicament comes when I have to console someone (e.g., terminally ill patients/their relatives). I feel tempted to tell them that "God will set everything right for you", because that is what they want to hear, and that is what they seem to firmly believe in. But I do not say that for two reasons - providing unfounded hope is wrong (I feel if I respect people, I would allow them to deal with the truth, rather than giving them false hope) and because if I say that, at least from my frame of reference I would be dishonest. I am not able to decide if I am being cruel by pursuing this policy. Because I know, occasionally, my lie could make someone more happy/less sad.

On to this topic, I really appreciate your honesty. I make it a point to mention this because on the net I find lot of rhetoric being pushed around. It takes away the seriousness out of discussions. I am also afraid, that our society has become so attuned to rhetoric and words of 'great' people that merely quoting someone (I guess, the words you quoted here were of Voltaire) or something that sounds good is taken as a valid argument.

If you feel I'm digressing a lot, the point I want to make is that rhetoric that is not actionable is a mere distraction, and should rightly undergo 'clutter audition' [BTW, I really liked that title]! ;) ...

Ketan said...

...I might say something like this (instead of the Voltaire's quote):

"It would take a lot to convince me that there is something that someone does not have a right to say".

[I had started drafting the above comment a few hours back. Just to confirm the URL of IHM's blog and whether or not Voltaire's quote is still there, I had visited her blog. It turns out her 19 year-old daughter had died 2 weeks back, and I have left a comment on the blog post intimating the same. It made me uncomfortable about posting the above comment. But I am deciding to post it in its original form anyway. I'm really undecided what I am doing is appropriate or not by posting the above negative thing about her in face of her loss. But I believe, one's deeds stay with oneself forever, irrespective of whether one suffers from a calamity or not - and no, I am not saying this in retributive manner, but trying to be as matter of fact as possible].

Take care.

PS: You should have used a title for this blog post, it makes browsing through the blog easier. Thanks!

Jai_Choorakkot said...

Hi ketan,

I had seen this quote several times before and did not intend any specific person by it.

I have occasionally browsed IHM's site though not a regular. I went there only recently via Bhagwad. I feel deeply sorry for IHM's loss. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure if this post is appropriate.

I only was looking at how such statements map to me and honestly did not intend to criticize anybody. Especially not under those circumstances.

-Jai

Jai_Choorakkot said...

Ketan,

Your comments got restored when I put the post back up. Good for blogger. I thought they were gone when I pushed it back into drafts.

re. your other observations:

- my blog title is inspired from an observation by Ravikiran, that most blogs are clutter.

- if you feel uncomfortable mentioning God in conv, maybe you can substitute something else? I occasionally say "for dawkins sake" etc. on atheist's blogs :-)

thx,
Jai

Ketan said...

Jai,

Thanks!

Yes, I know on moving from drafts back to published state the comments get restored. In fact one can move one's entire blog from one hosting service like Blogger to another (like WordPress), something which I recently did (click).

My problem with using "God" is not merely the fact that for me God does not exist, but also that such usage represents a redundancy in language. My English was built largely on the basis of reading formal text books (as against based on literature/movies/serials) where you might notice, no exclamations are used. So, I hardly use exclamations. E.g., one of the very few I use is "shit"! That too represents a redundancy, but much less wasteful redundancy might I add. :)

Also, the reason I would never say something like "Dawkins' sake" is that Dawkins' would've no stakes in what we'd be discussing! E.g., if I say, "for Dawkins' sake, please see the logic", I would find it weird because Dawkins in no way would be affected by the said person's seeing/not seeing the logic I'd want him/her to see. I might rather say, "for the sake of logical consistency"...

Ketan said...

...Though, most of my above comment has been off-topic, to get further off-topic, I feel a bit uneasy that Dawkins is seen as the mascot of atheism. The fact is atheism, in that it amounts to a lack of belief in the assertion that an omniscient, omnipotent, intention-driven, all-good God exists, represents some of the most heterogeneous people. I'd turned atheist without reading any book denouncing theism. In fact, I've not yet read 'The God Delusion' completely. I'd started with it, and found it to be a very disorganized book. There have been much better 'apologists' for atheism in the past. If you've time you might want to download this book legally for free - The Necessity of Atheism (click) by D.M. Brooks. It is a relatively unknown and very old book. So, unlike arguments by modern atheists (like Dawkins, Atkins, Wittgenstein, etc.), it relies more on simple philosophy and epistemology - something I you seem to enjoy a lot. It takes around 10 hours to read. You can download it in RTF format for reading on a computer or JAR format for reading on your cell phone.

The only reason I'm recommending the book is that it's well written and it is likely to increase the Indian people's knowledge of history of other religions. Knowing the level at which you use logic (and along with pointing out that you have visited atheist sites), I would never assume that you've not thought on such issues or not encountered the pertinent arguments, so the reason I recommend above book is precisely what I wrote above (and not to 'deconvert' you! ;) ).

BTW, it would be nice if you give me the names of/links to the atheist sites you have visited in the past. One very good one is Atheism: Proving the Negative (click).

Thanks, again!

Ketan said...

Sorry, that last link is broken, correct one is this: Atheism: Proving the Negative (click).

Ketan said...

And yes, in the Matt McCormick's Atheism blog I linked, the recent topics have not been interesting, what you might though like are the articles linked in the sidebar. As you might notice they've been neatly organized under various heads.