What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by chownah » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:53 am

It is just rhetoric speaking in favor of freedom of speech.....it boggles my mind that many people here don't understand this.
chownah

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by binocular » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:27 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:53 am
It is just rhetoric speaking in favor of freedom of speech.....it boggles my mind that many people here don't understand this.
Because "just rhetoric" and "freedom of speech" fit together as well as "open heart surgery" and "suregon with dirty hands".
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:35 am

It is just poetic speaking in favor of freedom of speech.....it boggles my mind that many people here don't understand this.
chownah

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by binocular » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:54 pm

Then let it boggle you some more, chownah.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

chownah
Posts: 7550
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:06 pm

"Give me liberty or give me death"....Patrick Henry
Seems that perhaps he actually meant it.....or at least he was willing to risk death.
chownah

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by Pseudobabble » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:06 pm

binocular wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:26 pm
To begin with, the thought isn't Voltaire's --
In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[4] (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[5][6][7] Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
But what is the appeal of saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Why would anyone say such a thing??


If anything, the saying seems more like a pious exaggeration.
Its about understanding that the degree of ones own liberty is exactly the degree of the liberty one grants others. Whatever your reasoning for denying others their liberty, that same reasoning can be applied to denying you your liberty.

Basically, disagreement is not coercion.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by binocular » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:15 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:06 pm
Its about understanding that the degree of ones own liberty is exactly the degree of the liberty one grants others. Whatever your reasoning for denying others their liberty, that same reasoning can be applied to denying you your liberty.
In what kind of social system?
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by Pseudobabble » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:20 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:15 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:06 pm
Its about understanding that the degree of ones own liberty is exactly the degree of the liberty one grants others. Whatever your reasoning for denying others their liberty, that same reasoning can be applied to denying you your liberty.
In what kind of social system?
I don't see that it has anything to do with social system. Please expand.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by binocular » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:43 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:20 pm
I don't see that it has anything to do with social system. Please expand.
Already earlier, I was talking about how the power hierarchy can make all the difference.

What people have said so far in favor of free speech seems to apply only in egalitarian societies, or only between equals. But in classist societies, or in unequal relationships (where one person has more power than the other, such as between the boss and his subordinate, or a parent and a child), or in competitive relationships (between people who are nominally equal but who compete for a scarce resource, such as a job or a promotion), the situation is quite different. The one with more power has freedom of speech, the one with less power has less or no freedom of speech. And granting liberty to your competitors is self-defeating.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by Pseudobabble » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:54 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:43 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:20 pm
I don't see that it has anything to do with social system. Please expand.
Already earlier, I was talking about how the power hierarchy can make all the difference.

What people have said so far in favor of free speech seems to apply only in egalitarian societies, or only between equals. But in classist societies, or in unequal relationships (where one person has more power than the other, such as between the boss and his subordinate, or a parent and a child), or in competitive relationships (between people who are nominally equal but who compete for a scarce resource, such as a job or a promotion), the situation is quite different. The one with more power has freedom of speech, the one with less power has less or no freedom of speech. And granting liberty to your competitors is self-defeating.
Oh right yes I see. Yes I agree - in state of nature (where the 'winner takes all'), then this idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is useless, or worse, a belief which will actively harm the one who holds it.

But in a social system predicated on individual rights and responsibilities (and by implication equality between these abstract individuals), then the belief functions as an axis of the system of social norms, eg: 'I'll tolerate what you say, but don't harm me, and I expect the same treatment'.

I think, insofar as we find a system of individual rights and responsibilities more pleasant than alternatives, it's a good principle which contributes to the ability of people to resolve their disagreements without coercion. But in a 'state of nature', well, having the biggest stick is the best principle.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:58 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:43 pm
... how the power hierarchy can make all the difference.

What people have said so far in favor of free speech seems to apply only in egalitarian societies, or only between equals. But in classist societies, or in unequal relationships (where one person has more power than the other, such as between the boss and his subordinate, or a parent and a child), or in competitive relationships (between people who are nominally equal but who compete for a scarce resource, such as a job or a promotion), the situation is quite different. The one with more power has freedom of speech, the one with less power has less or no freedom of speech. And granting liberty to your competitors is self-defeating.
"What people have said so far in favor of free speech seems to apply only in egalitarian societies, or only between equals."
Depends somewhat on which definition of "egalitarian" you are thinking of.
The more functional/successful societies grant free speech to all, including to the 'deplorable' out of self interest. How is that self-interest? Because when stupid people with bad ideas, even potentially violent people, are given the right to speak freely they tend to be non-violent than otherwise. This seems to work best when there is a common civic culture -- when everyone has been enculturated into a common "civic religion". English speaking democracies all seem to have some type of "civic religion".

Free Speech in Organizations, Religious Organizations, and Business
Management theory has a concept called organizational learning. This type of mutual learning can have a powerful impact on a organizations growth, effectiveness and adaptability.
The theory recognizes different types of learning which work best in different situations.
  • Double-loop learning questions underlying assumptions. Often required for the "hard, difficult issues".
  • Single-loop learning, which solves problems superficially and symptomatically, fails to address the real issues that make companies ineffective.
But even open communication within an organization can block learning and hinder progress if it's based on defensiveness, denial of real problems, inability to face tough issues and refusal to examine one's own attitudes and contributions to the problem.

Once again, it's in the self interest of the organization to grant free speech IF the leaders in the organization aren't too mired in the patterns of communication which block learning. There is a certain amount of science and practical, actionable knowledge about how to have these more productive conversations.

RESOURCES:
* http://www.schwarzassociates.com/what-i ... -approach/
* Search on "chris argyris"
-----------------------------------------------

I endorse Pseudobabble apt 'explainer':
Pseudobabble wrote:But in a social system predicated on individual rights and responsibilities (and by implication equality between these abstract individuals), then the belief functions as an axis of the system of social norms, eg: 'I'll tolerate what you say, but don't harm me, and I expect the same treatment'.

I think, insofar as we find a system of individual rights and responsibilities more pleasant than alternatives, it's a good principle which contributes to the ability of people to resolve their disagreements without coercion. But in a 'state of nature', well, having the biggest stick is the best principle.
an axis of the system of social norms - Nice phrase.

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2464
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: What's the appeal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Post by manas » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:11 am

Living in an authoritarian dictatorship, under near constant surveillance, such as in Nth Korea, would quickly prove the value of the statement quoted by the OP. Because without protected free speech, that's how we could end up.
Knowing this body is like a clay jar,
securing this mind like a fort,
attack Mara with the spear of discernment,
then guard what's won without settling there,
without laying claim.

- Dhp 40

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests