In sum, in the art of painting one can observe a shift from styles and themes reflecting broad
societal impulses to a more recent concern for expressing personal impulses and creative
urges. In contrast, the more public art form of architecture has always mirrored society’s ideas
and impulses, and probably always will--because architecture is so much more public than the
art of painting.
Issue 54
"The absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare."
I strongly agree with the contention that absence of choice is a rare circumstance, primarily
because this contention accords with common sense and our everyday experience as human
beings. Besides, the reverse claim that we do not have free choice--serves to undermine the
notions of moral accountability and human equality, which are critical to the survival of any
democratic society.
Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day----on a
continual basis. Common sense dictates that humans have free will, and therefore the true
absence of choice is very rare. The only possible exceptions would involve extreme and rare
circumstances such as solitary imprisonment or a severe mental or physical deftciency--any of
which might potentially strip a person of his or her ability to make conscious choices. Yet even
under these circumstances, a person still retains choices about voluntary bodily functions and
movement. Thus the complete absence of choice would seem to be possible only in a
comatose state or in death.
People often claim that life’s circumstances leave them with "no choice." One might feel
trapped in a job or a marriage. Under financial duress a person might claim that he or she has
"no choice" but to declare bankruptcy, take a demeaning job, or even lie or steal to obtain
money. The fundamental problem with these sorts of claims is that the claimants are only
considering those choices that are not viable or attractive. That is, people in situations such as
these have an infinite number of choices; it’s just that many of the choices are unappealing,
even self-defeating. For example, almost every person who claims to be trapped in a job is
simply choosing to retain a certain measure of financial security. The choice to forego this
security is always available, although it might carry unpleasant consequences.
61
Besides, the contention that we are almost invariably free to choose is far more appealing
from a socio-political standpoint than the opposite claim. A complete lack of choice implies that
every person’s fate is determined, and that we all lack free will. According to the philosophical
school of "strict determinism," every event, induding human actions and choices, that occurs is
physically necessary given the laws of nature and events that preceded that event or choice.
In other words, the "choices" that seem part of the essence of our being are actually beyond
our control. Recent advances in molecular biology and genetics lend some credence to the
determinists’ position that as physical beings our actions are determined by physical forces
beyond our control. New research suggests that these physical forces include our own
individual genetic makeup.
However, the logical result of strict determinism and of the new "scientific determinism" is
that we are not morally accountable for our actions and choices, even those that harm other
individuals or society. Moreover, throughout history monarchs and dictators have embraced
determinism, at least ostensibly, to bolster their claim that certain individuals are preordained
to assume positions of authority or to rise to the top levels of the socioeconomic infrastructure.Finally, the notion of scientific determinism opens the door for genetic engineering, which
poses a potential threat to equality in socioeconomic opportunity, and could lead to the
development of a so-caUed "master race." Admittedly, these disturbing implications neither
prove nor disprove the determinists’ claims. Nevertheless, assuming that neither free will nor
determinism has been proven to be the correct position, the former is to be preferred by any
humanist and in any democratic society.
In sum, despite the fact that we all experience occasional feelings of being trapped and
having no choice, the statement is fundamentally correct. I would concede that science might
eventually disprove the very notion of free will. However, until that time I’ll trust my strong
intuition that free will is an essential part of our being as humans and, accordingly, that humans
are responsible for their own choices and actions.
Issue 55
"Only through mistakes can there be discovery or progress."
The speaker contends that discovery and progress are made only through mistakes. I
strongly agree with this contention, for two reasons. First, it accords with our personal
experiences. Secondly, history informs us that on a societal level trial-and-error provides the
very foundation for discovery and true progress, in all realms of human endeavor.
To begin with, the contention accords with our everyday experience as humans from early
childhood through adulthood. As infants we learn how to walk by falling down again and again.
As adolescents we discover our social niche, and develop self-confidence and assertiveness,
only by way of the sorts of awkward social encounters that are part-and-parcel of adolescence.
Through failed relationships not only do we discover who we are and are not compatible with,
we also discover ourselves in the process. And, most of us find the career path that suits us
only through trying jobs that don’t.
This same principle also applies on a societal level. Consider, for example, how we progress
in our scientific knowledge. Our scientific method is essentially a call for progress through
trial-and-error. Any new theory must be tested by empirical observation, and must withstand
62
rigorous scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the history of theoretical science is essentially a history
of trial-and-error. One modern example involves two contrary theories of physics: wave theory
and quantum theory. During the last quarter-century scientists have been struggling to
disprove one or the other--or to reconcile them. As it turns out, a new so-called "string" theory
shows that the quantum and wave theories are mistakes in the sense that each one is
inadequate to explain the behavior of all matter; yet both so-called "mistakes" were necessary
for physics to advance, or progress, to this newer theory.
The value of trial-and-error is not limited to the sciences. In government and politics,
progress usually comes about through dissension and challenge--that is, when people point
out the mistakes of those in power. In fact, without our challenging the mistaken notions of
established institutions, political oppression and tyranny would go unchecked. Similarly, in the
fields of civil and criminal law, jurists and legislators who uphold and defend legal precedent
must face continual opposition from those who question the fairness and relevance of current
laws. This ongoing challenge is critical to the vitality and relevance of our system of laws.
In sum, the speaker correctly asserts that it is through mistakes that discovery and true
progress are made. Indeed, our personal growth as individuals, as well as advances in science,
government, and law, depends on making mistakes.
Issue 56
"What society has thought to be its greatest social, political, and individual achievements have
often resulted in the greatest discontent."
I strongly agree that great achievements often lead to great discontent. In fact, I would
assert more specifically that great individual achievements can cause discontent for the
individual achiever or for the society impacted by the achievement, or both. Neverthe- less, it is
important to acknowledge that whether a great achievement causes great dis- content can
depend on one’s personal perspective, as well as the perspective of time.With respect to individual achievements, great achievers are by nature ambitious people
and therefore tend to be dissatisfied and discontent with their accomplishments—no matter
how great. Great athletes are compelled to try to better their record-breaking per- formances;
great artists and musicians typically daim that their greatest work will be their next one--a sign
of personal discontent. And many child prot6g6s, especially those who achieve some measure
of fame early in life, later suffer psychological discontent for having "peaked" so early. Perhaps
the paradigmatic modern example of a great achiever’s discontent was Einstein, whose
theoretical breakthroughs in physics only raised new theoretical conundrums which Einstein
himself recognized and spent the last twenty years of his life struggling unsuccessfully to
solve.Individual achievements can often result in discontent on a societal level. The great
achievement of the individual scientists responsible for the success of the Manhattan Project
resulted in worldwide anxiety over the threat of nuclear annihilation--a form of discontent with
which the world’s denizens will forever be forced to cope. Even individual achievements that at
first glance would appear to have benefited society turn out to be causes of great discontent.Consider the invention of the automobile, along with the innovations in manufacturing
processes and materials that made mass production possible. As a result we have become a
63
society enslaved to our cars, relying on them as crutches not only for transportation but also
for affording us a false sense of socioeconomic status. Moreover, the development of
assembly-line manufacturing has served to alienate workers from their work, which many
psychologists agree causes a great deal of personal discontent.
Turning from individual achievements to societal, induding political, achievements, the
extent to which great achievements have caused great discontent often depends on one’s
perspective. Consider, for example, America’s spirit of Manifest Destiny during the 19th
Century, or British Imperialism over the span of several centuries. From the perspective of an
Imperialist, conquering other lands and peoples might be viewed as an unqualified success.
However, from the viewpoint of the indigenous peoples who suffer at the hands of Imperialists,
these so-called "achievements" are the source of widespread oppression and misery, and in
turn discontent, to which any observant Native American or South African native could attest.
The extent to which great socio-political achievements have caused great discontent also
depends on the perspective of time. For example, F.D.R.’s New Deal was and still is
considered by many to be one of the greatest social achievements of the 20th Century.
However, we are just now beginning to realize that the social-security system that was an
integral part of F.D.R.’s social program will soon result in great discontent among those
workers currently paying into the system but unlikely to see any benefits after they retire.
To sum up, I agree that great achievements, both individual and socio-political, often result
in great discontent. Moreover, great individual achievements can result in discontent for both
the individual achiever and the society impacted by the achievement. Nevertheless, in
measuring the extent of discontent, we must account for varying personal and political
perspectives as well as different time perspectives.
Issue 57
"Contemporary art (painting, music, literature, etc.) is absent from the lives of most people,
since it is primarily created only for the enjoyment of other artists. Art should instead be
created purely for popular understanding and appreciation."
This statement asserts that art, not the art critic, provides something of lasting value to
society. I strongly agree with the statement. Although the critic can help us understand and
appreciate art, more often than not, critique is either counterproductive to achieving the
objective of art or altogether irrelevant to that objective.