Silencing Minds

To go against the cult of the echo chamber is to put a target on your back. Throughout history, philosophers with radical or unorthodox ideas have often faced persecution and silencing by this cult.

Socrates was forced to drink hemlock in ancient Athens, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy in mediaeval Italy. How did these two pissed off the acolytes of the cult of the echo chamber, will come back to that.

In our modern world, social media and digital communication have put in speed rails for key board warriors to collectively band together in a grand outcry.This is called "cancel culture." This reminds me of how philosophers have been persecuted in different times and places.

Like their historical counterparts, modern thinkers who have unpopular ideas about morality and social problems risk being "cancelled," or losing their jobs or being hired for a future job. How has silencing philosophers has changed over time, from ancient times to the "cancel culture" of today.Understanding this history cycle can show how important it is to protect freedom of thought and speech no matter what the zeitgeist is.

Throughout history, people who went against the norm and thought in a revolutionary way often faced harsh punishments from the people in power at the time. Socrates, an ancient Greek philosopher, was made to drink hemlock poison in 399 BC because he was accused of corrupting the youth and questioning the gods of Athens. People saw him as a threat because he challenged long-held ideas in a bold way. Hypatia was a well-known and important philosopher in Alexandria in the 4th century. She was brutally killed by a group of religious extremists who hated her pagan beliefs and status. Her intelligence and scientific findings were at odds with the power of the catholic church.

In 1600, Giordano Bruno, an Italian monk from the 1600s, was burned at the stake for having heretical ideas like heliocentrism and the idea that the world goes on forever. The Catholic Inquisition called his unorthodox ideas about the universe "blasphemous." Seneca, a famous Stoic philosopher in ancient Rome, was told to kill himself by Emperor Nero in 65 AD because he was suspected of being part of a plot. Time and again, revolutionary thinkers have met violent ends for daring to challenge religious or political orthodoxy with new ideas.

Jordan Peterson is the best modern day example of a modern day witch hunt from the echo chamber. Dr.Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and academic who gained notoriety for his opinions on identity politics, free speech, and masculinity, is one contemporary thinker who has encountered opposition akin to that of cancel culture. Peterson voiced his opposition to Canadian rules requiring the use of prefered pronouns in 2016 in public. He was thrust into the centre of scholarly discussions on political correctness and transgender rights as a result. Online, Peterson gained a devoted following but also faced harsh criticism and protests. Following complaints from staff and students, Cambridge University cancelled a visiting fellowship they had given Peterson. Later that year, the revenue from his well-known YouTube channel was briefly stopped. These events are reminiscent of earlier intellectuals who had their perspectives removed or work suppressed due to divisive opinions. While Peterson keeps his platform, the outcry and attempts to take it away from him highlight the divisive environment around difficult gender problems and the tenuous situation that academics who challenge conventional wisdom face today. His situation serves as a contemporary microcosm of the trend of thought-silencing throughout history.

Modern tactics by the cult are non-violent civil disobedience aimed at disruption and de-platforming they have changed over time but their goals are the same, to silence dissenters So what is the motivation behind the cult of the echo chamber? At its core, this drive is more than just a knee-jerk reaction to discomforting ideas. History reveals that the motivations are multifaceted, often stemming from a combination of ego preservation, social cohesion, and power dynamics.

The psychological aspect, for instance, is encapsulated by the theory of cognitive dissonance. People experience mental anguish when perspectives that are in striking opposition to their strongly held beliefs are revealed to them. This substantial psychological tension results from simultaneously holding opposing cognitions; it is not just a passing unease. Many naturally reject or criticise the other viewpoint in an effort to ease this tension and prevent the internal turmoil it causes.

The concept of groupthink is another. There is an underlying push to adopt a common viewpoint in communities where a sense of group identity is valued. Differences are not just perceived as opposing viewpoints; they are also seen as dangers to the group's very existence. This is particularly true when the foundation of the group's identity is a strong set of ideals or principles. Those who dared to disagree in these situations were frequently shunned not only for their opinions but also for the perceived danger they posed to the cohesiveness of the group.

The political lies beyond the psychological and social. History has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals in positions of authority have a vested interest in quashing ideas that threaten the status quo. Innovative minds frequently challenge conventional wisdom and pose a danger to long-standing power structures. These structures, whether they are empires, institutions, or other powerful organisations, retaliate by making harsh attempts to silence the dissenters. This is about maintaining power and control, not only protecting against unsettling thoughts.

In discourse and discussion, constructive criticism and cancel culture must be distinguished. Constructive criticism helps ideas grow by identifying areas for development and offering new insights. It promotes communication, understanding, and growth by building bridges and sharing perspectives. In contrast, cancel culture is different. It marginalises and isolates opposing views to suppress them rather than engage in productive dialogue. It's normal to strongly disagree with some ideas, but shutting down voices without allowing rebuttal or contemplation is dangerous.

Open speech without interference is the Excalibur sword into the heart of the echo chamber cult. To agree to disagree and let the best rise to the top of the mixing pot. Let's remember that the beauty of human connection is the interchange of ideas, discussions, and mutual respect that comes from understanding others' perspectives. Don't be like the tyrannical unruly mobs that stomped down those they didn't understand. Steel sharpens steel.