Words Build Bridges into Unexplored Regions

A famous statesmen once said “Words build bridges into unexplored regions”. We all know this to instinctively be true. Who has not experienced firsthand the power words can have? It is perhaps the most powerful force human beings possess. The most important battles are not fought with weapons but with words and ideas. For any conflict to manifest itself, any great undertaking to be done for good or bad, any issue of human existence to be contended, words and ideas are needed as the catalyst. What we esteem most, what we pursue in life, what we take action on are all subject to our thoughts and beliefs of mind, so often shaped by the words and ideas of others. In that way it could be said that the battles of tomorrow are already being fought today. The ideas and thoughts that will be used as the roots as well as the tools in the next important issue is already being organized into camps of opinion or thought before its conscious realization.

As human beings it is our duty to take part in the battle of ideas and formulate our own opinions on these matters. Even more importantly it is the obligation and responsibility of every democratic citizen to actively take part in honest debate and discourse. If our minds are closed and our ears shut off to the ideas of others we punish ourselves by not learning more and not reaching closer to the Truth by testing our own ideas and thoughts. At the same time if we accept those philosophies from others without critical scrutiny we similarly punish ourselves. All ideas need to truly be tested and honestly critically analyzed before we esteem it validation. A validation that can be rewritten in a short period of time once new information or knowledge is acquired. Ultimately we must be open and willing to listen and honestly engage with the ideas and words of others. In this way dialogue and the exchange of thoughts is perhaps the most important process human beings have ever engaged in. Yelling past one another is not a debate. Ignoring the other party’s thoughts, ideas and words is not honest discourse. Empty attacks aimed at ones character or nature does not present itself to learning the truth but in my view the destruction of it. I don’t think I am alone in my belief that human beings use their reason to change their mind, their views and ultimately their world. Through our thoughts and words we can change human’s minds in ways no show of force ever could.

As stated earlier “Words build bridges into unexplored regions”. With such a liberal idea one might think the author of the previous quote may have been Martin Luther King Jr. or perhaps Mahatma Ghandi. Interestingly it is most often attributed to perhaps the most villainous human being of the 20th century and author of the holocaust. In this we can see the power of words even questionably authored words can have. Is this statement not true or rendered false by its author? Would it be any more or less true if it was said by Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi? I would argue it is clear despots can speak liberal thoughts and bring truth to words as much as fools and great men. For this reason we must be ever more vigilant not of what we think but how we think. Did Hitler not use the power of words to do many things previously not done before whether it be for good or for evil? More importantly can I myself not agree with such a sentiment without compromising a form of my character?

With this in mind Individuals should be free to associate and disassociate with the ideas of an individual or group as they please without needing to necessarily belong to that group. One can spend hours studying Erwin Rommel’s Infantry Attacks or Mao Zedong’s On Guerrilla Warfare, learn a great deal, employ those very strategies and tactics them self and still not be a Nazi or a Communist. Individuals with half a mind to think for themselves should in similar stride do the same. Formulate their understanding of the world from all facets. To disassociate completely to not even engage with every aspect of a groups ideas or a certain peoples understanding of reality because some aspects are upsetting or disturbing exemplifies neglect. That is to say we can read Mien Kampf or watch Francisco Franco’s Raza and learn a great deal without being in any way its adherent. How can one claim to have a true understanding of the Second World War without this type of study? How one can even be sure the work is what it is said to be by others? Could a study of these materials with an honest and open mind help create a better understanding of how to avoid similar problems in the future? Is it a surprise at all people want to formulate their own opinions on the matter?

Yet this is exactly what often occurs on University Campuses throughout the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Where speakers are either disinvited, shouted out, protested over or in some other way no plat formed. Their views are usually considered racists or fascists but above all offensive. But how can one even know that a speaker is detestable and ignorantly wrong without first hearing their point of view? Even if they are all of these things what could possibly make one so adamantly convinced that no students or faculty could learn anything from it? At the very least it shows you the other side of the argument that needs to be analyzed assessed, criticized and used to strengthen one’s own arguments. In the same way you can read someone’s work and take what you want from it while not being an adherent, you can just as easily listen to any speaker and do the same. How can the places considered to be the locations of the highest forms of education (in these countries and possibly the world) misunderstand such a verifiable and historically tested principle of not just democratic thinking but academic integrity and Truth seeking? A point is not disproven by levels of offence, moral high standing or attacks on the other side’s character, only by verifiable counterarguments that dismantle the ideas validity.

How do you know the Earth is round? How do you know the Moon revolves around the Earth? How do you know the Earth revolves at all? How do you know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old? If you knew exactly the understanding and direct methodologies on how you knew these things to be true would you not be a great deal more intelligent? Even if they have all been longs standing to be proven true? Ultimately you don’t win an argument by silencing a point of view. You don’t kill an idea simply by making the passing of it illegal or banned as the possession of it is impossible to be known. In the end, silence doesn’t build bridges into unexplored regions it breaks them.