"Book burning"

[Elok]

This is an extension of a threadjack started in two other threads. As such, it may seem to come out of left field, I'm just starting where I left off.

My objection to, say, burning the Bible is not just grounded in my support of its principles. I oppose burning/destroying and suppressing literature or other forms of communication in general, regardless of the content of said communication. Mein Kampf, the Necronomicon if it actually existed, whatever. If it's information, I think it's wrong to suppress it. Disagree with it, refute it, but don't prevent it from being spoken in the first place.

There are several reasons. First of all, suppression is counterproductive. Wherever an idea came from, the chances are good that it came from somewhere, either as a consequence of the times or as the expression of the beliefs of a particular group. Or it could be dictated to a random nut in Djibouti by a bunch of hallucinatory wind spirits after he's been drinking too much, which is something like what is commonly alleged of the Bible by skeptics. Whatever the source, the idea has one, and there's nothing to prevent the general sentiment from expressing itself again, or to prevent nutjobs from Djibouti from drinking again. And by suppressing the idea, you have not only failed to prevent it, you have irritated its proponents into being even more determined to spread it, just for spite and to show they can't be beaten.

Moving on, my second, related reason is that suppression is self-destructive. There are very few things that we cannot learn anything from. Mistakes are an excellent place to begin, you can learn a lot from them. If an idea is incorrect, pointing out its flaws can lead you to understand the errors people made in coming to believe them, and in my experience can help you better understand your own beliefs. Suppress the idea, and you will be just as helpless to fight it the next time it rises, which is probable for reasons mentioned above, and in addition you have lost out on a chance for personal growth and enlightenment and all that lovely stuff.

Thirdly, human beings are not perfect, and in fact are easily corrupted. True? Well, by allowing any group to silence another, you have set a precedent for future silencings. No matter how many provisos you attach about how this was a special case, the fact remains that in order to suppress the idea you have to have power given to those who support the suppression. And if there is no innate virtue in suppressing ideas beyond "they're wrong," which appears to be the case, there is nothing to stop that group from suppressing further ideas, and if they can suppress ideas they can also suppress the ideas which might support other ideas. Which means that ideas which might be proven false in a free arena can be propped up and be apparently "true" forever simply because nothing contradictory is allowed to come to light.

It only makes sense to accept this risk if you have sufficient faith in human nature to assume that whoever takes over book-burning and teacher-gagging duties will not be in the slightest bit tempted by the power to manipulate truth and falsehood like a god in the eyes of the governed. I don't believe that for a second.

I'm probably forgetting a point, but that's it for now. That's why I oppose all suppression of information of any kind. Reading it, it seems absurdly simplistic and obvious to me, but strongly held beliefs can do that. They can also make an argument degenerate into incivility, especially when I'm involved, which is why I'm trying to make a fresh start with this post-threadjack continuation.

[Ben Kenobi]

Have you ever read John Milton's areopagitica?

[Agathon]

There are several reasons. First of all, suppression is counterproductive. Wherever an idea came from, the chances are good that it came from somewhere, either as a consequence of the times or as the expression of the beliefs of a particular group.

This is an empirical generalization and a false one at that. It is not clear that suppression is always counterproductive or that it always must be. To prove that you need a lot more than an empirical generalization.

And by suppressing the idea, you have not only failed to prevent it, you have irritated its proponents into being even more determined to spread it, just for spite and to show they can't be beaten.

Again, it is not clear that this must be the case. Our society does its best, both formally and informally, to suppress the public expression of defences for paedophilia. Perhaps this does make the paedophiles more determined, but they are still beaten.

Moving on, my second, related reason is that suppression is self-destructive. There are very few things that we cannot learn anything from. Mistakes are an excellent place to begin, you can learn a lot from them. If an idea is incorrect, pointing out its flaws can lead you to understand the errors people made in coming to believe them, and in my experience can help you better understand your own beliefs. Suppress the idea, and you will be just as helpless to fight it the next time it rises, which is probable for reasons mentioned above, and in addition you have lost out on a chance for personal growth and enlightenment and all that lovely stuff.

Again, this is another contingent reason. This may well be the case for some doctrines. But even if it is, you must still stack up the possible benefits to be gained from suppressing the doctrine. I think that suppressing paedophile tracts and race hate benefits humanity more than the opportunity to learn from them does. I don't need to read paedophile literature to learn that there's something wrong with it.

Thirdly, human beings are not perfect, and in fact are easily corrupted. True? Well, by allowing any group to silence another, you have set a precedent for future silencings.

Yes, we aren't perfect. But we already do censor various things. All we can do is go with the best information we have, perfection will probably never be achieved.

No matter how many provisos you attach about how this was a special case, the fact remains that in order to suppress the idea you have to have power given to those who support the suppression.

But we can't avoid this. We do it now.

And if there is no innate virtue in suppressing ideas beyond "they're wrong," which appears to be the case, there is nothing to stop that group from suppressing further ideas, and if they can suppress ideas they can also suppress the ideas which might support other ideas.

Yes, that is a risk we take, but it is generally worth it.

Which means that ideas which might be proven false in a free arena can be propped up and be apparently "true" forever simply because nothing contradictory is allowed to come to light.

No-one, least of all me, is saying that. There's a difference between banning everything you think isn't true, and suppressing things that are definitely known to be false or insane. For example: we know, as well as we'll ever do, that alternative medicine is a load of ****. real Doctors will disagree about various medical issues, but they all agree that witch doctoring is bollocks.

It only makes sense to accept this risk if you have sufficient faith in human nature to assume that whoever takes over book-burning and teacher-gagging duties will not be in the slightest bit tempted by the power to manipulate truth and falsehood like a god in the eyes of the governed. I don't believe that for a second.

But we already give such powers in our society. I agree that the possibilities for abuse are many, and that institutions should be designed to minimize that possibility, but that does not mean that we should do nothing.

I'm probably forgetting a point, but that's it for now. That's why I oppose all suppression of information of any kind. Reading it, it seems absurdly simplistic and obvious to me, but strongly held beliefs can do that. They can also make an argument degenerate into incivility, especially when I'm involved, which is why I'm trying to make a fresh start with this post-threadjack continuation.

Right now I support anything goes, but only because I think the consequences will be worse... right now (I'm thinking of information technologies). But that doesn't stop me from thinking that soon certain beliefs need to be at least vigorously attacked in order to safeguard civilization from the loonies.

I don't think you have made a case for book burning never being justified.

Surely you admit that burning paedophilic pornography is justifiable. If you admit that, then you admit that book burning is justifiable in some cases, and then it is only a matter of sorting out which cases are justifiable.

[Kuciwalker]

Agathon showing his true colors

[Agathon]

Do you believe that paedophilic pornography should be allowed to circulate freely, Kuci?

That's a terrible thing for Will Wheaton to espouse.

[Kuciwalker]

The pornography itself isn't expression... and is a strawman, since Elok was talking about ideas, too.

[Agathon]

The pornography itself isn't expression...

Yeah right..

and is a strawman, since Elok was talking about ideas, too.

I'd be willing to say the same for serious academic tomes in defence of paedophilia. Censorship is required because bonking little boys is wrong, whatever people think.

[Brent]

Just because something came from somewhere doesn't mean, well, anything. And what about burning a sports almanac from the future so someone else doesn't use it to turn the world into a mirror universe, and possibly destroy the universe or even just the galaxy? Not everything that is learnable needs to be learned now. You can waste time by studying things that won't teach you anything as effectively. Whatever happened to understanding something equals sympathizing with it? You don't need to read something in order to know that it is something whose main way of committing evil is by being read. Is it wrong to censor perjury? Wrongful suppression of one thing is not the end of the world. A form of expression and an evil act can be the same thing. How are you supposed to fight pedophilic pornography if not to destroy it? Letting it just sit somewhere and build up forever would be bad for the environment. It is possible for something terribly wrong to be written and convice others to do terrible things.

[Elok]

We don't really suppress anything now. We refute and ridicule it, and given a choice we refuse to publish it because we don't think it will ever sell or we consider it distasteful, but if people want to babble what we consider nonsense we let them do so. Child porn, as Kuci mentioned, is not really an idea. It is innately exploitative, insofar as it involves making children pose in positions they are probably not comfortable in. We stop that, but we do not stop, say, NAMBLA from making its case, nor do we stop people from publishing written erotica about kids. In a mass-media environment such as our own, the fact that lack of voluntary distribution is in some ways effectively suppression may be valid, but that only renders active destruction of books all the more unneeded.

To put it another way, if they don't argue in their own defense, we will never have the chance to prove them ridiculous, and will miss out on the mental exercise involved in doing so. You can learn a lot more from criticizing a work than just little bits directly related to the work itself. Considering outrageous ideas encourages open and unrestricted thought in general, and there's no telling where that will take you. For example, KKK tracts can teach you a lot about the emotional state of alienated hicks, and show you the misconceptions they feed on to grow strong, and illuminate the general reaction of humans in certain situations.

Like it or not, ideas do not appear on their own. They appear because somebody thought of them. With six billion people on the planet and more coming every day, the odds of all the ideas supported by those in power in any particular area being true are essentially nil. You can try to change those ideas by force, which is not always practical as we've discovered in Iraq, or you can try to show them their errors. They can refuse to listen, but talk is cheaper than blood, and it's good to make the effort just to give yourself a broader understanding of the universe and the way others think. Even if the way others think is criminally insane from your perspective, you can't ethically kill them or force them to change their minds so it appears you have to learn to live with them somehow. If you wish to speak of practicality, we don't have any other options, do we?

I'm afraid I don't speak your particular variety of philosophy jargon. Empirical generalization? I tried to support what I said with my own reasoning. Look on Poly, in any thread, and you'll see what I mean when I say that suppression just makes the subject more determined to spread his or her ideas. The second any thread gets locked, the first thing that happens is that the offending poster immediately starts a new thread complaining about how the old one got locked for no good reason. When Ming locks that too and threatens the poster with a forced vacation, the poster sullenly subsides, but in his heart (I think I can say his as a rule here, Mrs. Tuberski is more the exception at this forum) he feels certain that he's right, and "Ming just locked me because he knows I'm right and he can't find a good argument." His mind never changes, he just holds on to the idea until he thinks Ming has forgotten and then brings it up again at a convenient opportunity.

Ming still does this just because, in an online forum, flamewars are the equivalent of rioting. When words can incite total chaos, those in power have some form of obligation to force the speaker to moderate his words. Flamewars, by ending any chance of polite discussion, effectively destroy the forum's reason for existence and so ought to be prevented. Also, in real life words are more constrained by the existence of fists and guns, and mass communication is far more difficult in the outside world than it is here. So I admit there are limitations in the metaphor, but within those limits you have to admit that suppression hasn't really solved anything.

What works as a supplement here at Poly also works by itself in the real world: the speaker is given his say, and then people promptly laugh at him and poke holes in his reasoning, and quietly turn away and ignore him if he persists. The certain someone, online or IRL, who advocates racial profiling or the extermination of homosexuals, will probably be back with the same arguments or similar ones. And he will be shot down again, and again, and again, until his presence is a familiar joke in no danger of being taken seriously or until he learns to stop trying. Ideas tend to die out or survive based on a somewhat evolutionary principle, in other words.

The one exception that I can think of is when there is a large, angry group of people who will not listen to reason because they feel they have been wronged or tricked. Germany after WWI was pretty mad from what I read, much of the Muslim world is bitter over what it considers our favoritism towards Israel, and in the wake of 9/11 in particular there's a growing tendency to reach for the familiar and conservative and to hate and fear the unknown. These things will happen, they cannot be wished away, and suppression makes the people mean. A long and bloody conflict can do the trick, at least temporarily, but I think it's better to try other alternatives. Often these conflicts are rooted in a genuine disrespect for truth or justice on someone's part, as in the desire to squeeze every last freaking penny out of the defeated Germans c.1920 despite the fact that they were already ruined. Listening to the rhetoric of the disgruntled people accomplishes two things: it lets them know that the world is not entirely indifferent to their feelings, thereby delaying the inevitable bloodshed that would come from ignoring or muffling them, and it gives the "good" side a better idea of how its enemy thinks. Win-win, isn't it?

[Agathon]

Elok, you still haven't proved, as in given a deductive argument, for a complete prohibition on book burning.

You've mentioned possible bad consequences of book burning, but you haven't shown that they are necessarily so, or that they are not outweighed in some cases by the benefits to be gained by suppressing the worst sort of books or appalling ideas.

All I have to do is show you one case in which book burning is justified and your general prohibition fails.

Here is such a case: a society is having real troubles with anti-semitism. Then someone tries to publish a book which falsely accuses the Jews of all sorts of terrible crimes. Given the climate, the book is likely to be a bombshell and has an excellent chance of starting a full on pogrom.

Should the authorities allow it to be published, or should it be suppressed and the propagators of the lies arrested?

Most people would go for the latter in these circumstances.

Anyone who does is saying that it is OK in the right circumstances to burn books.

[Kuciwalker]

and is a strawman, since Elok was talking about ideas, too.

I'd be willing to say the same for serious academic tomes in defence of paedophilia. Censorship is required because bonking little boys is wrong, whatever people think.

I'd say the same about Marx's works...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Elok, you still haven't proved, as in given a deductive argument, for a complete prohibition on book burning.

You've mentioned possible bad consequences of book burning, but you haven't shown that they are necessarily so, or that they are not outweighed in some cases by the benefits to be gained by suppressing the worst sort of books or appalling ideas.

ZOMFG! He's only suggested likely outcomes! He hasn't produced a rigorous proof of the truth of his statements for every possible situation!

Actually, I find it hilarious that a philosopher is asking for logical rigor...

[St Leo]

.

[Agathon]

ZOMFG! He's only suggested likely outcomes! He hasn't produced a rigorous proof of the truth of his statements for every possible situation!

Then he hasn't established his thesis that book burning is always verboten. It's quite possible to produce such arguments, although people tend not to.

The whole point of a decent ethical argument is to formulate categorical imperatives rather than hypothetical ones. Otherwise, your argument is weak because it requires speculation on contingencies (and people are very bad at that).

Actually, I find it hilarious that a philosopher is asking for logical rigor...

We're virtually the only people that do. I find it hilarious that you would say this, since you don't seem to understand why someone would ask the questions I did.

[Kuciwalker]

We're virtually the only people that do.

There are entire fields of study vastly more rigorous than philosophy.