Although these two chapters brought back the confusion that I felt when I first began reading, the themes seemed to be along the lines of compromising one's self and precedents. In Chapter 6, my confusion first began with thew capitalization of "Absurd," and the statement, "You can't hope to change human nature or Human Nature…" What is the difference? The chapter never really explains what makes these words and phrases important enough for capitalization, and what the difference is between them and their lower case partners. Hitchens goes on to quote an excerpt from George Orwell's "Through a Glass, Rosily." From this passage, two important things caught my attention. The excerpt started off by discussion an opposition between two parties, and how anyone standing up for one party was immediately assumed to be against the other. Orwell then discusses constructive criticism, which leads to the statement that truly stood out for me; "And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist." For some this may just seem like a whiny opinion, but for me, it immediately related back to the Introduction to Journalism class that I took last semester. In it, we learned a great deal about the ethics of journalism and how, although a reporter's first duty is to the truth, facts are often skewed by a biased view or a conflict of interest. I found it very interesting that the author decided to discuss this in this book, considering that I had never thought of how well it pertains to the idea of being a free thinker and and speaking one's mind; journalists that sell out are the exact opposite of what this book teaches. A second quote that I took away from Orwell's excerpt says, " A truth that's told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent." This spoke to me because it once again deals with ethics. Even though we are taught from a young age never to lie, is the truth really a better choice if we use it to hurt someone? If someone is better off without the truth and we tell them just to ruin their happiness or make us feel better about ourselves, are we really doing a favor? Surely everyone has their own answer to this, but I do feel that sometimes the truth may cause more problems than it is worth, and although this may not be the "rebellious" way of thinking, it is sometimes best to hold the truth off to a later date, or to never release it at all.
In chapter 7, I finished reading with two ideas left in my mind; two ideas that go along with this chapter's theme of avoiding a rut. The first quote reads, "We are an adaptable species and this adaptability has enabled us to survive. However, adaptability can also constitute a threat; we may become habituated to certain dangers and fail to recognize them until it's too late." I do feel that there is some truth to this. There are some things that we become so adapted and accustomed to in our daily lives and society that when they start to become less beneficial or even harmful, we do not notice. Being a creature of habit can be a bad thing when changes that are better come along and we push them aside. The second statement was at the very end of the chapter and continued this idea. "Try your hardest to combat atrophy and routine. To question The Obvious and the given…" This relates directly back to what was said previously. We must not stay living a certain way because we are content with it. There may be a better way to live waiting for us if we simply question everything and stay curious and open to change. As someone who revolves around routine, I take this lesson to heart and hope for the strength that I will actually be able to apply it to my life. Overall, despite some chapters of this book being harder to comprehend than others, there is always a lesson that I end up taking away.
No comments:
Post a Comment