Unsystematic
Ideas open minds
Now that the “distinguished” editorial writers
of our dear school newspaper, On-line Forty-Niner,
wandered off into the high, blue sky of
limitless opportunities, in hopes of further
advancing the craft of journalism along
with their own skills, I feel indebted to
them for challenging my beliefs and dogmas
with every new article they wrote. I thank
them sincerely!
Not
that I always liked and agreed with what
they wrote, but I have constantly been stimulated
by them ? emotionally and intellectually.
Sometimes I would read an article so shoddy
and futile that I would become motivated
to write better than its particular author.
On the other hand, sometimes I would read
an article so profound and competent that
I would become motivated to write in hopes
of learning from that writer. It was my
resentment and my desire to read, I think,
that caused me to end up here, trying to
write!
So,
I hope to move you the same way I was moved
? emotionally and intellectually. I will
at least try my best! I am not here to remedy
some of those distasteful past articles
nor to necessarily advance journalism, but
to simply exchange ideas in the name of
forming “healthy” conversations within the
microcosm of our campus.
When
I say healthy, I do not mean it in the sense
that I am going to write what will please
the masses, but what will make them think
about and question certain things. Even
if it means the masses resenting me, let
it be! I am here to exercise my democratic
rights, as everyone else living in the United
States, to freely express personal opinions.
Objections
to my columns are always welcome! In fact,
I encourage each and every one of you, dear
readers, to read what I have to say with
a skeptical mind, instead of an ignorant
one. I would choose to be criticized by
you rather than to be ignored!
And
this brings me to my first topic of the
school year: What distinguishes skeptical
minds from ignorant ones? Many people tend
to think that skepticism and ignorance are
somewhat synonymous, but I would like to
argue today that they are actually antonymous.
As
Socrates put it, to call someone a skeptic
is not to say that the person does not believe
in anything. Rather, it implies that the
person does not believe in everything. The
skeptic believes in one thing at a time.
In other words, he or she believes in a
conclusion so long as it somehow follows
from a set of meaningful premises. In this
sense, the skeptical person normally avoids
wide horizons. Therefore, he is nearsighted
and methodical, akin to a “potential” theoretician.
In
contrast, if two things, say statements,
do not fit together, but the person still
believes both of them, thinking that somehow
there must be a hidden third statement that
connects them ? thus reaching flawed claims
? then this is ignorance. Ignorance is an
imaginary mode of thinking, sans reason,
whereas skepticism is the epitome of reason
itself and the basis for healthy conversations.
Therefore,
I once again ask you to read my articles
skeptically, not ignorantly. I also hope
that why I named my column “Unsystematic
Ideas” now becomes clear to you. It implies
that I will write my pieces in the light
of prudence, without claiming the superiority
of one truth, fact or belief over others.
Where the dogma begins, I will try to end
my articles.
However,
I’m sorry that I cannot promise you to write
fully “objective” pieces (Who can do that?),
for the fact that we are all somehow preprogrammed
and subjective in our judgments. But, what
I can promise you right now is trying to
write “unbiased” pieces, presenting both
sides of an issue and only asserting reflective,
contemplative opinions. Unless I can support
my claims with sound reasoning, I will stay
away from hefty conclusions.
Ultimately,
I do and will take my column seriously.
So, please get involved and tune in to my
articles every week, for without you, what
I have to say will have no real meaning
and value.
Barlas
F. Esin is a senior journalism/public relations
and philosophy double major.
|
