Skip to main content

VOLTAIRE — PHILOSOPHICAL LETTERS

 

PHILOSOPHY



Although we may refrain from stating it openly — out of politeness or fear — we may readily think that one of the disasters of the modern world is the preoccupation with freedom of expression. Of course, in principle, it is a wonderful notion: but its practical consequence is that insane, infuriated assertion swamps accurate and deep reflection. Ironically, one of the people we should (gently) blame for this was the most intelligent figure of the 18th century: François-Marie Arouet, called Zozo by his family and closest friends, but better known to the world by his nom de plume, Voltaire.  Born in Paris in 1694, his family were very minor nobles and he was supposed to become a lawyer but he became obsessed with poetry and philosophy. From the start of his writing career Voltaire found himself in conflict with the authorities: they believed in bowing to tradition, he was a devotee of reason, logic and evidence.   The Dictionary was published in Geneva in 1764. It’s a study of a few key words that, he thinks, sum up the problems and hopes of the epoch. But his underlying concern is to advocate the freedom to think and say whatever one believes. A central example comes in his entry on The Society of Friends (or Quakers as they are generally known). Based in England, these thoughtful and deeply serious people were denied public expression of their convictions. Voltaire is outraged. We desperately need freedom of speech — he argues — to liberate the wisest, kindest, most self-questioning voices so they can triumph over superstition, bigotry and narrow-minded conventions.  His impulse was deeply loveable and at the time must have seemed entirely justified. The only people he knew who were ever censored, or denied a public platform, were the cleverest, most imaginative, most empathic and most intellectually honest individuals. In time his pleas were heard. It understandably didn’t occur to him that freedom of expression would equally empower every idiot on the planet.  What do we learn from Volatire? To spend more time thinking about what precisely we hope for. His error was to confuse a means (freedom to say what one likes) with an end (the triumph of reason).  The lesson is not that freedom of expression is inherently bad, but rather that it is only one element in a more complex equation. What he wanted — but didn't state plainly — was an answer to the question: how can wisdom prevail over ignorance? How can generosity of spirit triumph over bitterness and prejudice? And to this urgent question, his proposal — let anyone say whatever they want — is manifestly inadequate. We are the inheritors of a problem he, and others influenced by him, created. Our immense need now is to understand how to support the reasonableness, care and self-awareness he so prized. It’s a task our world is largely unprepared for

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AGAINST SKIING HOLIDAYS

It’s a truth universally acknowledged that a normal person in search of a holiday will enjoy skiing; they will delight in bracing mountain air, thrill at going down mogul dotted slopes and feel pleasantly exhausted after a day of parallel turns. This assumption about pleasure joins a host of others proposed by the modern world. Normal people will equally enjoy white wine, the Amalfi coast, the novels of Margaret Atwood, dogs, high heels, small children, Miami beach, oral sex, Banksy, marriage, Netflix and vegetarianism. We may legitimately delight in all of these elements; the issue lies in the immense pressure we are under to do so. The truth about ourselves may, in reality, be a great deal more mysterious than the official narrative allows. Whatever our commitments to decorum and good order, we may in our depths be far more distinctive than we’re supposed to be. We may — once we become sensitive to our faint tremors of authentic delight and boredom — hate the idea of jogging, the the...
Post a Comment
Dive In »

CLASSICISM

At present, our culture is dominated by a Romantic outlook; its predecessor, and in many ways its more deserving alternative, is a Classical view of life. Classicism is founded upon an intense, pessimistic awareness of the frailties of human nature and on a suspicion of unexamined instinct. The Classical attitude knows that our emotions can frequently over-power our better insights, that we repeatedly misunderstand ourselves and others, and that we are never far from folly, harm and error. In response, Classicism seeks via culture to correct the failings of our minds. Classicism is wary of our instinctive longing for perfection. In love, it counsels a gracious acceptance of the ‘madness’ inside each partner. It knows that ecstasy cannot last, and that the basis of all good relationships must be tolerance and mutual sympathy. Classicism has a high regard for domestic life; it sees apparently minor practical details as deeply worthy of care and effort; it doesn’t think it would be degrad...
Post a Comment
Dive In »

IMPOSTER SYNDROME

 PHILOSOPHY  In many challenges, both personal and professional, we are held back by the crippling thought that people like us could not possibly triumph given what we know of ourselves: how reliably stupid, anxious, gauche, crude, vulgar and dull we really are. We leave the possibility of success to others, because we don’t seem to ourselves to be anything like the sort of people we see lauded around us. The root cause of impostor syndrome is a hugely unhelpful picture of what other people are really like. We feel like impostors not because we are uniquely flawed, but because we fail to imagine how deeply flawed everyone else is beneath a more or less polished surface. The impostor syndrome has its roots in a basic feature of the human condition. We know ourselves from the inside, but others only from the outside. We are aware of all our anxieties, doubts and idiocies from within. Yet all we know of others is what they happen to do and tell us – a far narrower and more edited...
Post a Comment
Dive In »