A discussion panel where ideas are put to the test
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
The lebanese way
" The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions" Plato
Well not an incident in particular but talk shows and bloggers who blog about politics and I think that 90% of them are fanatic blind followers of their political chiefs.
you are definitely right. But, aren't we all? Although I strive to have neutrality in me, less prejudice and more objectivity, I cannot help myself but have an affiliation, a stand, a position and a point of view. And sometimes, when I am in a society or a group, which shares my political opinion, it feels like we being behaving like a clan and a group of uneducated idiots (imagine a group of March 14 supporters at a night club versus a group of Aounists and one group is holding up the tree sign and the other is breaking it lol... you get my point?!) Not quite trying to justify it but it is human nature and whoever claims otherwise lacks self-honesty.
Plus, I believe that in order to be heard, you need to be an extremist. A very good example or examples are Edward Said, Bernard Lewis, Noam Chomsky and many others. Had they been neutral and pacifists, they would not have half the fame they hold now. I say there are always exceptions: in some cases, some fanatics stand on right grounds whereas some others just need to be eradicated because all they are good at is feeding bullshit and intoxicating people/societies/nations. But, this is how it all is. It is really hard to distinguish and actually not cross that line and if we do, how do we do it while not being stigmatized?
I have observed the Lebanese bloggers here. While I admire each and everyone of them (I believe everyone has something useful and good to say, even if it clashes with my system of beliefs), I think that they have gone overboard with their daily routine of political analyses. I don't do that on my blog. Maybe I am so jealous of them because I do not have the prudence for writing political ballads lol. I don't know. Anyways, it is very interesting because you notice a wave of different ideas, views and claims coming together in one small tight internet community. One thing I have clearly noticed is the intolerance these individuals may have towards the "other" or their political opponent, how critical they may be and how incapable of forming any understanding for this "other".
I guess when we all decided to blog, we had set different aims and goals for blogging. Mine was just blogging *me*, and if that included an opinion or two on politics, so be it, but otherwise, I am treating my blog as my journal (luckily, I am fairly anonymous here so I can say almost whatever I want to say)
No need to be sorry! I like your comment and that's what makes the whole blogging thing enjoyable, beautiful discussions.
Now about what you said, I was specific in my last comment and I talked about political talk shows and so called political analyses on blogs, so it's "political talks" that I'm referring to and that's a totally different thing from being in a group and teasing another group which is always fun to do :), or having an affiliation to a certain political side. Everyone prefers one side over the other and this is very different from being brainwashed, it is different from pretending to provide so called political analyses that in reality do nothing more than backing the following idea that they believe in: "The people in our side have bypassed the human nature to a much higher state and thus they don't make any mistakes whatsoever, the other side are a bunch of evil demons". You see my point? No one cares about the reality of things for them it's just a game in which they prove that they're right and the others are wrong by piecing facts together the way they like and by twisting logic or showing some facts and hiding or ignoring other facts. That's what I was referring to when I posted the quote from Plato. Being objective doesn't mean at all that we have to be neutral, and it's normal to have an affiliation, a stand and a point of view, but we should have it based on a reasonable conviction not based on hatred to others, is it too much to ask for? Brain cells are too part of the human nature so people should try to use them, for the sake of our existence as a Lebanese people.
About extremism, it's right that extremists are heard, extremism can make things easier cause it makes a lot of fuss but I believe in order to be heard you have to be proactive and a hard worker that's the main requirement, a lot of people who are not on the far extremes promote reasonable and not fanatic ideas and they are heard very well because they are aggressive in working for what they believe in. And it's this kind of people who are preventing this world from exploding.
About Lebanese bloggers, I admire many of them and I admire those who write good political posts(whether 8 or 14) showing a certain point of view or a certain opinion with which I might or I might not agree. But I can't pretend to admire those who use their blogs to spill out their hate in their political posts, I find them annoying. As you have said they don't show any tolerance and they're incapable of understanding the "other" because they're blinded by hatred.
I too don't blog a lot about politics, I don't go into details I strive to shed some light on what I think is the heart of the problem, which is in my opinion the way we see politics and the way we deal with them, I don’t know how much I succeeded or whether I succeeded in it at all but that's what I prefer to do.
very well put together. I like your ideas and I get your point. I specifically admire your response to "extremism". You mentioned a point that escaped me, which is being aggressive in one's work. Extremism is not always the way to be heard; it actually may be the exception.
As for objectivity and neutrality. I think objectivity yields to neutrality and impartiality and vice versa. But, it may be possible to be objective and not neutral (depending on one's understanding of the term objectivity). However, you raised a very debatable issue: the issue of reason and convictions, which is represented differently by different schools of thought and varies to sigificant degrees amongst individuals. So it is a fine line and sometimes very hard to tell.
PL, Thank you for your very nice comment, I'm very glad that you like what I wrote.
Concerning objectivity and neutrality, in my opinion objectivity will surely lead to neutrality when all sides are deeply wrong each on its own way ( which is our case in Lebanon today), but in normal cases objectivity is supposed to lead to a fairly sound judgment in the favor of the side that is seen "objectively" to be more right, whether it is the side with which one has an affiliation or the side that is considered as an opponent. So objectivity will help to see who is relatively more right, it's the best way to get a somehow accurate and realistic view of the situation. But I undersand what you mean and I agree with you, because most of the times eventhough one side might be relatively more right than the other no one is 100% right so neutrality will be the result of objectivity.
As for reason and convictions it is a very debatable issue as you have said, it's a fine line and it's hard to tell, so let me simplify what I wanted to say, I'm looking for a political opinion that comes as a result of a sincere mental process and not as a reaction stemming out of hard feelings. That's it.
Comments
nice sexily designed blog.
But, what made you include this in your post? Any incident in particular?
you are definitely right. But, aren't we all? Although I strive to have neutrality in me, less prejudice and more objectivity, I cannot help myself but have an affiliation, a stand, a position and a point of view. And sometimes, when I am in a society or a group, which shares my political opinion, it feels like we being behaving like a clan and a group of uneducated idiots (imagine a group of March 14 supporters at a night club versus a group of Aounists and one group is holding up the tree sign and the other is breaking it lol... you get my point?!) Not quite trying to justify it but it is human nature and whoever claims otherwise lacks self-honesty.
Plus, I believe that in order to be heard, you need to be an extremist. A very good example or examples are Edward Said, Bernard Lewis, Noam Chomsky and many others. Had they been neutral and pacifists, they would not have half the fame they hold now. I say there are always exceptions: in some cases, some fanatics stand on right grounds whereas some others just need to be eradicated because all they are good at is feeding bullshit and intoxicating people/societies/nations. But, this is how it all is. It is really hard to distinguish and actually not cross that line and if we do, how do we do it while not being stigmatized?
I have observed the Lebanese bloggers here. While I admire each and everyone of them (I believe everyone has something useful and good to say, even if it clashes with my system of beliefs), I think that they have gone overboard with their daily routine of political analyses. I don't do that on my blog. Maybe I am so jealous of them because I do not have the prudence for writing political ballads lol. I don't know. Anyways, it is very interesting because you notice a wave of different ideas, views and claims coming together in one small tight internet community. One thing I have clearly noticed is the intolerance these individuals may have towards the "other" or their political opponent, how critical they may be and how incapable of forming any understanding for this "other".
I guess when we all decided to blog, we had set different aims and goals for blogging. Mine was just blogging *me*, and if that included an opinion or two on politics, so be it, but otherwise, I am treating my blog as my journal (luckily, I am fairly anonymous here so I can say almost whatever I want to say)
SORRY such a long comment, isn't it?
Now about what you said, I was specific in my last comment and I talked about political talk shows and so called political analyses on blogs, so it's "political talks" that I'm referring to and that's a totally different thing from being in a group and teasing another group which is always fun to do :), or having an affiliation to a certain political side. Everyone prefers one side over the other and this is very different from being brainwashed, it is different from pretending to provide so called political analyses that in reality do nothing more than backing the following idea that they believe in: "The people in our side have bypassed the human nature to a much higher state and thus they don't make any mistakes whatsoever, the other side are a bunch of evil demons". You see my point? No one cares about the reality of things for them it's just a game in which they prove that they're right and the others are wrong by piecing facts together the way they like and by twisting logic or showing some facts and hiding or ignoring other facts. That's what I was referring to when I posted the quote from Plato.
Being objective doesn't mean at all that we have to be neutral, and it's normal to have an affiliation, a stand and a point of view, but we should have it based on a reasonable conviction not based on hatred to others, is it too much to ask for? Brain cells are too part of the human nature so people should try to use them, for the sake of our existence as a Lebanese people.
About extremism, it's right that extremists are heard, extremism can make things easier cause it makes a lot of fuss but I believe in order to be heard you have to be proactive and a hard worker that's the main requirement, a lot of people who are not on the far extremes promote reasonable and not fanatic ideas and they are heard very well because they are aggressive in working for what they believe in. And it's this kind of people who are preventing this world from exploding.
About Lebanese bloggers, I admire many of them and I admire those who write good political posts(whether 8 or 14) showing a certain point of view or a certain opinion with which I might or I might not agree. But I can't pretend to admire those who use their blogs to spill out their hate in their political posts, I find them annoying. As you have said they don't show any tolerance and they're incapable of understanding the "other" because they're blinded by hatred.
I too don't blog a lot about politics, I don't go into details I strive to shed some light on what I think is the heart of the problem, which is in my opinion the way we see politics and the way we deal with them, I don’t know how much I succeeded or whether I succeeded in it at all but that's what I prefer to do.
very well put together. I like your ideas and I get your point. I specifically admire your response to "extremism". You mentioned a point that escaped me, which is being aggressive in one's work. Extremism is not always the way to be heard; it actually may be the exception.
As for objectivity and neutrality. I think objectivity yields to neutrality and impartiality and vice versa. But, it may be possible to be objective and not neutral (depending on one's understanding of the term objectivity). However, you raised a very debatable issue: the issue of reason and convictions, which is represented differently by different schools of thought and varies to sigificant degrees amongst individuals. So it is a fine line and sometimes very hard to tell.
Thank you for your very nice comment, I'm very glad that you like what I wrote.
Concerning objectivity and neutrality, in my opinion objectivity will surely lead to neutrality when all sides are deeply wrong each on its own way ( which is our case in Lebanon today), but in normal cases objectivity is supposed to lead to a fairly sound judgment in the favor of the side that is seen "objectively" to be more right, whether it is the side with which one has an affiliation or the side that is considered as an opponent. So objectivity will help to see who is relatively more right, it's the best way to get a somehow accurate and realistic view of the situation.
But I undersand what you mean and I agree with you, because most of the times eventhough one side might be relatively more right than the other no one is 100% right so neutrality will be the result of objectivity.
As for reason and convictions it is a very debatable issue as you have said, it's a fine line and it's hard to tell, so let me simplify what I wanted to say, I'm looking for a political opinion that comes as a result of a sincere mental process and not as a reaction stemming out of hard feelings. That's it.