The Enquiring Mind: Arts of Engagement Lecture Notes

Transcription

1 The Enquiring Mind: Arts of Engagement Lecture Notes Lecturer: Chris Beasley The first part of this lecture will address:! What the aims of the course are! What the course is about! How the course will be run Week 1 Lecture 5/3/14 Lecture Topic: Freedom of Speech This course has been developed for all Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) students and will ultimately address the mode of enquiry. The three main objectives which will be explored further in this lecture are: 1. Critical thinking 2. Rigorous argumentation Combining critical thinking and content 3. Ethical requirements regarding disagreement 1. Critical thinking Critical thinking involves looking at unusual ideas and various opinions and engaging with the ideas. It means never stop questioning and understanding that the questions themselves can often be more important than the answers. It is also important to note that gathering the information and conducting research is crucial but beyond information it is essential that you develop a mode of enquiry. Leonard Cohen s song Anthem includes lyrics which address an interesting idea there is a crack in everything, that s how the light gets in. As demonstrated by the university s advertisement of Seek Light, to enquire is to look for the cracks and seek the light. One cannot attend any event or outing without engaging and thinking, by simply liking or disliking, agreeing or disagreeing with something you are demonstrating active critical thinking. In the Natural Sciences it is standard for single answers to be sought for questions, in which the answers are either correct or incorrect, can be verified as one or the other and can be replicated to achieve the same answer. This is not often the case for disciplines within HUMSS. Although they may be similar in their methods of research and gathering information the answers discovered cannot be proven or disproven and are in fact often varied and many.

2 2. Rigorous argumentation Combining critical thinking and content One should endeavour to have a self-examined life. Anyone can hold an opinion but to develop an argument and demonstrate evaluation and critical thinking is an entirely different thing altogether and a highly regarded skill. In order to do this one must recognise others opinions and evaluate them and think about them critically. A well-developed argument will take the final form of: YES, but Or NO, but Meaning that you have looked at a range of opinions and information, evaluated them, taken from them what you thought necessary and then come to a conclusion of YES or NO, however the arguments position should be YESish or NOish hence the but. So your argument concludes YES or NO, but will also note that there is a but, that perhaps the opposite has some merit. 3. Ethical requirements regarding disagreement When encountering someone with a set of different opinions or whom you disagree with it is important that one is respectful. Much can be gained by listening to others points of views and hearing everything they have to say on the topic, this is a critical way of approaching material. Lecture Topics! Freedom of Speech! The Body! Art! Music! Film! Social Movement! Communities/Cultures! Presentation of the Self! Dissent, Protest, Activism Assessment Tasks! Annotated Bibliography 10%! Individual Research Essay 30%! Group Policy Report 30%! Group Presentation at Course Conference 20%! Seminar Participation 10% The Course Guides include a physical copy of the necessary readings and is therefore essential that you purchase a copy. The Course Guides also include all the necessary information pertaining to the course so if unsure about something first consult the Course Guide, if that proves unhelpful consult your tutor and as a last resort consult the course coordinator (Chris Beasley) for more personal matters.

3 J.S. Mill J.S. Mill was a19th century philosopher who was raised in a strict environment by his father whose intent it was for Mill to become a rational thinker. During his lifetime he was an administrator for the East India Trading Company and later published a book addressing the freedom of the individual. Mill believed that we must all free ourselves from personal restraint however he was very specific about who would be able to achieve true personal freedom. This did not extend to those such as the Indians and Irish as he felt that they were not yet capable of reason or freedom of speech, instead his ideals extended almost exclusively to the British. Quite controversially for a man of his class and time though, he believed that women were in fact capable of free thinking and should not be the property of man. Beliefs Mill strongly believed in freedom of the individual and was strongly opposed to restriction of that freedom by groups, masses and especially governmental forces. It does not occur to them to have any inclination expect for what is customary He wanted individuals to think for themselves and to say what they wanted, essentially to achieve individuality. He felt that the enemy was conformity and group thinking and it was quite common for him to always seek out the minority opinion and to urge others to do the same. Example: In every Australian newspaper there is a section entitled Business or Finance, however there are almost none or perhaps even none at all that have a section which addresses the views of and information pertaining to Labour, therefore in this case Labour is the minority. Mill did however feel that there should be restrictions to the use of free speech, most importantly that if there was a risk of potential physical harm to others then the individual who was to express their free speech should restrain themselves in that instance. He placed great emphasis on distinguishing the difference between freedom of expression/thought and freedom of action, as he believed that only freedom of action could pose the potential for physical harm. Essentially he was a strong believer in the saying Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. However we must ask ourselves, is it really correct in saying that words cannot cause harm? Our laws do in fact acknowledge that words can be harmful, however the proceedings for such are rarely extreme or even carried out. In general Australia and other liberal western societies tend to follow the ideas of Mill. Example 1: Recently a man advertised that he was willing to be murdered and then eaten, a man in Germany responded stating that he would be willing to do so, and so the man travelled to Germany where he was indeed killed and consumed. Example 2: A man is standing on the edge of a bridge, poised ready to jump, with every intention of committing suicide.

4 Although the public may find the events of the first example horrific and hard to believe that it was possible and attempt to help the man in the second example by pulling him back from the bridge or notifying the authorities, in both cases Mill s ideals state that these individuals are only exercising their free speech, whether or not they are bad ideas is not important, as they should simply be allowed to carry out whatever acts they wish. Manning, Assange, Snowden When we consider the examples of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, we must ask ourselves how far do we take free speech?. Their names may now be synonymous with speaking out and freedom of speech and there are those who believe them to be heroes of free speech, but there are also those who believe that they are traitors who endangered lives and threatened national security (which is to threaten physical harm) not to mention have been subject to the severest of government responses. And again we question, was this response, by the public and authorities, reasonable? Could it be referred to as an attack on free speech? And where would we be if Manning, Assange and Snowden had not released such information?

5 Week 2 Lecture 12/3/14 Lecture Topic: The Body Speaking Freely Lecturer: Chris Beasley Last week s lecture involved looking at the mode of enquiry involved in critical thinking, the idea of free speech and freedom as determined by J.S Mill and the work of whistle-blowers such as Snowden, Manning and Assange. This week s lecture with involve briefly looking at the first assignment; annotated bibliography, further analysis of J.S Mill and free speech and will be introduced to the body and freedom of expression. Annotated Bibliography Due Friday 28 th March via Turnitin on MyUni. All necessary information relating to the assignment is included in the course guide including additional resources. The Body When is the body allowed to speak and express itself? How can it be used and portrayed though art and social activism? And how does its expression differ from expression of the spoken word? Central Question: Should the body be kept under wraps? Is it permissible to reveal the body for particular social purposes? Mill, Freedom and Harm Mill believed that freedom constituted the right to say and think whatever ones felt and that it should be free from restraint from that of governments and customs etc. He was only concerned with restraint when their was risk of non-consensual physical harm, in which case free speech should not be exercised. However, it was also his belief that speech and thought alone cannot cause literal physical harm and therefore there is no need for it to ever be restrained. The Whistle-Blowers The actions of Snowden, Assange and Manning did not directly cause the literal physical harm which Mill defines necessary of restraint. Yet they are all or were subject to serious legal ramifications. Although some may view them as heroes they did in fact go over and above that of our elected representatives who are supposed to be acting in societies best interests. One must also consider that, despite their actions not inflicting any immediate harm, there is and was the possibility of future potential harm to come from their actions, for example the damaging of foreign relations. But is this enough to constrain and punish them? Is the released information worth more than that of the harm of potential harm caused? Could it be said that by restraining speech one is causing greater harm?