Aiwendil
Quote:
|
But basic evolutionary theory is as nearly certain as is necessary
|
As you say, there is a whole discussion on what, or who, dictates something is as true as necessary. While a debate on evolution theory (which need not deconstruct to the level of
cogito ergo sum) might be something we could engage in, I agree it is not central to this topic.
However, what your assertion highlights is the inevitability of subjective judgement when any of us attempt to synthesize what we hold as true into actions based upon that assessment. Banning a book for religious or secular reasons invariably involves at some point, at some level, a personal, individual judgement that can rarely be arrived at unequivocally from an empirical or logical basis. This is perhaps why finding a precise consensus on the boundaries is far from easy.
The banning of Tolkien remains a mystery if based upon religious reasons, and the banning of Farenheit 451 seems equally unwarranted. The mechanism by which such censorship might be applied to one work as opposed to another - keywords, narrative theme, morality, imagery - is notable more by its absence (or most vague invocation) ... and as has been pointed out, if the censor imagines himself/herself immune to the negative effect of art, yet assumes that others will be vulnerable, there is arguably a false premise at work.
Still, our comfortable liberal consensus (which encompasses
all the posts in this thread) is perhaps not as representative of the wider world as we would wish or hope. And in the end, we all have a part to play, however small, in the way things turn out. End of sermon [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].
Bill, keep trying. I look forward to hearing from you.
Compliments to everyone for responding to my questions with such articulate and thoughtful contributions [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
Peace.
Kalessin
[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]