The Age of Anti-Intellectualism

“People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.” 
― Helen Keller

What a scary scenario, if you ask me.

As a teacher, it is my task and, above all, my duty, to raise young people to think, foster and support inquisitive minds. It is also my duty to teach them to weigh data and relevant information in an unbiased manner. As hard as it may sound and be, it is a mission (and teaching, in my book, IS a mission) that should be aimed at educating and encouraging them to not let one’s personal beliefs interfere or stand in the way to pursuing the truth based on facts and concrete evidence.

Unfortunately, as the quote by Helen Keller suggests, this does not seem to always be the case in our modern world.

True, we are exposed to an abundant amount of information but are not always given the tools nor the time to address it, analyze it, form our own opinions and reach our own conclusions about it. Many opt for the easier, faster way of internalizing it, through immediate absorption, without bothering to check its accuracy, veracity or separate the essential from the trivial.

I see such dysfunctional approaches in many of the subjects taught at today’s school. It is reflected in the way students perform on tests or projects. I mostly see it, however, during discussions of current events.

I make it a habit to discuss current events every lesson. The areas we cover include culture, sports, historical events that affect our daily lives and of course, politics. The last two realms are where I encounter such trends as described by Keller, most.

Whatever happened to personal, cultural and historical integrity, I keep asking myself as I hear students sharing their news items. In many cases, they parrot what they hear or read in the news outlets without even one bit of effort to cross reference or check the sources, their credibility or even accuracy. As far as many are concerned, if it is on the news or somewhere on the internet, then it is a Gospel.

I fear for their future. To grow up in a world devoid of personal responsibility, honesty yet copiously filled with narratives and semi truths which are planted merely because they suit someone’s agenda, can, in my humble view, only lead to disaster. What I see and what keeps unfolding itself to me is a “herd mentality” at its best.

What is even more scary is the notion that if some pro-intellectualism (as opposed to the titular concept of anti-intellectualism) individuals dare stand up and address such intellectual dishonesty, they are being chastised and isolated.

Permit me, at this point, to quote a well-known Jewish writer, thinker and philosopher, Achad Ha’am. I remember reading him as part of my High School education in Yisrael.

Achad Ha’am distinguished between Archaeological Truth and Historical Truth. They are not necessarily, he claims, one and the same.

Unlike Archaeological Truth, be it in the form of exhibits or other, which can confirm real events in the history of mankind, Historical Truth, unfortunately, is on many occasions, the one that fuels and dictates the life of humanity. According to Achad Ha’am, whoever leave their mark on humanity’s timeline, even if they are the figment of someone’s imagination, that entity becomes a Historical Truth to many. Hardly, the “intellectual” approach to addressing vital issues, if you ask many educators. Sadly, what we see more and more is the encouragement to the avoidance of thinking.

Is that the purpose of education? Is this the goal of imparting knowledge and information? Do we want to create a generation bereft of the ability and the desire to express, not their own personal truth, but facts in the form of hard evidence? Can we, at this stage, afford to relinquish our moral and intellectual compass to truths other than the ones that can be substantiated, valid and at the same time reasonable as well?

Like many of my past articles, I would like to end this one on a positive note. However, the bleak reality that surrounds us does not allow me this luxury.

Shabbat Shalom

The Reign of Dishonesty

Written jointly by Roger Froikin and Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

The Ten Commandments are universally taken as a good list of rules for a fair and moral society.  We all seem to agree that “Thou shall not steal” is a good policy.  We all concur that not murdering is a necessary basic rule of any moral and stable society, that coveting leads to all sorts of problems and so on.

But less specifically stated is that all these rules hinge on honesty and are undermined by dishonesty.  We all hear that “honesty is the best policy” and that dishonesty leads to problems we do not want.  We all want our children to tell us the truth, businesses to treat us honestly and fairly, and friends and neighbours to never cheat us.

Everyone has been guilty of holding back on the truth so as not to hurt the feelings of a relative or friend, one’s wife or husband.  Half-truths to protect feelings are not uncommon.  Lies to protect against evil are justified at times.   The simple fact is whether one is honest or dishonest affects more than that person.  It affects others who depend on that person.

One fact, however, remains clear. Whether someone is honest or dishonest directly or indirectly touches the lives and choices of others.  

Another fact that remains uncontested is that, there are circumstances when honesty needs to be expected from those who affect our daily lives. Their honesty is something that we depend on for our decision-making processes and our choices.  Their honesty, or lack of it, determines what we must do, or not do.  

Honesty has rarely, if ever, been the governing principle on the timeline of history. For one to be honest, one needs to be courageous, be free of agenda and have a strong desire to bring about a change for the better in one’s world. In a way being honest is, to use Gandhi’s words, being the change that one wants to see in the world.

The honesty-dishonesty conundrum begins with childhood.  Children lie to protect themselves when they believe that they have done something wrong or disappointed someone close to them.  We teach them to develop trust and that being honest is best in the long run. 

Later in life, many use dishonesty in order to take advantage of others.  Businessmen who cut corners in order to sell faulty merchandise or who charge high prices in times of tragedy to profit from the hurt of others, come to mind. Politicians are another example of those who sometimes use lies, distraction, or evasion of truth as their compass to attract supporters and voters to gain power or push a policy that they believe might have opposition if people knew the facts.

Dishonesty, unfortunately, has become the rule rather than the exception in today’s world, today, more than ever before.  

Everyday people, sadly enough, also, play the same game in the hope of bringing about a change that will improve their status and advance their own personal agenda, gain friendships and buy love.

What is even more concerning is that we have learned to accept dishonesty and live with it. We may get momentarily upset when witnessing it, mumble our discontent with those that employ it, shake our head in disbelief yet we move on with our daily chores. We have all seen people who would excuse dishonest behavior and wonder why.   Some do wonder about the guy that shrugs off dishonesty by saying “everyone steals” or the politician who wants us to believe him but says “everyone lies”.   And what is worse is when people excuse dishonesty to protect their favorite friend or store or politician or political party,  strangely even when it might be against their own best interests.

Honesty, on the other hand and strangely enough has become a dirty word and is almost akin to a four-letter word.  In some countries today, the honest man is considered “naïve” or a fool.  The guy who shakes hands on a deal without paying a lawyer is called a “sucker”, assuming everyone is going to cheat him.  The honest man is scorned by many.

Likewise, in this Politically Correct world where opinions that do not conform  are censored, those that strive to express their opinions genuinely and sincerely amount to no more than “cyber bullies” and accused of promoting strife, hatred, lack of PC and warding off friendships merely for dissenting from current popular clichés. They are even considered by some, “the enemy.” What follows then is that the “enemy”, the “cyber bully” should be attacked, sanctioned and occasionally even threatened,  no different than the intolerance that led to pogroms against Jews in Europe.

The legitimization of dishonesty is alive and well and continues to pose danger to liberty.