Explores and develops a framework for the ethical practice of name authority control, through theoretical and practice-based essays, stories, content analyses, and other methods
We have freedom of speech but we’re afraid to speak. Our lives have become subjected to PC tyranny—a constant fear of “offending” someone. We think that we are independent and that it is the other guy who is influenced, brainwashed, duped, persuaded. We feel like we think for ourselves. How can we “feel” otherwise? There’s no way to know because countless influences and interactions have molded us. We’re members of various groups—circles of friends, family, professional groups, hobby group, and workplace groups. Groups have a way of developing a view that it imposes with a kind of group-think. We want to belong, to be liked and included so go along and get along. We don’t make waves by questioning. If we have a different view, we keep it to ourselves. Why rock the boat? Thinking for yourself is not so easy. When encountering an argument to a long held opinion or a wild idea, we use critical thinking to evaluate it, as we were taught to do in school. The problem is that critical thinking is critical. It focuses our thinking on the negative—what doesn’t work, what’s wrong with the idea—and encourages my-side thinking where we evaluate evidence in a way that favors our beliefs and entraps us into closed-mindedness. Thinking for yourself requires open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is being receptive and, when the issue is important, calls for actively searching for evidence against your beliefs. Thinking is not driven by answers but by questions. Every intellectual field is born out of a cluster of questions to which answers are needed. Had no questions been asked by those who laid the foundation for a field — for example, Physics or Biology — the field would never have been developed. We define tasks, express problems and delineate issues with questions. Answers signal an end point and stop thought, except when an answer generates a further question. Timothy Leary said, ”to think for yourself you must question authority”. To think, you must question. To think through or rethink anything, one must ask questions that stimulate thought. The quality of your questions determines the quality of your thinking. Thinking begins within some content when questions are generated. No questions equals no understanding. To engage in thinking through your content you must stimulate your thinking with questions that lead to further questions. Our own opinions is one authority we should frequently question. Times change. We change. Perspectives and values change. Book explores how opinions and values we held in the past need periodic evaluation and challenge. Independent thinkers evolve and need to shed the shackles of old views and opinions. Ridicule is the strongest weapon for pressing us to conform. It is a kind of bait that if you go for it will entrap you in an argument you can’t win and leave you looking ridiculous and deflated. Question Authority; Think for Yourself offers techniques, with examples, of how to deflect attacks, side-tracks, and put-downs. If you’ve bitten your tongue and later wished you’d spoken up and not been cowed into silence by a mocking co-worker when you revealed a “politically incorrect” viewpoint, you’ll find much of interest in Question Authority; Think for Yourself .
A middle-aged woman enters into a negotiation with her childhood best friend and confronts the damage done by their eighth grade teacher, who molested them both.
As a church leader, it’s easy to make the wrong move and find yourself in a bad position. “What to teach; How to teach; What to do,” were the three questions Wesley employed at his first conferences. In sixty previous books Will Willimon has worked the first two. This book is of the “What to do?” genre. Many believe the long decline of The United Methodist Church is a crisis of effective leadership. Willimon takes this problem on. As an improbable bishop, for the last eight years he has laid hands on heads, made ordinands promise to go where he sends them, overseen their ministries, and acted as if this were normal. Here is his account of what he has learned and – more important – what The United Methodist Church must do to have a future as a viable movement of the Holy Spirit.
The West is currently witnessing the slow destruction of the classical liberal tradition. The casualties are reason, the willingness to question political or religious authority, and the validity of natural science. Replacing these are a crippling intellectual relativism, political apathy, and a grave misunderstanding of natural science and its concomitant ethic. In this work, Diana M. Judd gets to the root of the matter by directly addressing the following questions: What is modern natural science? What effect did it have on how we think about politics? What are the dangers surrounding the marginalization of natural science and the liberal intellectual and political tradition? This is a work of political theory. It seeks to engage the political by addressing the question first posed by the ancient Greeks: How ought we to live? If we have indeed entered the age of endarkenment where religious dogma, intellectual apathy, and unquestioned authority increasingly hold sway, there is a need now, more than ever, to explore the meaning and significance of the origins of the modern political and scientific traditions Americans take for granted. It is from these traditions that Americans received the ideas of legitimate political resistance, reason, individual rights, religious freedom, and natural science. The importance of modern natural science and its relationship to these tenets of classical liberalism is the central concern of this book. Claims that science is dogmatic and ideological, and that the tenets of liberalism divide individuals, have become commonplace. It is Judd's intention to show how these claims err, by exploring what natural science is and how it evolved. This ethic centers on the radical idea that authority must be questioned. We ignore this to our peril. If individuals do not question what leaders say, we abdicate the rights and responsibility of self-rule and individual freedom.
Not confessional or autobiographical, not openly political or gender-conscious: all that Marianne Moore's poetry is not has masked what it actually is. Cristanne Miller's aim is to lift this mask and reveal the radically oppositional, aesthetic, and political nature of the poet's work. A new Moore emerges from Miller's persuasive book--one whose political engagement and artistic experiments, though not cut to the fashion of her time, point the way to an ambitious new poetic. Miller locates Moore within the historical, literary, and family environments that shaped her life and work, particularly her sense and deployment of poetic authority. She shows how feminist notions of gender prevalent during Moore's youth are reflected in her early poetry, and tracks a shift in later poems when Moore becomes more openly didactic, more personal, and more willing to experiment with language typically regarded as feminine. Distinguishing the lack of explicit focus on gender from a lack of gender-consciousness, Miller identifies Moore as distinctly feminist in her own conception of her work, and as significantly expanding the possibilities for indirect political discourse in the lyric poem. Miller's readings also reveal Moore's frequent and pointed critiques of culturally determined power relationships, those involving race and nationality as well as gender. Making new use of unpublished correspondence and employing close interpretive readings of important poems, Miller revises and expands our understanding of Marianne Moore. And her work links Moore--in her radically innovative reactions to dominant constructions of authority--with a surprisingly wide range of late twentieth-century women poets.
From citizens paying taxes to employees following their bosses' orders and kids obeying their parents, we take it for granted that a whole range of authorities have the power to impose duties on others. However, although authority is often accepted in practice, it looks philosophically problematic if we conceive persons as free and equals. In this short and accessible book, Fabian Wendt examines the basis of authority, discussing five prominent theories that try to explain how claims to authority can be vindicated. Focusing in particular on the issue of how states can rightfully claim authority, he rigorously analyses the theories’ arguments and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. He also debates anarchism as an alternative that should be taken seriously if no theory ultimately succeeds in explaining state authority. This clear and engaging book will be essential reading for anyone grappling with the most fundamental questions of authority and obligation in political theory and political philosophy.
What gives some people the right to issue commands to everyone else and force everyone else to obey them? And why should people obey the commands of those with political power? These two key questions are the heart of the issue of political authority, and, in this volume, two philosophers debate the answers. Michael Huemer argues that political authority is an illusion and that no one is entitled to rule over anyone. He discusses and rebuts the major theories supporting political authority’s rightfulness: implicit social contract theory, hypothetical contract theories, democratic theories of authority, and utilitarian theories. Daniel Layman argues that democratic governments have authority because they are needed to protect our rights and because they are accountable to the people. Each author writes two replies directly addressing the arguments and ideas of the other. Key Features Covers a key foundational problem of political philosophy: the authority of government. Debate format ensures a full hearing of both sides. A Glossary includes key concepts in political philosophy related to the issue of authority. Annotated Further Reading sections point students to additional resources. Clear, concrete examples and arguments help students clearly see both sides of the argument. A Foreword by Matt Zwolinski describes a broader context for political authority and then traces the key points and turns in the authors’ debate.
"Saletan's Bearing Right is as subtle and intelligent a study of abortion politics as has ever been written. You may not agree with the conclusions, but no one concerned about this issue can afford to miss this brilliant analysis."—Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary "Saletan destroys the myth that there's nothing new to say about America's abortion debate. His argument that the pro-choice movement has preserved abortion rights by co-opting conservative rhetoric will make activists on both sides of the debate uncomfortable, which is an achievement in and of itself. There's no smarter political commentator in Washington today."—Peter Beinart, editor, The New Republic "Will Saletan is one of America's shrewdest political writers. He brings clarity and intelligence to the roiling abortion debate, in a challenging and illuminating work of contemporary history. If you care about the issue of abortion, you must read this book."—Rich Lowry, editor, National Review "A unique assessment of recent abortion politics. Saletan uncovers political and institutional strategies with lucidity and verve. This book makes a raft of challenging arguments--a must-read, especially now."—Rickie Solinger, author of Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the U.S. "Will Saletan is a great political journalist with a strong moral sense. He also has an unusually shrewd understanding of what happens when ethics and values meet elections and the legislative process. So partisans on every side of the abortion debate--Saletan shows convincingly there are more than two--will be challenged by his book, at times upset, and always enlightened. Based on exceptional reporting and fiercely independent analysis, Bearing Right is eloquent, important, and surprising." --E.J. Dionne, Jr., syndicated columnist and author of Why Americans Hate Politics "A unique assessment of recent abortion politics. Saletan uncovers political and institutional strategies with lucidity and verve. This book makes a raft of challenging arguments—a must-read, especially now."—Rickie Solinger, author of Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the U.S.