Rationale for Using the Movie:
Essays in philosophy, politics and economics by Thomas R. Wells Monday, 5 December Democracy is not a truth machine In a democracy people are free to express their opinions and question those of others.
This is an important personal freedom, and also essential to the very idea of government by discussion. But it has also been held to be instrumentally important because in open public debate true ideas will conquer false ones by their merit, and the people will see the truth for themselves.
From this it follows that in a democracy there should be no dogma: The case for seeing freedom of expression as a public as well as a private good was made most eloquently and famously by J.
Mill in On Liberty.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: Mill's argument is a rhetorical tour de force in defence of pluralism and individual freedom. But it is only partly right. He also fails to distinguish the processes of discovery and evaluation.
Mill is quite right to defend people's freedom to form, express, and debate their own opinions about religion, politics, and morality. These are subjects on which anyone can have an opinion; on which in a free society everyone has the right to have an opinion; and on which the very legitimacy of opinions requires their formation in a particular way through non-coercive persuasion and critical self-reflection.
Liberalism itself is founded on a respect for individual autonomy on these issues, in the sense that every person is considered to develop their own 'conception of the good': Mill's particular contribution here is the counter-intuitive point that we can each learn from engaging with unconventional opinions even if we still conclude that they are bad and wrong, because they may be interestingly wrong.
Books like Plato's Republic, Machiavelli's Prince, Hobbes' Leviathan, or Mandeville's Fable of the Bees offend nearly everyone and persuade almost none, but they act like grit in an oyster by forcing us to rethink the justifications for our conventional beliefs.
Allowing such dangerous ideas to be aired thus supports rather than undermines individual intellectual autonomy, which is why many undergraduates are required to read them.
Mill's concept of an opinion also fits neatly with the public reasoning he recommends for democracy. Though held by private individuals, opinions have an inter-subjective aspect that allows them to be justified, debated, and critiqued in public.
In democratic politics, after talking like that for a while, we participate in a social choice exercise that transforms those individual opinions into a collective decision - we vote to decide which opinions are most agreeable to most of us.
But ethical precepts like 'torture is a crime against humanity', religious beliefs like 'Jesus loves you', literary judgements like 'Ulysses is the best book ever written', or explicitly political views like 'a republic is better than a monarchy' have the peculiar character of being fundamentally a matter of opinion.
They really are up to us to decide. They are therefore quite different from objective truths, whether rational truths as produced by rational enquiry, such as science or facts such as historical events.
Not my truth, your truth, or even 'our truth', but The Truth. They are not amenable to democratic debate or discussion since whether or not people find them agreeable is quite irrelevant. Democracy can determine whether to teach Intelligent Design in schools, but not whether it is true.
Traditional media for the dissemination of ideas - like books, newspapers, or even university seminar-rooms - have space constraints and so their content must be curated by professional editors before being submitted to the public.
That curation for quality and likely popularity naturally reflects the orthodoxy of the mainstream 'the tyranny of the majority' that Mill worried about and filters out a lot of 'bad ideas' not fit for print.
The people can also assess each others' ideas 'democratically'. We can search and browse for what people have written on the subject we're interested in, and bring our favourite ideas to prominence by sharing and linking to them. In other words, we vote up the opinions we find most agreeable, but we do not exclude the opinions we dislike from being found and considered by others.
It also performs an assessment of those ideas in a democratic way, i. Nevertheless the web offers an object lesson of the flaws in democracy's claim to be a truth machine. Democracy, in and of itself, provides no mechanism for the evaluation of objective truth.
Science is an archetypal form of rational truth seeking since its authority depends on such replication: That means for example that if all the climate scientists in the world were wiped out by a freak meteor at a conference, climate science would quickly reappear and say basically the same things again as more or less happened when the Catholic Church tried to suppress heliocentricism.
Note, however, that rational truth does not work by persuasion, as opinions do in a democracy. The standing invitation to replicate the results of an experiment is not an invitation to have your own opinion about whether they are true.
Now consider how rational truths appear in the democratic 'free market for ideas' on the internet. One can find all sorts of heterodox claims that purport to have a scientific basis.
So we can find claims that vaccinations cause autism; organic food is healthier; abortions cause cancer; the world's climate isn't actually changing or if it is, it isn't our doing; or if it is, it won't be so bad ; etc.In a democracy people are free to express their opinions and question those of others.
This is an important personal freedom, and also essential to the very idea of government by discussion. A rhetorical analysis essay is a form of writing where the author looks at the topic in greater detail and prove his standpoint, using effective and persuasive methods.
Discuss three appeals to ethos in this essay 0 Essay on organ donation day friedrich paulsen introduction to philosophy essay clever introductions essays 3 essay feeling human mind vol our national tree essay disposition reflection essay essay on house the role of a nurse essays essay in law philosophy punishment responsibility kasanova.
Gulliver's Travels, or Travels into Several Remote Nations of the ph-vs.com Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of Several Ships (which is the full title), is a prose satire by Irish writer and clergyman Jonathan Swift, that is both a satire on human nature and the "travellers' tales" literary subgenre.
It is Swift's best known full-length work, and a classic of. Discourse (from Latin discursus, "running to and from") denotes written and spoken communications.
In semantics and discourse analysis: Discourse is a conceptual generalization of conversation within each modality and context of communication.; The totality of codified language (vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical.
Get an answer for 'What are some appeals to ethos in Francine Prose's essay "I Know Why the Caged Bird Cannot Read"? What different roles, or personae, does Prose use to establish her ethos?' and.