Parting words for students
Skyler Parkhurst
Issue date: 4/24/09 Section: Opinions/Editorial
For the past year and a half I have had the opportunity to address the Skidmore community in this column. There have been many times during my tenure with Skidmore News that I have caused controversy. I hope that amidst this controversy, students were encouraged to stop and think before proceeding down the road of comfort and good-feeling that so many of us espouse today. In what is going to be my final column, I want to stress one thing: there is an inherent danger with being easy-going that shakes the possibility and desire for learning to the core.
I have criticized a number of institutions and policies at Skidmore, but most notably I have criticized multiculturalism. It does not seem to me that most who favor multiculturalism and the diversity-based polices that follow are fully aware of the thinking behind these doctrines; instead, they simply say equal respect toward all is pleasant. Many of us like the feeling of ease that comes with these words. They often use them to avoid defending themselves or their arguments, and call this type of thinking openness. It is, in fact, the worst kind of closed-mindedness.
Openness is a generally agreeable end because it does not require sacrifice on the part of anyone. It also does not require that we hold each other up to any standard other than this openness. In the past I have criticized this on the grounds that it requires everyone to become agreeable, hence eliminating the distinction that cultures provide and aiding in the destruction of moral virtue.
It is true that the moral life we need to keep law and order, structure, and any sense of cohesion in a community is only possible when we are allowed to disagree to some degree, or to be closed. This is a harsh truth for many, but we need some sense of morality to lead a serious life. Certainly, if we continued with openness to the extreme, we would either have to live under a soft despotism, or anarchy.
I suspect that most members of the community have not investigated these arguments - openness asks us to be relaxed in our moral and intellectual judgments. It has been said that the young are the most susceptible to radical doctrines in our search for moral meaning, and this is certainly true: those of us who have not been educated in a morally serious manner - a civic education according to our nation's founding virtues - often feel dejected and search for some meaning. This search has led many to embrace equality and easy-goingness in an immoderate manner. This is why I say that many have never investigated the pillars of sand that support easy-going openness to all things.
Never mind the underpinnings of openness, but consider this: when we blindly accept openness we are rejecting argument and -any sense of disagreement. The possibility of using reason to explore the possibility of truth also goes by the wayside. We have embraced openness to such an extent that now anything to the contrary offends us, and anything that agrees with our open and morally weak conviction, no matter how absurd it may be upon a little investigation - is immediately integrated into our cannon. This position is childishly stubborn, and incredibly dangerous.
The rejection of argument is particularly bothersome, because once we have done so, we cannot allow ourselves to examine the grounds on which the arguments rest. This, as I have asserted, is why the so-called openness is actually closedness -it requires that we be closed to the possibility of a morally serious life and the arguments that support it. This is the danger we face in society today, particularly in academia. We are, without even realizing it, giving up on the best way of life because other ways are merely pleasant. We often forget that the pleasure is not the same as good.
This is my advice for all students: do not succumb to the temptations of the easy-going life. Do not reject the arguments of others simply because they are not pleasant, or because they disrupt any doctrine to which you subscribe. Heaven forbid, do not, under any circumstance, remain neutral. Thoroughly investigate what others present you with, no matter how shocking. If we reject this possibility then we are denying ourselves the very possibility of education.
A wise man, allegedly the wisest of all, once said that it is not possible "for anybody to experience a greater evil than hating arguments." It would not be wise to dismiss something simply because it doesn't sound pleasant, and I hope that in my tenure at Skidmore I have encouraged others to truly explore unpleasant arguments for the sake of learning. Truth is seldom pleasant, but it is good.
Skyler Parkhurst is a senior government major. He spends most of his time reading and reasoning.
I have criticized a number of institutions and policies at Skidmore, but most notably I have criticized multiculturalism. It does not seem to me that most who favor multiculturalism and the diversity-based polices that follow are fully aware of the thinking behind these doctrines; instead, they simply say equal respect toward all is pleasant. Many of us like the feeling of ease that comes with these words. They often use them to avoid defending themselves or their arguments, and call this type of thinking openness. It is, in fact, the worst kind of closed-mindedness.
Openness is a generally agreeable end because it does not require sacrifice on the part of anyone. It also does not require that we hold each other up to any standard other than this openness. In the past I have criticized this on the grounds that it requires everyone to become agreeable, hence eliminating the distinction that cultures provide and aiding in the destruction of moral virtue.
It is true that the moral life we need to keep law and order, structure, and any sense of cohesion in a community is only possible when we are allowed to disagree to some degree, or to be closed. This is a harsh truth for many, but we need some sense of morality to lead a serious life. Certainly, if we continued with openness to the extreme, we would either have to live under a soft despotism, or anarchy.
I suspect that most members of the community have not investigated these arguments - openness asks us to be relaxed in our moral and intellectual judgments. It has been said that the young are the most susceptible to radical doctrines in our search for moral meaning, and this is certainly true: those of us who have not been educated in a morally serious manner - a civic education according to our nation's founding virtues - often feel dejected and search for some meaning. This search has led many to embrace equality and easy-goingness in an immoderate manner. This is why I say that many have never investigated the pillars of sand that support easy-going openness to all things.
Never mind the underpinnings of openness, but consider this: when we blindly accept openness we are rejecting argument and -any sense of disagreement. The possibility of using reason to explore the possibility of truth also goes by the wayside. We have embraced openness to such an extent that now anything to the contrary offends us, and anything that agrees with our open and morally weak conviction, no matter how absurd it may be upon a little investigation - is immediately integrated into our cannon. This position is childishly stubborn, and incredibly dangerous.
The rejection of argument is particularly bothersome, because once we have done so, we cannot allow ourselves to examine the grounds on which the arguments rest. This, as I have asserted, is why the so-called openness is actually closedness -it requires that we be closed to the possibility of a morally serious life and the arguments that support it. This is the danger we face in society today, particularly in academia. We are, without even realizing it, giving up on the best way of life because other ways are merely pleasant. We often forget that the pleasure is not the same as good.
This is my advice for all students: do not succumb to the temptations of the easy-going life. Do not reject the arguments of others simply because they are not pleasant, or because they disrupt any doctrine to which you subscribe. Heaven forbid, do not, under any circumstance, remain neutral. Thoroughly investigate what others present you with, no matter how shocking. If we reject this possibility then we are denying ourselves the very possibility of education.
A wise man, allegedly the wisest of all, once said that it is not possible "for anybody to experience a greater evil than hating arguments." It would not be wise to dismiss something simply because it doesn't sound pleasant, and I hope that in my tenure at Skidmore I have encouraged others to truly explore unpleasant arguments for the sake of learning. Truth is seldom pleasant, but it is good.
Skyler Parkhurst is a senior government major. He spends most of his time reading and reasoning.
Be the first to comment on this story