A Brief History of Cancel Culture: Don't Let it Repeat
what do all these old dead guys have in common they all got cancelled [Music] throughout history there have been many cases of people who have gotten into a lot of trouble fired excommunicated even killed for saying things that criticized the social forces of their time today you might hear the word cancel culture to describe this trend but it has always existed in some form and we will go through some of the most classic examples now i don't want to focus too much on buzzwords like cancel culture so i'm going to focus more generally on instances where social pressures were the primary driving force responsible for shutting down a discussion or a person and of course this should be contrasted with the superior alternative that is the use of evidence arguments and debate to arrive at a resolution let's start with the ancient greek philosopher socrates socrates was put on trial and condemned to death for quote corrupting the youth and denying the gods of the city he was known for going around the city of athens attracting an audience asking questions debating and at times criticizing government young people like to follow him including the son of a well-known politician anitus this is partially what got him into some trouble because anita's did not like what socrates was teaching his son and other people now to be fair all this debating probably made socrates a little annoying and some people responded to him intelligently like aristophanes who criticized philosophers for being able to argue anything if they tried hard enough but as we will soon see others who could not outsmart socrates ended up putting him on trial most of what we know or think we know about him comes from the dialogues that others have written one of the most well-known is the apology by plato which documents the trial of socrates in the apology socrates tells the story of how his search for wisdom made so many people hate him as the story goes one of his friends went to visit the oracle at delphi this was supposed to be where you went to receive prophecies and wisdom in ancient greece the friend asked the oracle if there was any man wiser than socrates the oracle replied that there was not when socrates was told about this he was initially confused because he knew many men who were more skilled than him so he went to talk with people who were supposed to be very knowledgeable he talked with politicians poets and craftsmen in the thriving city of athens of course all these men had certain skills that socrates did not have so at the surface they appeared to be wiser than him but on a deeper level all these men were very flawed their knowledge made them think they knew many things beyond their area of expertise when socrates asked them to explain or justify their words they were unable to and this led socrates to conclude that there was a certain wisdom in just being honest about what you do not know in his own words he says i am wiser than this man he thinks he knows something when he does not whereas when i do not know neither do i think i know this kind of honesty is partially what made him a controversial figure and he was ostracized by people who did not like this insight later during the trial he describes this struggle he says as a result of this investigation gentleman of the jury i acquired much unpopularity of a kind that is hard to deal with and is a heavy burden many slanders came from these people one of these slanders was the lie that he did not believe in any gods at all now this accusation was serious because the punishment was death his main accusers were melitus who spoke on behalf of poets anitas who spoke on behalf of craftsmen and politicians and lycon whose book on behalf of orators during the trial it became clear that people just wanted to get rid of him and they were not really interested in justifying why one clear example of this is seen at the trial when socrates gets one of his accusers to contradict himself melitus accuses socrates of not believing in any gods but later in the trial malitis gets trapped into admitting that socrates actually does believe in gods here socrates points out a flaw in the argument against him but unfortunately logic and reason were not enough to push back against the social mob that just hated him in the end he was still found guilty and ultimately condemned to death by drinking poison socrates's contributions to the culture are difficult to overestimate he is widely considered the father of western philosophy now today philosophy might not seem very important but remember that it was through reason that we established laws government and scientific thinking and these ideas have paved the way for the society that we have today ideas are greater than any one person because if used properly they benefit all of us for generations in his final hours socrates was with his friends and told them be of good cheer and say that you are only burying my body over two thousand years later we have the dutch philosopher spinoza born in 1632 he was part of a portuguese jewish community that migrated to amsterdam this was at a time when the jewish people were forced out of spain and portugal because of inquisitions that took place in those countries the religious forces in the dutch republic were more tolerant of the jews at the time and as a result a jewish community was able to thrive spinoza grew up in this community of amsterdam his early studies went well and he was recognized as a gifted student we know he studied philosophy hebrew the bible and even optics however things changed in his early twenties when he began to direct his intellectual curiosity towards some of the beliefs that were central to his religion it did not take long for conflict to arise with elders at the synagogue and in 1656 he was excommunicated from the jewish community and shunned by his family and friends so what happened well we don't know all the details about his excommunication but it was said that he believed and taught quote abominable things we can speculate about what these things were if we take a look at his later writings and publications that became controversial but also influential the theological political treatise published anonymously during his lifetime contain several controversial ideas for his time this has led some scholars to label him one of the founders of biblical criticism here are some examples of the ideas contained in his treatise now remember this was in the 1600s the bible is not the inerrant word of god but rather a book written by people for people and it is possible that it contains errors this has several consequences such as prophecy should not be seen as a source of unquestionable truth miracles reported in the bible can have a naturalistic explanation especially when we recognize the prophets were ignorant of science there is no man in the sky instead god and nature are one and the same the bible should be read and critiqued without trying to read into the text he also criticized his own jewish community saying that strict jewish law was responsible for isolating the jewish people from the rest of the world and that this was partially to blame for anti-semitism most importantly his ideas were meant to bring attention to the trend where politicians and leaders used religion as a power tool to achieve their own goals or the goals of their group spinoza hated this interference of religious forces and politics because there were so many examples that showed how it contributed to division and wars bringing attention to these problems got him into a lot of trouble within his own social circle as well as with powerful politicians and thinkers his excommunication banned other jews from reading his writings so people in his own community were not even allowed to hear what he had to say his friends and family shunned him his own sister tried to steal his inheritance and on one night a religious fanatic tried to kill him in the streets with a dagger some old pupils tried to change his mind such as this one who wrote in a letter saying how dare you set yourself up above all the patriarchs prophets and apostles leibniz a well-respected german mathematician and thinker at the time is said to have requested a friend to write a treatise to refute the heresies of spinoza's work there were some mixed reviews for example he was invited to become a professor at the university of heidelberg and was told that he would have extensive freedom but spinoza declined because the terms of the invitation also said that he should not use the freedom to disturb the established religion naturally this kind of outcasting led to a relatively secluded life on the outskirts of amsterdam where he worked mostly on his writings and polished lenses to make ends meet but his ideas on toleration freedom of speech and separation of church and state were certainly influential and his life marks one step in the journey towards the age of enlightenment moving on to france let's look at the author voltaire born in 1694 as francois marie ahue voltaire was his pen name he had an early passion for writing but his father did not approve this love of writing got him into some early trouble in his life on two occasions he was thrown into the bastille after insulting french aristocrats upon his release the second time he was exiled to england for three years during his stay voltaire was impressed with the english culture especially the political and scientific ideas of francis bacon john locke and isaac newton he documented his thoughts in a series of writings called letters on the english which was initially only meant for his friends to read in it he contrasted the political freedom in england with the political tyranny in france ultimately when the manuscript was published french officials ordered it to be publicly burned voltaire is probably best known for his work of fiction condeed it uses humor to make fun of an ideological trend popularized by political and religious leaders of the time for context the question why does evil exist if there is a god had been a long debated topic a famous response to this question was popularized by leibniz who argued that this world is the best of all possible worlds this is closely related to the idea that everything happens for a reason so if a major tragedy happens we shouldn't dwell on it too much because in the end it's all for the best it's all part of god's plan you can imagine how this idea was exploited by people in positions of power for example in 1755 there was a very deadly earthquake in lisbon religious leaders in france were quick to blame the earthquake on the sins of the people of lisbon saying it was a punishment from god voltaire was angered by this callous indifference and he wrote condeed as a way of ridiculing the ideology it tells the story of an optimistic young man named khandee and his professor slash mentor who preaches that everything is for the best khandee falls in love with a woman named kunagand but they get separated at the beginning of the story we then follow khandee through a series of comedically unfortunate events as he tries to reunite with the girl his village gets attacked by an army kunagan's family gets murdered the optimistic professor gets syphilis khandee is forced into the army escapes gets shipwrecked survives an earthquake among other things the book was successful but because it made fun of both religion and government it was attacked from several directions the grand council of geneva banned it and it was placed on the list of prohibited books by the catholic church yes the catholic church had a list of banned books and it was not formally abolished until 1966 now voltaire wasn't just known for his wit and comedic mockery which you could argue borders on a fallacy of irrelevance he produced many works of non-fiction that had practical consequences he helped popularize the physics of isaac newton and communicated the ideas in a way that was more accessible to the general population he was a historian but even some of these works were burned such as the dictionary philosophic and there is a well-known instance where voltaire got involved in a legal case where he successfully pushed back against the social mob it is the story of jean-claude who was wrongfully accused of murdering his son now this had a religious angle to it kalas was a protestant who lived in a predominantly catholic society and there was a rumor that he had killed his son to prevent him from converting to catholicism as a result kalas was captured and tortured in public when voltaire heard about this he led a campaign to set the record straight the campaign was successful and kalas was posthumously exonerated and his family received compensation from the king voltaire later wrote about this incident in his treatise on toleration where he argued against religious fanaticism in the end voltaire is remembered for pushing back against religious and political pressures with arguments reason and sometimes humor and again this should be contrasted with those who primarily decided to use book burning and social pressures to achieve a certain outcome they wanted finally we have the italian astronomer galileo born in 1564. he is known for getting into trouble with the catholic church about heliocentrism the idea the earth revolves around the sun now this idea existed before galileo it had been discussed by some greek philosophers and it had been published as a theory by copernicus many decades before galileo without causing a problem but around the time of galileo the social forces in europe were changing the catholic church which was a powerful force at the time was losing influence the reformation had just divided europe into catholics and protestants and the council of trent which was an attempt to push back against the reformation had advanced principles that enforced strict ways of thinking here you can see one of the conclusions of the council the council decrees that no one shall dare to interpret scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother church has held and does hold in the early 1600s the invention of a more powerful telescope allowed galileo to take a close look at the skies and this is when his problems with the church began his conflict with the church can be divided into two stages first he got a warning and the second time he was put on trial and condemned to house arrest the first stage began in the 1610s around the time he published two books starry messenger and letters on sunspots without going into much detail he made observations about jupiter and venus that contradicted older astronomical models it's important to note that at this point he did not prove heliocentrism he just presented observations and arguments that favored one view over another these works were not immediately controversial because his new discoveries were the main focus of attention and for this he was initially respected but controversy started when galileo began to openly discuss the possibility that the earth moved around the sun when engaging in debates he became dismissive at how quickly people appealed to scripture to settle the argument here is one person's description of how galileo tried to push back against the dominant social forces of his time he galileo discourses often amid 15 or 20 guests who make hot assaults upon him now in one house now in another but he is so well prepared that he laughs them off and although the novelty of his opinion leaves people unpersuaded he reveals the futility of most of the arguments with which his opponents tried to defeat him this behavior started to bother people in high places such as nicolo lorini who issued complaints to the inquisition in 1616 the councillors of the inquisition formally censured heliocentrism and declared it to be heretical at this point galileo was simply told not to defend heliocentrism fast forward many years later in 1623 and one of galileo's friends actually became the pope urban viii this changed the playing field and galileo used the opportunity to reignite the debate about heliocentrism the pope was initially more accepting of the idea as long as it was treated as just a hypothesis galileo eventually published a new book dialogue concerning the two chief world systems in it galileo defended heliocentrism a little bit too forcefully also around this time the pope was caught up in wars and threats to his power and was less interested in tolerating a theory that made the church look bad when the pope found out about the new book he was said to have exploded in anger printing of the book was suspended and in 1633 galileo was put on trial by the inquisition this time the inquisition gave more than a warning galileo was found quote vehemently suspected of heresy for having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to divine and holy scripture for this he was forced to recant his views and spent the rest of his life under house arrest it's important not to idealize these people they certainly have their own flaws emotions and egos but you don't need to agree with spinoza or voltaire about everything to respect their value for debate and their resilience when confronted with social forces so what can we learn from these men well this is about much more than free speech or the debate between science and religion in all these examples there was a central conflict between social forces and reason these forces can come from different sources the main ones we have seen include religion politics and the general will of the people it manifests as a kind of social expectation about what is acceptable or unacceptable and it carries great persuasion power regardless the problem with social forces is that they are inferior to reason and often irrelevant to the quality of an argument it's important to have a clear recognition of this inferiority otherwise relativism about truth and mob rule are allowed to have unrestrained influence and you might end up like socrates social forces are like the blind emotional reaction of the society or part of the society for example they can give you a sense of the outcome a group of people want but they do not help in justifying why the desired outcome makes any sense in the first place today's social forces are just as powerful and pervasive as they have been in the past in modern democratic societies they often stem from the general will of the people identity groups or political camps it can sometimes be difficult to identify these forces because they can take on subtle and innocent forms an example could be the social expectation that we should all stand together in solidarity behind some cause this is especially persuasive if the issue is framed in a way that makes it look like there is a great power struggle between different groups or that you will be on the wrong side of history if you do not yield to the sympathies of a certain group all this is not to say that social forces serve no purpose they are certainly useful when it comes to forming social bonds they are an artifact of human psychology and exist in all cultures of course this video focused on social forces gone wrong in western culture but i could also find examples in other cultures so the issue is not that these forces exist but that they often have power and influence in areas of debate where they do not belong instead reason is needed to answer the important questions that actually help us build a stable society these questions which are often the subject of debate are usually divided into two categories the first type of question is descriptive it asks what is an accurate description of the external world we all share together so if the question is about what is true in the physical world say for example what is the average human height or the question do vaccines prevent disease then in these cases the arguments will involve statistics evidence and facts about the world some of these questions can be very difficult to answer and although we may never have a perfect understanding of the world it should be made very clear that there are certain descriptions of the external world that are more accurate than others and this is true not for any dogmatic reason but simply because what people feel about the external world cannot change what is already true about it the second type of question is prescriptive it asks what is the best way to live together in this world so if the question is about the best political ideologies principles values laws or moral judgments then the arguments will involve discussions about what it means to be just again this can be a very difficult question to answer but we should recognize that there must be a hierarchy of values where certain values are superior to others this way we have a very clear understanding of what happens when there is a conflict between different values or beliefs now in the real world these kinds of discussions get complicated quickly so i'll leave more detail for another video alright that's all thank you very much for watching please like comment and subscribe
2022-02-16 19:15
