As I attempt to produce another column, I find in me, again, an urge to refute what I have previously written. However, before I continue my self-contradictory series of writings, I have decided to explain my motives in doing so, since many of my fellow students have mentioned to me that I have only succeeded in confounding them and portraying myself as a "wacko."
The reason I write in such a fashion is quite simple. I am constantly torn by the predicament of not being able to take a definitive position on any issue. Without having to ponder too deeply, I am usually able to see a justification in every argument, whether it addresses a socioeconomic problem, promotes political change, or makes other intelligent claims.
Affirmative action -- on which I wrote two columns during the winter, one in favor of and one against -- is a classic example that illustrates my point. Perhaps because of my background that has insulated me from the implications of this controversial policy, I am always fascinated to observe the ideologues at both ends of the political spectrum debating on the policy's justification. I cannot help but wonder how long it will take for them to realize there is no definitive conclusion to their valient intellectual endeavors.
My last column, "China's Inexorable Transformation to a Democracy" [The Dartmouth, April 18], was based on a similar topic. Although I claimed that powerful factors in the domestic and international realms are forcing the Chinese authority to act recklessly, most people should have seen the numerous loopholes in my argument -- for instance, in my adducing only the judicial reform as a manifestation of China's democratization. I find it amusing I arbitrarily, and conveniently, selected this piece of evidence, while ignoring the other grave current events contradicting my argument, such as China's recent sale of nuclear-weapons gear to Pakistan.
I am sure most readers did not bother to read my column "A Sexist Philosophy: Existentialism" [The Dartmouth, April 1] because of its obscure subject matter, but I presented it as a rebuttal against my polemical piece, "On Women and Philosophy" [The Dartmouth, March 26]. Again, these two columns exemplify my inability to take a side.
What the first article revealed -- as Lisa O'Brien '97 correctly pointed out in her remarkable article, "Fusing Systemic and Holistic Philosophy" [The Dartmouth, April 1] -- was the frustration that many men, including me, feel in their discourses with women. I know many men around me who say that while they can easily engage amongst themselves in profound discussions -- concerning such themes as the justification of religion, the essence of art, or the power of reason -- they cannot find women with whom they can philosophically clash in words.
On the other hand, coming from a country where subjection of women is all too common, I realize that my intellectual foundation has been molded by dominant masculine social influences. I therefore concluded in my second piece that the reputed lack of female philosophers only exhibits my inability to discern women's philosophical contributions to humankind.
To put it simply, I am a paradigmatic student infected by the moral relativism of today.
In fact, this conception has been breeding in me so successfully that I am willing to condone actions that could lead to harmful repercussions. Take a look at the recent incidents of racism, for example. Will the readers of this column be angry if I state here that they did not concern me much, in spite of their pertinence to my life as an Asian student who intends to live in this country for many years to come?
The reason is that I know the incredible comfort that a racially homogeneous nation, like Japan, can offer to its people, and how such comfort is often enhanced by, albeit disturbing, a sense of ethnic superiority. To me those racist incidents -- however minor they were -- revealed the overwhelming strain in American society as a result of its racial diversity and contrived promotion of equality.
Americans are devoid of the heart-warming niche I have when I go home, where silence between individuals speaks more than words, unlike America, where express communication is an absolute necessity. And I can sympathize with racists, because when I am home, I am around them, and -- sadly enough -- I also become one of them.
Thus truth, as far as I can see, is indeed relative.
