Definitions.

The TOK essay, Philosophy classes and even recent conversations with friends made me wonder - why do we have this strong need to DEFINE everything?

In science classes it is more understandable, as we are presented with new words and concepts that we might have never heard of before. We need clear definitions in order to understand the bigger concept.

But why is it so necessary to define wide concepts that are generally familiar to all of us, such as LOVE, TRUTH and FREEDOM? It’s becoming clear to me that however hard we try to stick to one ‘dry’ definition, we will end up having many different perspectives of the same concept. Many of these perspectives will contrast each other, causing an even bigger confusion with our understanding of that concept than we had o begin with.

I do understand the need to discuss those ideas and to explore them to depth. It is indeed fascinating to discover different perceptions of something you thought was so clear and simple. But can’t we keep it in the level of discussing and discovering, rather than defining?

I suppose that definitions make it easier for people to organize their knowledge, or express it in a clear way which is understandable to all. However, I feel that defining limits in a way our ‘open’ thinking and structure it unnecessarily. Can’t we just love, or be free, or look for the truth without being precisely sure of the definitions of those ideas?

expressing opinions and other thoughts.

A few days ago I got into a rather inconvenient situation which made me think about our freedom of opinion and of expression, and how it affects others.

I was having dinner with my Israelis co-years and first years, and somehow a conversation about army stuff started (an unsurprising case, I must say, when at least one Israeli is around). While most of them were talking about what jobs they would like to do in the army, and how smart you need to be to do those, I started talking to one of them about how I am planning to get out of the army. Refusing to serve in the army is a decision I took quite a long time ago, and it has an ideological background behind it, but I will keep that discussion for another post perhaps. One of my co-years then stopped the conversation and said that although he respects my decision, he is uncomfortable or even offended of me ‘making fun’ out of the whole ‘not-going-to-the-army’ subject. I admit that lately I tend to talk in a very light way about the subject, as I find it very hard to get into a serious, deep conversation about this controversial issue every time it comes up (and believe me, it comes up a lot!). Thus I apologized immediately and the discussion ended.

After thinking about it more closely, however, I’m not quite sure my respond was the right one. I am fully proud of my decision and I see no reason to hide it or present it in my own way (even if it is light and funny sometimes). The fact that I am presenting a minority opinion (one that is actually growing bigger and bigger in Israel those days), and he is just going to do what everyone does, gives the legitimacy to my co-year to limit my expression of that opinion, a legitimacy that I would like to fight against. I’m quite sure that my co years could speak as freely as they like to about their future job in the army, however offending I might feel it is (I’m talking about an Israeli forum of people, as when it comes to internationals, the point of view may be completely different). As a big part of our Israeli culture today is based on army experiences (‘who served with who?’ ‘What job did you do’? ‘What war did you fight in’? ‘Oh cool me too!’….), I believe that expressing contrasting opinions is extremely important.

This is only one example. The same, I assume, can occur in many different forums and regarding many different subjects. My question is - how far can we go expressing our own opinions, and how to decide when it might hurt others? Especially when discussing political or social issues, should the minority mind all the time the fact that they are presenting an opinion that is mostly unacceptable, and though it might ‘hurt’ others? And I put the word ‘hurt’ in quotation marks because I suspect that my co-year got insulted only because he’s not completely sure his ‘normal’ decision to do what most of the 18-years-old in our country do is the right, moral, one. His strongest defense is the one of the majority doing the same as him, and the fact that it’s a law. My opinion may challenge this decision and question its morality.

I think that expression of different opinions is extremely important, to challenge the common opinions in different issues. I believe that free discussions are the way to achieve stronger and truer opinions. Of course there is still a line after which expression of your own opinions can truly hurt others, a line that we should be careful not to cross. In this case, however, I don’t feel I’ve crossed that line, and I’m planning to keep on expressing my opinion freely, for now.