Posts
Observing the points of view of people around me, I have come to realize the spectrum of interpretations drawn from information depicted by the media. The two extremities of opinion differ greatly. On one side, the belief stands that powerful interest groups capitalize through targeting individuals' core ideals (whether they be religious, cultural or social) giving way to popular propaganda, while on the other hand, putting complete trust in all factitious information presented by the media and analyzing current issues in light of national and economic interests.
The situation is construed in different ways by different people. To most, it would be unethical to entirely obstruct either thoughts and the concept that every individual has a right to hold an opinion permits this freedom of thought. Still, some find reason to rule out arguments which they believe are baseless or irrational and hence, suppress any opposing ideas. The question now becomes, can masses accommodate both beliefs simultaneously or does an amalgamation of ideas propose a more neutral, while at the same time, peaceful solution to the co-existence of differing thoughts?
I see the solution is an entirely different principle - Economics. Just as neither planned nor free economy can exist alone (since a practically applicable economic model requires at least some degree of mixed economic nature), the belief regarding buying into propaganda or fact lies in a similar premises. Any extremity of thought in this matter gives way to rule out a rationally arguable opinion. Additionally, following Aristotle's teaching of "Mean between Extremes," we can find reason in philosophy as well to implement this belief.
In conclusion, entirely relying on either extremes of belief could pose negative effects on judgment. A commonality of belief not only helps cater varying thoughts regarding news and current affairs, but also provide different options to tackling hardships and overcoming hurdles humanity faces in these times.
No comments:
Post a Comment