APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van
der Breggen
The Carillon, May 14, 2015
Philosophical black holes: Internet memes
The internet is
a breeding ground for memes (a meme is a saying or image that spreads rapidly over
the internet as internet users re-post the saying or image). Some memes promote
what I call Philosophical Black Holes, i.e., philosophical ideas that, if not carefully
considered, suck unsuspecting readers into intellectual darkness.
Let's take a critical
look at three popular memes.
Meme 1. “Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behaviour does.”
Pause and
think: for these claims to make moral sense depends on what one believes “a better person” is. It also
depends on what one believes is good behaviour
or what a better person ought to do.
Didn't serial
killer Ted Bundy believe that “a better person” was one who is daring and
willing to rape and murder? He did.
Surely, then, we
should seek out and believe what's right,
true, excellent, and good. Not
any behaviour will do. In other words, ideas have consequences, so the idea—i.e.,
what is believed—matters.
We should of
course concede that beliefs not acted upon don't amount to much. Nevertheless, for
behaviour to amount to something good requires accurate beliefs about what is
the good. To paraphrase the Apostle James (and adding a dash of Immanuel Kant):
belief without behaviour is dead, but behaviour without belief is blind.
Beliefs do make you a better person, if you
believe—and subsequently act upon—whatever
is right, true, excellent, and good.
Meme 2. “It matters
not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love, or how you love,
it matters only that you love.”
Here's a criticism
that cuts to the chase: “I love you,” said the cannibal to his dinner. “I love
you,” said the pedophile to the child. “I love you,” said the Marquis de Sade
to his torture victims.
Clearly, love has
moral boundaries. Love isn't mere subjectivity/ feeling, contrary to what
popular culture tells us. Love—true love—has a defining moral structure.
Meme 3 is a
doozey: “We live in a society where people can't survive if they're not judging
the next person. If you're proud of who you are and don't give two [cents] what
anyone thinks, share [this post].”
This meme seemingly
presents an attitude against judging others.
But look carefully
at the last sentence.
The last
sentence makes the implied judgment—yes, judgment—that if I don't share this
post, then either (a) I am not proud of who I am or (b) I give two cents about
what others think (or both). So, if I don't share the post, I have a problem.
On the other
hand, if I do share the post, then I have a different problem. Contrary to what
I'm agreeing to in the post, I obviously do care what people think.
How so? By sharing
the post, which claims I don't give two cents about what people think, I show
that I do give two cents: I obviously
want people to think I don't give two cents about what they think! Also (if I'm
honest), I probably won't be proud of myself for pretending not to give two
cents when in fact I am giving two cents.
So if I don't
share the post, there's something wrong with me; and if I do share the post, there's
something wrong with me.
In other words,
under the pretense of encouraging people not to judge others, the author of
this meme is encouraging people to judge others—as are those who re-post it!
Overall lessons:
To avoid letting memes suck you into Philosophical Black Holes, read carefully.
And, to help others not get sucked into such holes, read carefully before you re-post.
(Hendrik van der Breggen , PhD, is associate professor of philosophy
at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
No comments:
Post a Comment