What do you think?
Rate this book
Why It's OK: The Ethics and Aesthetics of How We Live
Why It's OK to Speak Your Mind
Political protests, debates on college campuses, and social media tirades make it seem like everyone is speaking their minds today. Surveys, however, reveal that many people increasingly feel like they’re walking on eggshells when communicating in public. Speaking your mind can risk relationships and professional opportunities. It can alienate friends and anger colleagues. Isn’t it smarter to just put your head down and keep quiet about controversial topics?
In this book, Hrishikesh Joshi offers a novel defense of speaking your mind. He explains that because we are social creatures, we never truly think alone. What we know depends on what our community knows. And by bringing our unique perspectives to bear upon public discourse, we enhance our collective ability to reach the truth on a variety of important matters.
Speaking your mind is also important for your own sake. It is essential for developing your own thinking. And it’s a core aspect of being intellectually courageous and independent. Joshi argues that such independence is a crucial part of a well-lived life.
The book draws from Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, and a range of contemporary thinkers to argue that it’s OK to speak your mind.
Key Features
Shows that we have not just a right but a moral duty to publicly share what we know.
Argues that discussing your unique ideas with others is essential for developing as a critical thinker.
Explores the value of intellectual honesty and independence in the writings of John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche and connects their thinking to contemporary problems.
Argues that avoiding cultural blind spots today is important for the fate of future generations.
In this book, Hrishikesh Joshi offers a novel defense of speaking your mind. He explains that because we are social creatures, we never truly think alone. What we know depends on what our community knows. And by bringing our unique perspectives to bear upon public discourse, we enhance our collective ability to reach the truth on a variety of important matters.
Speaking your mind is also important for your own sake. It is essential for developing your own thinking. And it’s a core aspect of being intellectually courageous and independent. Joshi argues that such independence is a crucial part of a well-lived life.
The book draws from Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, and a range of contemporary thinkers to argue that it’s OK to speak your mind.
Key Features
Shows that we have not just a right but a moral duty to publicly share what we know.
Argues that discussing your unique ideas with others is essential for developing as a critical thinker.
Explores the value of intellectual honesty and independence in the writings of John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche and connects their thinking to contemporary problems.
Argues that avoiding cultural blind spots today is important for the fate of future generations.
- GenresPhilosophy
196 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 8, 2021
1 person is currently reading
86 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 5, 2021
”...if our epistemic situation is a common resource… then we all have a duty to do what we can to preserve the integrity of this resource. However, believing on the basis of proper evidence, though important in its own right, is not enough--we also have a duty to speak our minds.”
After watching Hrishikesh Joshi promote his book Why It’s OK to Speak Your Mind on C-SPAN one Saturday morning, I figured it’s high time I write my first review on a BookTV book for the ~two people who read my reviews. (Side note, the Washington Journal is probably the funniest program on cable at the moment; how the hosts manage to not crack a smile at the hilarious calls, the world will never know.)
We, Americans, are in a bit of a quandary. We are not able to speak our minds at the workplace, classroom, or even around family for fear (justified or not) that we lose our jobs or become isolated from others. But Joshi reassures us that we must speak our minds anyway… well, depending on how much trouble it will cause.
Joshi fails to realize he is preaching to the choir. The people who consume any of the plethora of books like these on the political divisiveness of our times already know the importance of expressing one’s opinion so that we all gain a more holistic view on an issue. The problem is that T is down in the basement. Expressing dissent on a popular issue has the most impact in the workplace, especially in influential fields like education or technology, but low-level corporate and government employees are at the behest of the HR department and offended Twitter users who believe the perennial questions of human existence were conveniently solved by Ibram X. Kendi, Betty Friedan, and drag queen Nina West. So a Catholic employee who believes in the need for humanity to find love within one’s unchosen, God-given family and local community is at odds with the trendy and queer corporate marketing and people operations department’s ideology that promotes non-random, self-chosen families and global homogenization. In whatever fashion the Catholic might express a dissenting view on the machinations within his company, his points will fall on deaf ears because his and HR’s ethical presuppositions are on opposite ends of the spectrum, except on the ears of those trained in “microaggressions,” after which he will lose the job he needs to support his family.
While reading the book, I couldn’t help but think we are looking at this from the wrong angle. Sure, it can be courageous to speak your mind when there exist punitive measures to stop you from doing so. But speak up against exactly what and how? If we only speak our mind when we disagree with something, many times we only invite a shouting match about which side’s sources and anecdotes are correct. Providing differing evidence alone will not change minds. What we need, first and foremost and before speaking our minds, is to truly listen.
Joshi provides a way too short section on education as a solution, claiming (or rather letting Mill and Nietzche claim for him) that
But the issue is even more rudimentary than that. It’s not that students need to hear many different viewpoints; they need to know how to analyze a viewpoint to begin with. As Robert Stacy McCain states,
If one can’t come to terms with his opponent’s premises and vice versa, then the words coming out of both mouths will go over each other’s head since they are living within different paradigms. Speaking out on its own will be fruitless unless one can accurately point to the actual root that he is at odds with in the other person’s worldview, with many of these premises being ontological in nature. What is the other person’s view on God? Is he an existentialist? What are his thoughts on Darwin? Does he value individualism over communitarianism? Is there an immaterial component to humans, animals, all material things? Or does the immaterial not exist at all? Asking these questions outright will make the other person think you’ve smoked too much ganja, unfortunately. However, truly listening and understanding someone else’s worldview from the outside looking in will allow one to spot contradictions, false premises, or unaccounted for information.
Dealing with these existential questions scares most of us. Coming to terms with a radically different view of reality will force us to confront our own assumptions that we take for granted. And that’s not to mention the world shattering experience of having an epiphany and the subsequent shame of realizing how wrong a past self was if we find a flaw within our own thinking. This is needed, however, if we want our words to have any meaningful impact. However the current social justice zeitgeist revolves around how valid or offended one is, while Good Morning America does another segment on why there could be a boom in Prozac prescriptions among teens. Could it be that there’s something invalid we’re believing in somewhere?
If we really want to speak out, we have to first put our “valid” egos aside and do our due diligence to seek Truth on a level in which we are most uncomfortable so that we know what to say. Once we become truly curious, we can read anything differing our point of view with good faith, such as:
By knowing how to pinpoint premises and following propositions to their conclusions, we can read even the most taboo thought, point out what’s true and what’s false, and still come out unscathed, sane, and unoffended, then end the day laughing about it with Gilbert Gottfried on the Artie Lange and Anthony Cumia show.
How do we put aside our egos for Truth? Joshi asserts that,
But notice even when we are questioning Truth itself, as Nietzsche does, we are still searching for Truth. It’s easy to say “convictions are prisons,” but at some point we have to choose some sort of value system to make our decisions. We cannot constantly live in a state of anomie, lest we end up in a straight jacket. Only until we realize with conviction there’s a Truth higher than ourselves can we rest easy, be open to different opinions, find objections, and speak our minds.
After watching Hrishikesh Joshi promote his book Why It’s OK to Speak Your Mind on C-SPAN one Saturday morning, I figured it’s high time I write my first review on a BookTV book for the ~two people who read my reviews. (Side note, the Washington Journal is probably the funniest program on cable at the moment; how the hosts manage to not crack a smile at the hilarious calls, the world will never know.)
We, Americans, are in a bit of a quandary. We are not able to speak our minds at the workplace, classroom, or even around family for fear (justified or not) that we lose our jobs or become isolated from others. But Joshi reassures us that we must speak our minds anyway… well, depending on how much trouble it will cause.
Whenever there is a social pressure not to share piece of evidence E, and the cost of doing so for you does not meet some threshold T, you should share E. (pg. 38)
Joshi fails to realize he is preaching to the choir. The people who consume any of the plethora of books like these on the political divisiveness of our times already know the importance of expressing one’s opinion so that we all gain a more holistic view on an issue. The problem is that T is down in the basement. Expressing dissent on a popular issue has the most impact in the workplace, especially in influential fields like education or technology, but low-level corporate and government employees are at the behest of the HR department and offended Twitter users who believe the perennial questions of human existence were conveniently solved by Ibram X. Kendi, Betty Friedan, and drag queen Nina West. So a Catholic employee who believes in the need for humanity to find love within one’s unchosen, God-given family and local community is at odds with the trendy and queer corporate marketing and people operations department’s ideology that promotes non-random, self-chosen families and global homogenization. In whatever fashion the Catholic might express a dissenting view on the machinations within his company, his points will fall on deaf ears because his and HR’s ethical presuppositions are on opposite ends of the spectrum, except on the ears of those trained in “microaggressions,” after which he will lose the job he needs to support his family.
While reading the book, I couldn’t help but think we are looking at this from the wrong angle. Sure, it can be courageous to speak your mind when there exist punitive measures to stop you from doing so. But speak up against exactly what and how? If we only speak our mind when we disagree with something, many times we only invite a shouting match about which side’s sources and anecdotes are correct. Providing differing evidence alone will not change minds. What we need, first and foremost and before speaking our minds, is to truly listen.
Joshi provides a way too short section on education as a solution, claiming (or rather letting Mill and Nietzche claim for him) that
...educational institutions can fail in their mission of promoting truth and cultivating independence if they only allow one side of an issue to be heard, and if they do not allow for a robust exchange of ideas across diverse viewpoints. (pg. 129)
But the issue is even more rudimentary than that. It’s not that students need to hear many different viewpoints; they need to know how to analyze a viewpoint to begin with. As Robert Stacy McCain states,
Of course, our universities don’t teach logic, nor do they teach Latin (“Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat“), and so this destructive craziness takes hold in the minds of vulnerable young people who have not been taught either (a) how to identify the premises of an argument embedded in clever sophistry or (b) how to construct a syllogism to more clearly understand the consequences of what is being asserted.
If one can’t come to terms with his opponent’s premises and vice versa, then the words coming out of both mouths will go over each other’s head since they are living within different paradigms. Speaking out on its own will be fruitless unless one can accurately point to the actual root that he is at odds with in the other person’s worldview, with many of these premises being ontological in nature. What is the other person’s view on God? Is he an existentialist? What are his thoughts on Darwin? Does he value individualism over communitarianism? Is there an immaterial component to humans, animals, all material things? Or does the immaterial not exist at all? Asking these questions outright will make the other person think you’ve smoked too much ganja, unfortunately. However, truly listening and understanding someone else’s worldview from the outside looking in will allow one to spot contradictions, false premises, or unaccounted for information.
Dealing with these existential questions scares most of us. Coming to terms with a radically different view of reality will force us to confront our own assumptions that we take for granted. And that’s not to mention the world shattering experience of having an epiphany and the subsequent shame of realizing how wrong a past self was if we find a flaw within our own thinking. This is needed, however, if we want our words to have any meaningful impact. However the current social justice zeitgeist revolves around how valid or offended one is, while Good Morning America does another segment on why there could be a boom in Prozac prescriptions among teens. Could it be that there’s something invalid we’re believing in somewhere?
If we really want to speak out, we have to first put our “valid” egos aside and do our due diligence to seek Truth on a level in which we are most uncomfortable so that we know what to say. Once we become truly curious, we can read anything differing our point of view with good faith, such as:
A black socialist critiquing Antiracism
A white nationalist critiquing critical race theory
A radical feminist critiquing queer theory
A classical liberal English professor critiquing critical theory departments
A Catholic agrarian critiquing libertinism
A Protestant critiquing moral relativism
By knowing how to pinpoint premises and following propositions to their conclusions, we can read even the most taboo thought, point out what’s true and what’s false, and still come out unscathed, sane, and unoffended, then end the day laughing about it with Gilbert Gottfried on the Artie Lange and Anthony Cumia show.
How do we put aside our egos for Truth? Joshi asserts that,
Evaluating independence manifests itself in a willingness to question.
…
For Nietzsche...greatness is not borne out of conviction. “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies,” he says. (pg. 135 - 136)
But notice even when we are questioning Truth itself, as Nietzsche does, we are still searching for Truth. It’s easy to say “convictions are prisons,” but at some point we have to choose some sort of value system to make our decisions. We cannot constantly live in a state of anomie, lest we end up in a straight jacket. Only until we realize with conviction there’s a Truth higher than ourselves can we rest easy, be open to different opinions, find objections, and speak our minds.
November 22, 2022
This is possibly the best 'philosophy' book I've ever read. Well researched and very applicable to the modern human.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews