"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)I've always been fascinated by reason and rational thinking. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I have both a BS and MS in mathematics. The rationality of math is just so compelling. And it is certainly one of the reasons that I have subscribed to Scientific American and Free Inquiry for a number of years and why I am currently enrolled in a Critical Thinking seminar in connection with the Sac State Renaissance Society.
In connection with the Critical Thinking seminar I have become reacquainted with a movement I heard about some months ago. This movement, called the Brights includes people who subscribe to a "naturalistic world view". The movement specifically declines any attempt to further define those words or to subdivide Brights into more specific subgroups. Like homosexuals who hi-jacked the word Gay to describe their sexual orientation, Brights have hi-jacked the adjective bright, turned it into a noun, and wish to use this term to describe their world view. Although some detractors have quickly complained that this seems to make the rest of the world population "dim", Brights counter that the opposite of Gay is Straight, not Sad or Unhappy. Thus, the opposite of Bright could be something like Super referring to those people whose world view includes supernatural or mystical components.
I applaud the Brights' attempt at defining themselves in a way that is positive and affirming rather than NOT this or NOT that. And the human brain being as flexible as it appears to be, I'm guessing that many people will claim they have a "naturalistic world view" and a "supernatural world view" as well. These people could perhaps call themselves Super Brights.
No comments:
Post a Comment