Invitación a participar en la XXIII.
Olimpiada Internacional de Filosofía [IPO 2015]
(Tartu -Estonia)
Hemos recibido este correo desde la Delegación Nacional que organiza la olimpiada filosófica:
Hola a tod@s!
Comenzamos el mes de Abril con una muy agradable noticia: La Delegación Nacional ya está preparando el próximo encuentro de mediados de Mayo (Del 14 al 18 de Mayo de 2015) en Tartu y parte fundamental de dicha preparación es la selección de los estudiantes que conformarán la parte protagonista y principal del equipo.
Hace apenas unos días tuvimos ya la ocasión de notificárselo a ellos a título personal, y ahora nos complace hacerlo público:
-Elisa Izquierdo Rollán
(De 2° de Bachillerato – IES García Bernalt -Salamanca)
-Álvaro Serrano Holgado
(De 2° de Bachillerato – IES Mateo Hernández – Salamanca)
Ambos representando un año más a Castilla y León, son los elegidos y ya se encuentran preparando maletas y quizás consultando hasta el clima estonio…
Felicidades una vez más desde esta organización a los dos, y, por supuesto, no queremos dejar de mencionar a todos los que habéis querido participar en esta edición y nos habéis remitido trabajos de tanto mérito.
ELISA, muy amablemente, nos ha dejado el trabajo que presentó:
DISAGREEMENTS
“Honest differences are often a healthy
sign of progress.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
1. The concept of the term
Disagreement is what we call to the fact that two or
more people may think differently or hold opposite views. That is the same as a
lack of agreement between subjects, ideas or opinions. And put it simply, it is
an expression of dissent with regards to other people's arguments.
2. The fruit of human reasoning
The human being, who has the capability to reason,
doubts others as well as her or himself. Because of that, humans can build up
arguments and utter assertions about others’ behaviour and their own from what they
already know, according to their own convictions, even if these may go against
those most commonly held. Discord arises
from different, and differing, ways of thinking, and these are the result of a
previous reasoning, which in its turn leads to a personal assessment of
reality.
Is it necessary to disagree? The dissent over any fact
generates a conflict, and this presupposes that there are two or more opposed
situations which cannot be reconciled at the same time, hence the confronted
parties attempt to prevail over one another. Therefore a conflict is an
unresolved situation in which no consensus has been reached.
From a
social point of view, many theories acknowledge the need to establish an order
and a collective agreement and they offer a wide range of conclusions about the
beginning and the solution of conflicts. Within the social context,
disagreement can be understood from several perspectives. Perhaps the ones that
can be seen most clearly are morality or justice, whereby disagreement may be
generally perceived as a negative fact that can generate much social conflict.
However, this is not the only conception of dissent, since a positive side can also
be perceived if we consider dissent as a way of fostering community change,
both at a small and at a large scale, or within the world of politics.
Following this approach, disagreement would be necessary since it can cause a
reassessment of things that have been previously established, and therefore, it
may bring about a possible adjustment or rectification of mistakes. If this
kind of discordances is favourably solved, in the long run they contribute to
progress within collective mind-sets and orientations. If this is not the case,
and when they are exclusively focused on personal interests, they can generate
constant confrontations that often end up breaking a peaceful coexistence. Bearing
these two ways of analysing disagreement in mind, it can be stated that dissent
is not only essential to achieve objectives and to look for new solutions, even
if this may imply assuming risks, but it is also, and above all, an unavoidable
human fact. We find evidence of this in all areas of life throughout history in
every culture on earth.
3. Disagreement and public order
If our point of departure is the fact that dissent
means an opposition to the norm, it can also be said that it causes a breakdown
of the established order, that is, a change or an alteration in the social
sphere. This is a problem that has been dealt with in different theories about
the integration of individual and collective thoughts in society. Here we find
two opposite ideas of it:
On the
one hand, there is a balanced standpoint that regards society as a system whose
stability is accomplished by the agreement of individuals. In this view stands
out Jean Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher who defends the removal of individual
interests by means of the citizen submission to the general will. On the other
hand, society can be perceived as subjected to constant discord, and therefore integration
can only be feasible under coercion. This conception reflects that disagreement
is permanent and it contributes to social change. For that reason, elements of coercion
become necessary to restore social order. It is the philosopher Hobbes who maintained
this theory.
To understand the reasons that bring people to confront
each other, firstly, we have to explain the nature of man, which has certain
aggressive characteristics that may be seen as 'instinctive', innate impulses to
fulfil one's desires and thus achieve satisfaction. From that point, we can
deduce that the personal interests of different people do not always coincide and
they often collide against each other, or are even in conflict with the law.
Here it is when a man or a woman may need to rebel and stand up against the
regulations that sometimes repress and disallow them to get what they pursue.
Therefore, discrepancies have their origin in human nature, inasmuch as they
occasionally are a necessary way to achieve one’s purposes.
Social intervention
in the order of things usually entails unsettling situations, which does not
need to result in violence; however, duress is an instrument that humans have
used many times as a direct way of imposing a course of action upon others
while avoiding engaging in dialogue with them. Without a previous conflict,
there is no possibility for change; and in the same way, until changes occur,
confrontations remain unresolved.
There are
many types of disagreement that take place in diverse circumstances. In any of
them, the problem is how to solve discrepancies so that both opposing arguments
may coalesce so as to reach a conclusion that may be satisfactory for all
parties involved. That is what we generally call 'to come to an agreement'
which is the ideal outcome but not the most common. The truth is that some of
the biggest conflicts can lead to radical violence. This is the worst outcome,
for violence is contrary to any dialogue-based solution.
Among
other things, situations that cause disagreements in society can be found around
social classes and status, ideologies, power agendas, religious beliefs, race
or origin, political disputes, labour interests, etc.
4. Disagreement as a claim of human rights
As it is written in the preamble of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 'Whereas
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of
all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace
in the world; Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in
barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of
a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and
freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the
common people;...' those freedoms, powers, vindications and needs relating
to basic goods and integrity of human condition are recognized so that they
guarantee and allow a decent life to individuals without any exclusion. Even if
theoretically everyone has these rights without any single exception, in
practice there is ample evidence that they are followed hardly anywhere the
world. Even today, in our generation and in modern times there are thousands of
instances in which rights are not respected and often, they are not even
admitted. If we analysed any of the articles included in the Declaration, we
would notice that the gap between their words and the accomplishment of what
they point to has not been bridged in real life. Within what still seems
unavoidable, their infringement is nonetheless considered a crime, and therefore,
it has to be denounced. Before being recognized universally, these rights were
supposed to be inherent to our very human nature and a key human factor as they
are statements that any person would adhere to for the sake of their dignity
and personal wellbeing. Nevertheless, here we find the problem of humans who,
acting out of their instincts, think first of themselves and seek the
attainment of their own desires/interests even if this may mean threatening and
violating the rights and freedoms of others. For this reason, everything
related to disagreements where human rights are at stake has been and will continue
being at the root of the most conflictive vindications of history. I would like to emphasize two articles in particular,
concerning the autonomy of thought and its expression:
Article 18. Everyone has the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19. Everyone has the
right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
When
these articles are considered from the point of view of the concept of
disagreement, we understand that any human dispute may give rise to different
opinions, and these must be neither discriminated nor silenced. Reiterating
that in practice it is not always like that (both positively and negatively)
and that different rights may be bound to free and differing interpretations,
we can only talk about those cases that we already know and that have been thoroughly
studied.
There are
two groups who have fought within the social framework for the defence and the
exercise of their rights and freedoms, and even today are still trying to keep
them. Many times their rebellions have triggered violent events and they have met
coercion and repression by the law. Disagreement in this case has led them to
face the hard reality and has not always ended up favourably. But as a result
of that, they have made progress defending their human condition in the face of
injustices and adversities. These two particular and well-known cases are
discrimination against black people and against women:
a) The
beginning of the fight for women’s suffrage in the United States grew out of a
large women’s rights movement that can be traced back to Seneca Falls meeting.
Initially, women reformers addressed social and institutional barriers that
limited women’s rights; these included family responsibilities, a lack of
educational and economic opportunities, and the absence of a voice in political
debates. In 1869, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded the
National Woman Suffrage Association. Anthony was tireless in her efforts,
giving speeches around the country to convince others to support a woman's
right to vote. The American women struggle for this right was as long as it was
filled with difficulties but it finally succeeded in 1920 for the good of all
women in the country.
Anthony
was denied to speak at a convention because she was a woman, and later she
realized that no one would take women seriously in politics unless they had the
right to vote. This is a clear example of a rightful disagreement with the established
legal order that would dramatically change the course of history of equality to
all women.
"Men, their rights, and
nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less" (Susan B. Anthony)
b) After their
release during the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln, the southern states, embarrassed
by their defeat, ratified a variety of laws to discriminate black citizens. The
states could not remove the rights of blacks, which are guaranteed in the
constitution, so in their place they used the subterfuge of
"segregation". It was legal for many years, under the twisted idea of
"Separated but Equal". This was, indeed, legal provided the
opportunities given remained equal for both races. In Jim Crow's laws (1876),
however, the voting right of blacks was denied by imposing certain requirements
such as the need to know how to read and write, having possessions, and paying
an electoral tax. More than 13 million blacks were forced to live apart from
the rest of society. Homes, schools, transport, hotels, restaurants, even the
toilets were separated to prevent the contact between the white people and the
people of colour.
Rosa
Parks was a leading figure in the movement for civil rights in America, and she
became popular for refusing to give up her seat to a white man and rejecting to
move to the back of the bus in the southern United States (1995). The bus
incident gave rise to the creation of the Montgomery Improvement Association,
whose purpose was to defend the civil rights of the black minority. Martin
Luther King was its president. The association made a bus boycott in Montgomery
that had lots of followers and then it contributed to the cause of African
Americans in Montgomery, which was known throughout the world. As a result, the
USA government was forced to desegregate public transport.
“People always say that I
didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. No, the only
tired I was, was tired of giving in” (Rosa Parks).
5. Conclusion
After having analysed the disagreement in several ways
and taking as examples the situations that triggered important social changes,
we can conclude that in some cases opposing the status quo has brought about tremendous social progress. In
particular to some groups that had to fight for the right of holding to their
way of thinking and acting, against conventions and standards imposed on them
by others in a position of power. They had to go through this personal
struggle, in order to be heard and to make their views a source of new and
fairer laws, for the common good.
Signed: Dido
