Hey fellow Global Citizens,
This blog I will be steering away from the “mainstream” things, I suppose, such as Safe Area Gorazde and Obasan. This is in part because we discuss them quite in depth in class, making it less exciting to write about, and as well it’s a nice change for the class bloggers to read (which I noticed when doing my class blogger duty).
Anyways, on to my actual blog post. In this short amount of time that I’ve been in university, I have read more scholarly articles than in my entire life combined. Especially in the fields of Art, theories are so abstract, which is not usual to me or probably many of you either. I took a fair amount of science courses in high school, and was unsure whether to study arts or sciences at UBC. In the sciences, theories and laws are backed by formulas and numbers; they are solid facts in a way. In arts however, there are many theories on certain subjects, which are all similar but usually with different names. When reading articles on “collective memory” for ASTU or “globalization” for Poli-sci, every scholar argues their point of view, usually backed by other scholars. There are so many scholarly articles, yet there are so many divisions and contradicting arguments on the same topics. With a scholar arguing his view, and then another scholar arguing hers, how do you know who’s right? Flash-back to one of Dr. Erickson’s lectures where he said “when one states they are just, they are immediately unjust” (or something along those lines). Can this be used in the context of when one states they are right, they are wrong? I’ll meddle with religion quickly, but I’m not in any way putting religion down. Religion relates to this idea that there are so many different theories, all of which totally believe they are the sole theory. So by saying your religion is the right one, you may be in a sense wrong just because there are so many religions out there claiming the exact same thing. This is highly controversial, but it was just to go along with the point of multiple theories. So when I am reading all these articles, I cannot help but feel skepticism, unless I am presented with hard evidence, which is not always presented in the arts. Back to ASTU: reporting verbs and modals. These are so important, as it shows one is arguing a point, rather than saying they are right, or imposing their full opinion on the reader (ex: I argue this could be the most important theory). Also the use of proof, as Shahzad provides in her article, strongly backs her argument.
To conclude, I ask you: How can one truly be right (The Real Truth)? If you claim to be right, are you wrong? Is being right an ongoing process? Please let me know what you think, and know that I did not mean any offense with the religious part!
Until next time, blogging off,
Ryan