Nota Bene 2

 

A few weeks ago I admitted that there were subjects that I had wanted to cover but lacked time. The list is long and it's growing. At that time I solicited your help but (no surprise) didn't get any response. That, however, won't stop me. I intend to continue every month or so (or at any other time I feel like shortening my list) by describing the areas of interest. As I noted last time,^I  it may be in the form of fiction or non-fiction (actually it may be a question or comment, or there may be a longer description of the issue).  I explained then that the kind of format for its use was up to you.  I also requested that you let me know if you were using one of the ideas, and what I said then applies here. I won't bother you with it now.
 

In any event, here are some of the topics I don't have time to cover at the moment:

1. It's said that a child who learns a second language while his first is developing may become fluent in both, but his vocabulary in each of the two is likely to be smaller than it would have been if he had only learned one language. I don't know the specifics for three languages, but it seems likely that all three vocabularies will suffer. He'll be able to think in all three languages, but, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesisⁱⁱ is correct, his ideas will be somewhat limited in all of them. What are the other implications of multilingualism? Although Americans tend toward knowledge of a single language,ⁱⁱⁱ elsewhere in the world it is common for people to be multilingual. Do Americans think differently or more expansively than others?

2. If you believe that there are absolutes (as opposed to culturally defined standards) which you must follow, may you choose the lesser of evils?^iv Is it ethically possible to compromise between right and wrong?^v Is your Representative morally bound to do what you think right or what he does?^vi If an individual considers himself bound to follow particular paths and not deviate from them, is he obliged to establish a third (or fourth, or whatever) party when no one is expounding the idea that he considers “right?” Is voting itself an absolute?^vii

3. What are the limits of peaceful and lawful demonstration? For example, the Brooklyn Bridge was closed on December 4, 2014 by demonstrations protesting the decision of a grand jury not to indict a white policeman who had killed an unarmed black man with an “illegal” choke hold. Whether or not he should have been indicted, do demonstrators have the right to inconvenience others? Are there times when they have the obligation to do so? What should protestors do and what penalties should they (be prepared to) face? Should the penalties be different for “agitators,” especially those from elsewhere, and especially those who go from demonstration to demonstration around the country in order to lead any fight that is in the offing?

4. Suppose an archaeologist discovered a scroll that either supported or cast doubt on an existing religious narrative. How should/would the new information be treated by a supporter or opponent of (any or of a specific) religion. Clearly the “right” thing to do would be to disclose the information whatever it is, but suppose the archaeologist feared that this would do more harm than good. Suppose he feared, for example, that the information might provoke a religious war, or that it would be the cause of prejudice.

I noted last time, “I suspect that some readers may have considered some of these issues, however I don't know to what degree. I know that I don't have immediate answers to the questions they pose, although they trouble me and I wonder about them. Perhaps someone else can resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner.”

The topics are not new. They've been discussed innumerable times. But I still find them vexing. There are so many other issues, however, that I don't expect to have time to expand and expound on these for quite a while. And there will be more to come. Perhaps someone can spend some time on one or more of them.

Next episode:  "I Am What I Am" --Whatever that is.

I        Nota Bene, December 14, 2014.

ii        Look it up.

iii       Usually the language is English, but for some immigrants who have not learned English, and who never studied a second language in their country of origin, their only language may be that of their native land.

iv        Which is, of course, evil.

v        To do so means that you're willing to accept something that is not completely right, even if it is not completely wrong.

vi       Indeed, representing hundreds of thousands of people, how can he possibly support all of their positions?

vii      Is it better not to vote than to support an individual or an idea that is abhorrent to your principles?