X-VMS-To: IN%"WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:25:45 -0800
From:         Peter Montgomery <MONTGOMERY@CAMINS.CAMOSUN.BC.CA>
Subject:      Re: Deep beliefs
Comments: To: WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

> From: torkel@SICS.SE


I started to reply to the message below, but I must have made a bad key
press, and my work disappeared on me. Because I didn't receive a net reply
copy of it, I am assuming it didn't get posted. I shall, sigh, begin again.



>   All of this would make a lot more sense if you had tried to explain what
> you mean by respecting deep beliefs.

Firstly, I try to use the phrase "deeply held beliefs." I should, of
course, realise that the concept is not readily understood by a society
which is not involved in such activity. Not having precise words to
express what is. as T.S.Eliot puts it "something quite ineffable,"
how about us going with the idea of a person holding some belief strongly
enough that they are willing to die for it. Will that do? It is a bit
cliche, but that perhaps should help.

> Earlier you seemed to emphasize
> "mocking" as constituting disrespect, but it was far from clear what
> you had in mind, since you preferred not to answer questions about it.
> Now you seem to emphasize "the right to free speech", but this,

I only meant to indicate that if you want a discussion of what respect
for others' opinions means, that you will find it in the discussions
around free speech, not necessarily in the idea of free speech itself,
although that has something to do with it. I once had a friend from
Portugal who was quite content with their former dictatorship. She found
the idea of stability much more important than the idea of free speech.
It seemed very strange to hear her mocking free speech.

> surely, is a very different matter from "the right not to be mocked".
> Using ordinary language, fierce champions of the right to free speech
> (such as J.S.Mill) usually say that all doctrines, no matter how
> revolting and unworthy of any respect, must be allowed to be
> presented. And they do not usually suggest that the opponents of
> those doctrines should not be allowed to "mock" them.

Obviously you haven't experienced that kind of mockery, or you would
understand. A more commonly used word is prejudice. Hitler & co. mocked
Jewish beliefs unmercifully. Is that something to be tolerated? In-
terestingly, you don't tend to hear Jews mocking Hitler's beliefs in
racial purity. Seems to me, such mockery might well be understood
and tolerated, given what the Jews went through. On the other hand,
such beliefs are so repugnant that mockery seems entirely inappropriate.
I would respect Hitler's, or anyone's right to hold such beliefs;
I would find anyone mocking such beliefs as being very suspect themselves.

> So if it is a
> question of values, you simply haven't explained which values you are
> talking about.

Funny thing about values. They aren't ideas. They're objects of the
will, not the mind. I like the taste of oranges; I don't like the
taste of lemons. That's a value. Don't ask me to explain why. It's the
way I'm built. In the case of respect, I suppose the value is based
partly on experience, and partly on learning from others' experiences.
The golden rule is a value, because it works. You can go ahead and
explain why it works, if you want. That WON'T help you learn to live
by it, if you don't WANT to live by it.

(BTW, the golden rule is an example of a commonly held belief).

> Your comments seem to me to underline once more how
> difficult it is for many people to enter into any discussion of the
> *contents* of their assertions, and how they all but automatically
> assume that those who ask what they mean are out to get them.
>

Sorry to offend your intellectual sensibilities. I suppose the other
side of the argument is that if something seems so blatantly obvious
to someone that it is virtually a truism, then the request by an
intelligent person to have it explained looks rather suspect.
[That rather looks like a flame, but it's not intended as such.]

This is boring. I want to go out and play.