Quick thought before I'm off to sleep - I've found, though perhaps not terribly surprising, that I'm most likely to comment on or respond to things (articles, blog posts, statements, etc) when I find myself in disagreement. The higher the level of disagreement, the more I'm inclined to comment or attempt some sort of rebuttal.
As I've just now opted to hash over that thought for a moment, I'm still a bit undecided as to how I feel about it.... Of course, it's ideal to be active intellectually, academically, politically, etc, pretty much any time we have the opportunity to do so - keeps us in good practice and on our toes, questioning our opinions, honing our rhetoric, whathaveyou. Shouldn't this activity include times even when we're in agreement, then? Am I in danger of looking at this dearth of comments on matters more akin to my own beliefs as one would, say, not bothering to vote due to apathy or simple lack of open disagreement with the current state of affairs?
One of my favorite quotes comes from the epic pen of Elie Wiesel (a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner- do yourself a favor and look the man up if you've never read anything by him... and certainly venture beyond Night if you have time, though, I know, that is the most well known)... but I digress. My favorite quote, noted by a former teacher of mine to be my motto (unbelievably flattering) is this:
"Be the conscience of your nation. And remember, a conscience that does not speak up when injustices are being committed is betraying itself. A mute conscience is a false conscience."
I do think that speaks for itself, really, so no need to expound upon it. ...It's a challenge, though - he's challenging us all. ....but now, come to think of it, what if we don't notice anything we take particular issue with? Say, I read a post, think "Huh, I don't quite agree with this and this, but on the whole, yeah, sure..." Honestly, I'm not likely to comment unless I'm particularly drawn to it for one reason or another. Is that settling for status quo, though? Do we risk apathy by not taking action until we're annoyed or offended enough to do so? Now, I'm not about to pull a Mao and attempt continuous revolution sheerly for the sake of keeping up the good ol' revolutionary spirit, but apathy is certainly something to be avoided, is it not? Risks laziness, status quo... though, of course, sometimes there really is just little we feel the need to say, and why babble if we have nothing of worth to note?
...before I risk further babbling here, though, I'll hit the hay. The thought is a half-formed one, but then, that's the lovely feature of blogs at times, isn't it? By all means, please assist in the further formation of the thought if you feel so inclined.... or perhaps just if you're terribly opposed to something I've just said (indeed, irony).
Continuous revolution is best revolution!
ReplyDelete