Russell rule could help citizens see through lies

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude.”

To put it in more concrete terms, we should approach viewpoints we disagree with by first identifying those parts we are able to agree with, or in which we believe. It is only then that we can resume our critical stance.

That is to say, once we have abandoned our own previous opinions, we are able to undertake criticism based on the state of mind in which we could judge our own opinions with humility. If we learn to assess what what we believe in and seek a more sympathetic understanding of why others’ opinions differ from ours, we are finally in a position to begin our criticism.

When applied to the debate on who loves Taiwan, Russell’s words should come as a rude awakening to some politicians and others. I also believe that if everybody followed Russell’s suggestion they would be less likely to conclude that some people love Taiwan while others do not.

Here’s an example. Suppose an individual advocated the immediate and unconditional unification of Taiwan with China. Irrespective of how much you disagree with such a proposition, before proceeding to criticize it you should first imagine that you agree with the proposal, and only after that try to identify its positive aspects that deserve support.

When you have established the reasons for supporting this opinion, the next step is to lay out the argument’s weaknesses one by one with a humility that allows for self-criticism.

At this point you can compare the pros and cons you have identified, and finally use this comparison to decide whether you agree or disagree with the proposition.

In the same way, anyone who would disagree with an individual who supports an immediate announcement of independence, regardless of the potential cost in terms of war, should first dissect the arguments for and against this position before coming to a decision.

Although difficult to achieve, this is nevertheless a desirable target for everyone to aim for. In this way we will discover that our society need not discuss whether advocates of specific positions care for Taiwan or not, and will examine instead whether their ideas have inherent value.

The question of how much one cares for Taiwan is purely subjective. Regardless of whether individuals advocate unification or independence, if they say how much they care for Taiwan, no one else has the right to question what they think or what their motives are. The moment an onlooker jumps to the conclusion that a certain person does not care for Taiwan, they immediately draw a dividing line between themselves and the person they are judging. There is then no room for Russell’s “hypothetical sympathy.”

This is not to say that we should not be critical of views that differ from our own, just that what we could argue and judge should be restricted to such views’ adoptability and soundness as determined by definable objective standards (such as seeking the greatest benefit for humanity).

I sincerely hope that every Taiwanese will be able to ap-proach people and events with sympathy and discover that irrespective of how much our opinions differ, the one thing com-mon to us is our uncontested love for Taiwan.

TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER