Freedom of discussion means giving everyone freedom of speech. People naturally don't suppress the opinions in favor. Therefore, the question is whether different opinions can be suppressed. In fact, if one kind of speech is allowed and another kind of speech is suppressed, there will be no freedom of discussion. But this actually only explains the meaning of freedom, far from explaining why there should be freedom of discussion, which is why different opinions should be given freedom. The nature of different opinions-it is right, it is wrong and it is mixed-determines that a defender of freedom of discussion must discuss it from several aspects.
We can never be sure that the ideas we are trying to suppress must be wrong. If it is determined that a person or an organization has such power in intellectual judgment, it is generally believed that this person or organization is absolutely correct. And this premise itself is obviously wrong. The great man who is called "the ever-victorious general" by his colleagues and subordinates knows best that there is no ever-victorious general in the world, and his own judgment is often wrong. But what is contemptible is that countless empirical facts that help most people feel this common sense-no one's judgment is absolutely correct-rarely strengthen the generalization of this theory, let alone promote its expansion, enrichment and sublimation. The inferiority of human beings is that although the cruel experience has taught most people to admit that they will make mistakes, they have not devoted themselves to establishing a preventive measure to prevent a person from being too arbitrary when he mistakenly thinks that he is right, especially to suppress different opinions.
A person's opinion may be wrong, so can you fully believe the opinions of most people in society? Have you found the concept in the general "world"? The so-called "world" can only provide a way for a person to get in touch with some of them-his party, his class, his country and his cultural circle. There is a party outside the party, a class outside the class, a country outside the country, and a world of Christianity, Buddhism and Islam outside the Confucian world. Which part of it is a person's participation and immersion, there is a great chance that it is innate and acquired. There is no reason to regard some people as an overwhelming majority.
In the life of intellectuals, even if you really take refuge in the majority, you will never find a certain correct basis. Mill said: "If all human beings (except one person) hold one opinion and only one person holds the opposite opinion, then it is no more legitimate for human beings to silence that person than that person (if he has the power) to silence human beings." Because in the kingdom of reason, most people have no more meaning in knowing the truth. Majority is meaningful only in the sense that a society needs to pursue a certain degree of unity of action. But that's a matter of action. What we are talking about here is thinking and discussion. We will talk about the difference between the two later. At a certain moment, the opinions of a few people are more correct than those of the majority, and there are countless examples of this. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and so on. On many occasions, depriving one person of his opinion is actually depriving all mankind of his opinion, because it deprives all mankind of an opinion, which sometimes happens to be the most insightful opinion among all mankind.
Not only most people may make mistakes, but even an era may make mistakes. It is not uncommon in history that the dominant opinions accepted by people in the previous era are corrected in the next era. Correspondingly, sometimes, the opinions suppressed in the previous generation are cleared up and widely accepted in the next era.
All of the above shows that it is difficult to judge whether a viewpoint is right or wrong. No one has absolute judgment. Different opinions are also possible. Therefore, it is absurd to suppress different opinions on the basis of suppressing wrong opinions.
In the field of thought, everything can be doubted. However, when the supporters of a dominant social opinion find it difficult to prove that it is absolutely correct and always correct, they turn to argue that although these opinions may not be "correct", they are of great importance to society, that is, "usefulness", so there is no doubt and discussion. This kind of excuse is actually a transfer of concept, which turns "correct" into "useful". But this transfer can't save their theoretical dilemma. First, there is still a lot of room for discussion about what is "useful", which is by no means unified and uncontroversial. Second, for many people, "correctness" and "usefulness" are related in most cases and cannot be separated, especially when people have seen the wrong things.
3. All the accepted opinions we put forward above are not necessarily correct, and the opposing opinions are also correct, so we should discuss them freely.
Next, enter the second step: if the accepted opinion is correct and the opposing opinion is wrong, should we insist on the freedom of discussion and give the wrong opinion holder the right to speak? This assumption is actually contradictory to the previous one. The former hypothesis is about "possibility". Most people may be wrong and a few people may be right. The premise of this assumption is irrefutable. The latter assumes that one school of thought is wrong. In fact, only from the first hypothesis, the inferred result is conclusive. Making the second hypothesis and inferring on this basis is just to emphasize that even if the latter premise is established, there are still sufficient reasons for free discussion.
First of all, if a correct proposition cannot be fully and fearlessly discussed all the time, it will no longer be a living truth, but a dead dogma. These ideas and creeds are full of meaning and vitality to their founders and even their direct disciples. The struggle with the enemy kept them looking for new evidence. As long as this struggle continues, this feeling will not weaken. Once it becomes an unquestionable and indisputable dogma, people accept it no longer out of initiative, but passively. Dogma deprives people of rationality and makes people ignore the original argument; Dogma stifles people's minds, makes them cold and numb, and gives no real input to any problems. This evil result goes far beyond the scope of intelligence and leads to moral weakness. Because "without discussion, not only the basis of the opinion is forgotten, but also the meaning of the opinion itself is often forgotten." ..... There are no distinctive concepts and life beliefs, only some words and expressions that remain in the old set; Or if any part of the meaning is retained, it is only the shell and skin of the opinion, and the essence has been lost. " (Mill)
Second, not allowing wrong opinions to challenge correct opinions is to arbitrarily cancel the objectively existing arguments against the enemy. "When the battlefield is invincible, teachers and apprentices all go to their posts to sleep." In the words of a writer in Mill's time, this is "the sleep of established views". People just numbly inherit some dogmas and don't care about their basis and significance. Because things are beyond doubt and no longer need to think, I give up thinking. Muller said: "This fatal tendency is the reason why they are half wrong."
Third, the best way to cultivate and develop intelligence is to understand the basis of an opinion in a free discussion environment and learn to defend it in front of various refutations. "If a person only knows his own side of one thing, he knows very little about it. His reasons may be very good, and perhaps no one can refute him. But if he can't refute the reasons for the objection, and he doesn't know what those reasons are, then he won't choose between the two opinions. Furthermore, it is not enough for a person to only listen to the enemy's arguments and the way the teacher talks. ..... He must be able to hear the evidence from people who really believe those arguments, sincerely defend them, and make every effort for them. " He must listen to the most eloquent and beautiful arguments in the opposition, and he must feel all the pressure to meet the challenge and solve the problem, otherwise he will not get insight. According to Mill, 99% of the educated people have gained their true knowledge without full free discussion. Their conclusion may be correct, but they don't really understand a proposition and viewpoint. Socrates himself is by no means a sophist without his own position. He can die for what he believes in. But his method of debate does pay more attention to the process of argument than to the conclusion. He made it clear to those who only remembered a certain conclusion in the debate that they knew almost nothing about the problem. There is no doubt that there is a difference between Socrates' teaching method and rote learning method.
Therefore, both the acquisition of truth and the comprehensive and in-depth understanding of truth depend on the existence of profound opponents to a great extent. Even in the absence of this opponent, training students must find alternatives. Because there is no real free discussion, there is no truth.
In addition to the above two situations, the third situation is more common, that is, two opposing opinions each contain some truth.
Especially those long-standing major debates, such as whether the world is material or spiritual, whether human nature is good or evil, whether the historical process is accidental or inevitable, free competition and state intervention are actually reasonable. Although there is a trend of change for a while, in the long run, it seems to be spiraling upward and the level of debate is constantly improving, but it is hard to see that one side is at the end of its tether and is on the verge of being out. Thirty years in Hedong and thirty years in Hexi, the two sides alternately introduced new basis and theoretical experts. As far as the above examples are concerned, historical determinism and national socialism seem to be at a disadvantage at present, but their deep value is not exhausted. When their opposites play the role of mainstream culture in a historical period and become increasingly extreme, the former will make a comeback.
This argument undoubtedly deepened the understanding of the problem. But sadly, in the process of understanding, there is rarely a cumulative trend, that is, the truth of both sides continues to merge. As Mill said, in the process of progress, most of the changes are just the replacement of one part of truth with another part of truth, and the progress is mainly that the new piece of truth is more suitable for the times than the one it replaces.
Just a need.
Because both sides often have their own reasons on major issues, but the degree is different, only one of them is more in line with the needs of the times. Since the opinions in power are often biased, we should cherish the truth in the opposing opinions that are ignored by the mainstream opinions and the opinions in power. And the truth can't be determined at once, so we should cherish all kinds of different opinions, even if they contain such mistakes. "As long as people are forced to listen to both sides, there is always hope; Once people only pay attention to one side, mistakes will harden into prejudice, and truth itself will no longer have the effect of truth, because it is exaggerated into fallacy. "
5. Who will be hurt more by suppressing heretical views and prohibiting freedom of discussion? Are they heretics, people who suppress heresy, or ordinary people who neither suppress heresy nor heresy? Is he a social thinker or an ordinary person?
The infidels must be hurt. The upper limit of their injury depends on a society's ideological tolerance for dissidents, and the lower limit depends on a society's civilization and its humanitarianism for so-called dissidents. In any case, the harm to pagans is relatively external, far from representing its harm to everyone. Prohibiting freedom of discussion and suppressing heresy will do no less harm to the inner and mental health of ordinary people than heretics. Because most non-heretics are not as tough and maverick as heretics in character, they are often weaker and more obedient, and often dare not go beyond heresy. Therefore, when discussing freedom, not only the right to discuss and speak is restricted, but also their thoughts and all spiritual worlds are restricted. In this atmosphere, many talented people who lack courage become mediocre and boring. Even those who suppress heresy have suffered ideological harm. When they lose the negative stimulus, they are almost doomed to become dry dogmatists.
It is difficult for a society without freedom of discussion to produce great thinkers. Because "as a thinker, his first duty is to follow his wisdom, no matter what conclusion it will lead to." Whoever does not realize this cannot become a great thinker. " However, as we said above, compared with thinkers, the freedom to cancel discussion is more harmful to all sentient beings. "Mentally.
In the context of slavery, there have been and will be great individual thinkers. But in that atmosphere, there has never been and will never be an active nation. ..... As long as there is a secret agreement that no principle can be disputed, and as long as the discussion on the biggest problem that can occupy people's hearts has come to an end, we can't hope to see the height of universal spiritual activities that make some historical periods particularly prominent. As long as the so-called argument avoids topics that are important enough to ignite enthusiasm, people's hearts will never be aroused from the foundation, and the promotion given will never raise even the most ordinary people to think about the dignity of animals. "
Losing the freedom of discussion is harmful not only to the oppressed, but also to the oppressor, not only to thinkers, but also to all sentient beings. It will cause irreparable harm to everyone, to every era and to every society.
6. If free discussion is allowed without restriction, won't different opinions destroy many basic norms of behavior of a society? Won't endless arguments interfere with an urgent decision?
It is precisely because of this realistic consideration that in most history and most societies so far, those in power are afraid of and prohibit the freedom of discussion. However, due to its huge positive social function, the prohibition of freedom of discussion is not absolute. Because we can't find absolute certainty and absolute correctness, the rulers will find problems, encounter difficulties and even major setbacks after establishing major policies and undoubtedly implementing them for a period of time. At this time, in order to avoid the collapse of the dynasty and find the correct policy, they will be allowed to discuss freely to a certain extent, so as to gain introspection and find a new way out. Social actions need to be unified, and social thoughts should accommodate differences. The above method solves this contradiction in "time": once the major policy is determined, it is absolutely not allowed to talk and shake the audio-visual; After encountering major setbacks, we should open our hearts and listen to Bona more. However, this "time" or "stage" approach has its inherent defects, that is, when the major policies have just been established, in order to avoid vacillation, objections are often suppressed, so that most people dare not discuss or even think backwards. Diversity has always been a fertile ground for wisdom. In this way, the diversity of society has been lost for a long time and wisdom has dried up. In the face of setbacks, it is difficult to have an expert or a brilliant idea, because talents and culture are to be accumulated. Another limitation of "time" mode is that its freedom of discussion is also limited.
Another way to balance the stability of social norms and the urgency of social decision-making with the diversity of human wisdom and freedom of discussion is the "space" way, that is, to separate the scope of speech from the scope of action. In the field of speech, you can doubt all certainty. In the field of action, you must clearly and definitely abide by laws and regulations. The former and the latter are based on their own territory, and the difference is obvious. The former provides social ideological and cultural resources, while the latter provides social action rules. Although the two are related, they are not direct and cannot be converted immediately. The latter's tolerance for the former is based on the premise that the former does not directly interfere with the latter. The finiteness of man determines that he cannot find an eternal certainty, and social life needs to be based on certainty. In this way, it bases the law of social behavior and social decision-making on a hypothetical certainty, that is, this understanding has not been refuted, so we assume it is correct. However, this assumption has its limitations, that is, it only belongs to the field of action, and can not be used to prevent people from doubting this certainty and looking for its defects in the field of speech and thought.
7. What is a person? First of all, as we just said, people are animals that lack absolute certainty. This is in sharp contrast with other animals. The life style of animals maintains great certainty, which is endowed by stable physiological mechanisms. For example, birds can fly, animals can walk, carnivores eat meat, and herbivores eat grass. This kind of certainty is very high. Humans are different. Millions of years ago, human beings got rid of the rigid regulations of physiological mechanism on their way of life and began to choose their own way of life, relying on culture rather than instinct to survive. He got rid of the certainty of animal talent. And social life needs a kind of stability, so he is faced with the harsh task of finding a certainty himself. The first uncertainty of human beings lies in their lifestyle, and the second uncertainty lies in the nature of their knowledge and truth. Man got rid of the limitations of animals and began to expand his understanding of nature and society, but the limitations of his cognitive ability determined that he could never find the ultimate truth and certainty in the ontological sense.
Man is a kind of "derailed" animal in behavior. This is the fundamental difference between physiological mechanism and cultural system. The behavior pattern dominated by the former is unchanged. The latter will change. "Off track" means two possibilities. 1. People make mistakes, but animals don't. Second, people will embark on a new road, while animals will always wander on the old road. And these two possibilities are bound to be intertwined. He may make a new wise choice, but after choosing this new path, he will continue to face new problems and will probably make mistakes one after another. There is no ancient way to help him solve these new problems. He is too far from the original balance between animals and nature. He can only overcome new difficulties by thinking about new methods, and in the process, he will inevitably make new mistakes. No matter how post-modern thinkers criticize "progress", human beings can only solve new problems through new choices. He embarked on an endless road of making mistakes and correcting mistakes. He can't pause, pause is death. So in a sense, people are "animals that make mistakes".
Before further discussing the method of correcting people's mistakes, two other attributes of people must be clarified. Man is a group animal. Moreover, this group does not distinguish queen bees from worker bees by physiological characteristics like bees. The generation of its leaders is far more complicated than that of animals. This group is the most cooperative group, and at least requires certainty, consistency and legitimacy. No matter what kind of social form, these major choices have to go through at least small-scale planning and controversy. Second, the essential difference between humans and animals lies in language. Humans complete all communication through language and store their accumulated cultural knowledge through this symbol system. In any civilized society, the cultural system has gained a little independence beyond politics and economy at least to some extent.
What does a language user rely on when answering new questions and correcting new mistakes? It can only be a discussion. Yes, it depends on experience, but a group of animals who use language will inevitably discuss it when learning from experience. What kind of experience to learn will be controversial. Muller said: "People can correct his mistakes through discussion and experience. Not just by experience. There must also be a discussion to show how to explain this experience. "
In this sense, "discussion" is an attribute of human beings, one of the important means of human life style and an important content of human existence. Man is an animal that cannot be separated from discussion. This does not mean that everyone should discuss it all the time. Some members can stick to the motto of "Shut your mouth" based on some life lessons. At some moments, when the decision is imminent, people will say, "Stop discussing!" " "This is natural and easy to understand. But in terms of the significance of the whole society, "discussion" is indispensable. Human civilization has long lost the possibility of giving up discussion and still adapting to the survival of species. We have embarked on a unique road based on "discussion". Allow all discussions, don't ignore every fresh voice, every faint voice-we have no other choice.