If you can tell by my title, I know that it is a sort of stereotypical practice of those taken by philosophy to start out by defining some basics. So I will start with the obvious:
What is listening, really?
During my undergrad, I had the pleasure of studying under who is probably my favorite professor ever now. Having no consent to identity, suffice it to say he was a medieval literature teacher, one who's changed my life. Often during his lessons, he found it necessary to go over the etymology of certain words. One of these, as you might guess was "listen." The word, he said, originated from the infinitive "to list." This is the action a sailing ship performs when blown sideways in the breeze. The ship lists, or, tilts sideways in the flow of the wind. My professor continued to explain the parallel, that when you listen to someone, you typically turn or tilt your head to hear their words. In effect, you are submitting yourself to be open to an outside influence.
This very action is the key to communication. Anyone can move a rock, splash in a river, start a fire, even kill a person. But to communicate with another person? This, in the end, requires consent. This, in the end, requires some form of listening, to at least submit to the sound of another's voice. For communication to occur, language must be actualized, received, and then understood, even if it is not agreed with.
The transmission of ideas in communication was a common theme in my professor's lessons. As any English professor worth their salt, he likened it to sexual intercourse, and claimed the poets of old thought the same. Ideas are emitted to the mind of another but, to germinate into yet more ideas, they must survive and thrive in the psychological environment of the mind and join with others.
This communication, as I see it in this current moment, can serve two inclusive ultimate purposes: definition and inspiration. Ideas that are well-received are received primarily as inspiration; they generate more ideas and push the two communicators together more tightly. By contrast, ill-received ideas primarily function for definition; the receiver is now more aware that their conversation partner has a shape, if you will, that they are not compatible with. Hence, they drift farther apart. This is most likely on a spectrum of some sort, but I think this formula more or less decides the very basis upon which we relate to each other as human beings.
In my previous post, I said that I don't think humans listen enough. For the purposes of my discussions on my blog, I would say that I would like to define "listening" as the ability to be open to this transaction, at any time, so as to try to glean as much inspiring communication as possible. This is not to say that we should be swayed by every idea that crosses our path, but it is to say that we should welcome ideas for objective criticism instead of outright oblivion, reevaluating with any new form of information.
I feel the need to provide some example here. Racism is a putrid idea. It is an obnoxiously unsupported, destructive idea that is the unfortunate reason that many are discriminated against for no discernible reason. By saying this, you may think that I am dead set in my ways, and perhaps rightly so. In a sense, I am, as there is no evidence to ever point to our morality as human beings as being flawed in that it treats all humans equally.
However, despite my beliefs that all are created, and remain, equal, I would be open to hearing arguments for racism. Now I do not, in any corner of this universe, believe, at this time, that there is any scientific evidence or otherwise persuasive argument that should ever sway my beliefs on the subject, but I should be open to listen for multiple reasons. One, there may, in the most wild and nasty dreams we could ever conceive, eventually be a genuine argument to point to racism as a normative moral choice. Two, since I don't anticipate this being the case ever, I would like to understand the mind of someone who causes such disruption, so that I can perhaps help them see truth and, almost more importantly, recognize that they are still humans worthy of respect. In this way, I listen so that I can try to see the humanity that must still exist somewhere inside them and give them the same respect that my fundamental morality subscribes to: the equality of all.
On a personal note, I believe this because I am tired of the pointless aggression that either side of this debate gives to the other every single day across my country, and any other dragged down by it. I believe it is a simple fact that no progress will ever be achieved until we can come together in a civil discussion and figure things out. No one can be easily convinced of the humanity in another when that other shows them nothing but bitterness and hatred. The world is cruel enough without assigning our fellow humans an "it" status rather than the same terms we would use with our own family and friends.
At the same time, if discussion with those of a racist bent and others like them seems to be totally futile, there is no need to add fuel to a fire unless in mortal danger. It may be difficult, but we must always remember that people we deem hopeless are still people, but they simply refuse to listen. It is sad that they shut their ears to reason and camaraderie, but our answer should never be hostility.
Finally, I hope that I am on the right track with this line of thought. The listener always opens doors and never closes them. The listener seeks wisdom and understanding through as objective a lens as possible, and continues to show compassion for those in dissent. The listener is dedicated to a life of unity, peace, and communal evolution. No human need be an enemy, unless they make it their choice. Consider the sailing ship, which rocks gently with each ocean breeze driving it forward to new things.
I love you all.
No comments:
Post a Comment