Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
I find this fascinating and would like this discussion to play a larger role in this topic than grammar and testing.
When you say you don't like the argument that books are harmless, what do you mean by that?
Do you feel that some books are harmful, and if so, how and to whom?
|
Sure, they can be harmful.
Take the Confucian classics i mentioned above. The Mencius has always been a problem for conservative rulers who would otherwise be happy with Confucianism. The problem was that Mencius thought that it was OK for commoners to overthrow bad rulers. Even the word 革命, which is how "revolution" gets translated in Chinese and Japanese, has its origins in Mencian ideas. As the left-populist Confucianist, Mencius was often banned.
Any text that seemed to promote egalitarianism was obviously a threat to the feudal order, and such books were often banned. Interestingly, one of those banned under Japanese feudalism was the xtian bible. (along with Mencius, too, of course)
In general i'd like to think that books & ideas can still have an impact outside the text. Exactly what that impact is, and whom it affects, depend on the book and the times.
If you want to say that there are books that bring us to change how we live, or, books that at least try to do that, then you accept that they are political. As part of a political process, books will have friends and enemies; they will help some and hurt others, they will anger some, and embolden others.
On the other hand, saying that books are harmless really amounts to a dismissal of their power. If they are indeed harmless, they become "mere entertainment", museum pieces representing bygone ages, or school lessons.