Your Right to Say It

by ProfDave, ©2021

(Mar. 4, 2021) — It was Voltaire, the great 18th century French philosophe – and atheist – who said it.  “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  In these days of “tolerance” we defend to the death our right never to hear what we disapprove of.  Isn’t that strange?  Let me hazard a brief history of tolerance, completely innocent of any direct monographic research.

The Pre-Moderns sought to recapture the wisdom of the ancients: the religion of the Hebrews and of the Apostles, the philosophy of the Greeks, and the engineering, law and order of the Romans.  The chaos and ignorance of their day exaggerated their vision of the “golden age” of classical times.  As late as the 1830’s a popular topic of debate at the Oxford Union was “Resolved that moderns have excelled the ancients in the arts and sciences.”  Certainly this wisdom was – and is – a powerful thing, the distillation of the greatest minds of many centuries and the experience of God over four millennia.  Even today, most of philosophy is mere footnotes to Plato and orthodox theology, at least, is commentary on the Scriptures.  All the great questions of human existence were addressed and all possibilities considered.  Western monotheistic wisdom, in particular, established the foundations of science by positing a rational universe grounded in a rational Creator – a great advantage over polytheistic and pantheistic worldviews.  On the other hand, Wisdom does not address scientific method and lacked quantitative data on the physical universe.  Authority, not tolerance, was the theme of the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance.  Debate appealed to an agreed- upon corpus of authority.  To neglect or spurn such authority was to bring on the threat of chaos and to be adjudged as a great social evil.

In the 17th century especially, the limitations of Wisdom were breached by new information, new science, and new conflicts.  Europeans began to look to the future instead of to the past to resolve problems.  By Voltaire’s time, the myth of progress was ascendant.  Reason and science would soon discover all the laws of human existence – as well as planetary motion – and hunger, poverty, war, crime and disease would be no more.  The great value of the modern age was truth, to be arrived at by free inquiry.  The only thing to be feared was the imposition of authority by force of the state.  If what Voltaire believed was true, he had nothing to fear from what his correspondent might say: discussion would only make the truth more evident.  If Voltaire was wrong, he would thank his friend for bringing him the truth.  Either way, Voltaire would win!  Rational, objective investigation was a win-win situation.  Modern society could afford to be tolerant.

Modernism did have several weaknesses.  The wisdom of the ancients would have told the moderns that their optimism was unbalanced and that humans were not entirely rational creatures.  “The Great War” 1914-1918 seriously undermined this confidence.  Objectivity is very high intellectual ground: most of us don’t live there.  As I taught my history students, every interpretation of truth is conditioned by perspective of time and nation.  We believe what we want to believe.  Voltaire, being the cleverest person around, was able to avoid being convinced by all the evidence and proofs for the existence of God that were presented to him. 

Existentialists made the point that subjective meaning and value is what is most important to us in many situations.  Positive thinking can improve your performance and propaganda can bend social realities – for a price.  And there are cases in which the truth does not serve our needs.  For example, when your product really isn’t the best at the price – or the customer doesn’t really need it.  In 1923 Adolph Hitler wrote, “a big enough lie, told often enough, will be believed” – the foundation of modern advertising.  It is doubtful that Hitler ever read Nietzsche.  He probably took “the will to power” from the public domain of ideas  – though his well-educated rank and file brown shirts knew it well – but his subjective truth almost conquered Europe!  It broke down when he started moving Panzer divisions around that didn’t really exist.

So now we live in a Post-Modern age.  We no longer try to be rational or objective.  The Great Value of our day is tolerance.  Truth has been replaced by political correctness.  So why is our tolerant age so intolerant of discordant voices?  Since PC is not grounded in truth, wisdom or external reality, it is vulnerable to contradiction.  We can no longer afford to be tolerant.  Truth was determined by reality.  Political correctness is determined by power –the biggest megaphone, the biggest advertising budget, the best lawyers money can buy, political connections, and the coercive force of the state. 

We feel threatened and violated because our values have no objective foundations except our own power.  Don’t confuse me with the facts.  Wisdom or truth would weaken my will to power.  Authority?  Don’t even go there!  “Question authority!”  “Resist reality!”  Opposing viewpoints are offensive to my subjective truth.  Tolerance means you must not interfere with my subjective world – unless, of course, you have the upper hand.  Then you have a constitutional right to silence me.  Truth was once determined in the free marketplace of ideas.  Political correctness is determined in the political jungle.  Survival of the fittest!

What about you?  Are your values reality based or politically based?  Can you afford to listen to wisdom? Can you tolerate someone else’s “right to say it?”

David W. Heughins (“ProfDave”) is Adjunct Professor of History at Nazarene Bible College.  He holds a BA from Eastern Nazarene College and a PhD in history from the University of Minnesota.  He is the author of Holiness in 12 Steps (2020).  He is a Vietnam veteran and is retired, living with his daughter and three grandchildren in Connecticut.