The production of knowledge thrives when universities value open inquiry, but recent trends in conformist thinking pose new threats to research, writing, and teaching. How do we combat conformist culture in our classrooms and research, while encouraging inquiry into unorthodox ideas? How can our epistemic institutions continue to seek and know truth? We were joined by HxA co-founder and Board Chair Jonathan Haidt for an in-depth discussion with Jonathan Rauch, author of The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.
As Rauch states in the teaser, the system doesn't work by magic. It requires all of us to participate in good faith:
I like to create video interviews of interesting people. One of the most compelling interviews I have made was that of Ben Fainer, a holocaust survivor. He spent six tortured years in several camps. I loved Ben's attitude. He was patient and forgiving in spite of all that he had been through. And he was a wise man too. Many other people have been moved by Bens words too. More than 100,000 people have viewed his video. He died a few years after we created his video, so I was especially glad that his words were preserved.
I had another friend who almost died in WWII. Like Ben, she was Jewish. Susan was in her late 80s when she mentioned that she had escaped from Europe to the U.S. through Japan. It sounded like an amazing story. She agreed to tell me all about her escape. We agreed to meet the following week on a Tuesday. She died that weekend, so we will never know her story. Her death has served as a reminder to me that once I recognize something to be important I need to schedule it and do it promptly. Or else.
And I know that life isn't always that simple. There are conflicting platitudes that remind us that it's not that simple: A) "He who hesitates is lost." And B) "Look before you leap."
When I conclude that something is important, however, I try to jump at it. You see, I'm in my 60s. I hope to be around for decades, but I might get the horrible diagnosis tomorrow. Or that car might swerve into my lane next week.
We are all traveling along a Life Arc and there is nothing you can do to slow it down. Your only option is to fill it up with quality experiences. Schedule it and make it happen, Laura Vanderkam reminds us over and over. Do that, or don't do that, thereby allowing the sands of time to slip through your fingers. Those are your only options. Live your life or fail to live your life.
Here comes the next hour. What are you going to do with it?
At a time when increasing numbers of Democrats are cozying up to George W. Bush in public, THIS is what needed to be said face-to-face to GWB. Thank, you, Iraq War veteran, Mike Prysner. The best 36 seconds of video I've seen in a long time.
[Added Sept 24]
Mike Prysner explains why he confronted George W. Bush. An instructive conversation. Essentially, sociopathic war criminals should not be normalized. They have no remorse and Bush and his friends can't wait to lie us into the next war to profit their rich defense -industry friends.
I agree with Colin Wright here. I often agree with AOC, but not here. If fewer people on the left actually took more time to get to know the opinions of people on the right (instead of mocking them at a distance for being reincarnations of Hitler), we could have better conversations about HOW to teach our children about racism in our schools.
As I've opined many times, it is a terrible approach to "teaching" to divide 8-year olds into "colors," telling the "white" ones that they and their families are irredeemable oppressors while telling the "black" children that they forever destined to be victims. This deplorable approach has been documented by many dozens of first-party/whistle-blower accounts and leaked teaching materials. Whether you want to call it CRT or neo-CRT or something else, I consider this approach (which also proudly goes under the name of "anti-racism") child abuse. If you doubt that this divisive approach is being taught in many schools, check out these materials and good luck finding any "anti-racists" teachers who extol the teachings of Martin Luther King in the year 2021.
Glenn Greenwald analyzes the recent comments of Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Greenwald places Milley's over-the-top concerns with white supremacy on a long historical arc of U.S. militarism. We must always have a villain and if we don't actually have one, we will concoct one. According to Greenwald, the motivation sprouted in WWII PTSD and continues today, turbo-charged by the collective power of the military-industrial complex. Here is an excerpt:
The post-WW2 military posture of the U.S. has been endless war. To enable that, there must always be an existential threat, a new and fresh enemy that can scare a large enough portion of the population with sufficient intensity to make them accept, even plead for, greater military spending, surveillance powers, and continuation of permanent war footing. Starring in that war-justifying role of villain have been the Communists, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Russia, and an assortment of other fleeting foreign threats.
According to the Pentagon, the U.S. intelligence community, and President Joe Biden, none of those is the greatest national security threat to the United States any longer. Instead, they all say explicitly and in unison, the gravest menace to American national security is now domestic in nature. Specifically, it is "domestic extremists” in general — and far-right white supremacist groups in particular — that now pose the greatest threat to the safety of the homeland and to the people who reside in it.
In other words, to justify the current domestic War on Terror that has already provoked billions more in military spending and intensified domestic surveillance, the Pentagon must ratify the narrative that those they are fighting, those against whom they are fighting to defend the homeland, are white supremacist domestic terrorists. That will not work if white supremacists are small in number or weak and isolated in their organizing capabilities. To serve the war machine's agenda, they must pose a grave, pervasive and systemic threat.
Chris Hedges, who sees all forms of nationalism as a symphony of lies, wrote this about war:
The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war’s appeal. Many of us, restless and unfulfilled, see no supreme worth in our lives. We want more out of life. And war, at least, gives a sense that we can rise above our smallness and divisiveness.
George Orwell saw this too: “War had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war…. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil.”
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
