IDEAS AND WHAT IT MEANS TO CRITICIZE THEM

To criticize an idea does not mean to negate every aspect of it. It is simply a matter of voicing
your concerns and expressing your attitude towards it – while backing it up with materialistic or
theoretical proof, called evidence. Critic should not be co-related with hate; Hate is a human
emotion – critic is an intellectual’s analysis on the matter, and to forbid someone from criticizing an
idea, a thought, no matter how sacred it is, or how many others are backing it up while living by its
rules, is denying that intellectual’s human right. After all, speaking from a scientific point of view, we
strive towards improvements, and you cannot improve an idea if there is no one to point out its
flaws.

I have recently been in a debate on Carl Marx and his view on the ‘perfect’ society – a
debate in which I was told that I should not be criticizing Marx’s idea simply because of sole reason
that he is a historic person, whereas I, with my 19 years of life, have achieved nothing remotely close
to him, to which I begin a very, very long monologue that I believe would bore anyone who would
listen to it, and still, it will be written here:

“Carl Marx’s perfect society was an idea – an idea, which, as you pointed out, when
implemented lasted no more than two months, and that (failure of) practical use is the first
contradiction in its so-called ‘perfection’. Moving on, every person should be allowed to criticize an
idea, no matter of his current levels of achievement, as long as he is able to present arguments as a
structure to his statement; something which, I am certain is a condition I have met, and as such gives
me the right to state my critic, voice my attitude and opinion on the matter, without caring whose it
is, and thus what I said so far is the structure of my part of the following discussion. Now, I may not
have a large amount of arguments to present, but they, to my belief and your judgment, are detailed
enough to solidify my statement. Since we are both people of science, or at least striving to be ones,
you will face no problem if I present this to you in a way understandable for us both.

To begin with, let’s start by imagining an ideal world, in which human emotion is negligible –
in other words, greed, hate, envy do not affect the current position of a single person. After you are
able to do this, considering Marx’s society is perfect and I have no right to say anything against it, let
us apply it to two very different types of the world, for example, let’s say Sweden, which is one, if
not the most stable country in the world at this moment, and an African country. Do you think that
this method will have the same level of efficiency in both countries? It is statistically impossible for
the answer to be yes, firstly because nature itself does not allow you this. Sweden is a country in the
Alps, it is filled with natural resources that can be (and currently are) used to the maximum in raising
the country’s level of life. First and foremost is clean drinking water, whereas Africa in general, for
example, has a serious lack of it. Therefore, life in Sweden is automatically better than the one in
Africa from the start, because of a factor that is non-controllable by human. From this we can
conclude that this system of society does not work the same way when applied to two different
locations around the globe, implying that it is not perfect. This is where Darwin comes into place – it
is not the strongest that survive, it is the ones that are most adaptable to change. This is something
that applies to both the people and ideas in general. Hence that, through a long, long period of time
different human beings will evolve differently and adapt to their current environment, or perish. It is
the same with ideas – you cannot declare a constant perfection, since the entire planet is not the
same, it is very variable and the sole system used to run it must be adaptable to the various needs.
This works with any idea – as long as there is someone, no matter who he is, where he comes from,
or how much has he achieved in life, to criticize the sole existence of it, then that idea has room for
improvement and SHOULD be able to accept critics, analyze them, and then decide whether they
should be accepted or not. Anyone and anything that fails to adapt, evolve, expand will disappear.

Now, let us move on to recent events, I have two specific ones in mind, the terrorist attacks
in Paris and Nigeria. Now, consider this: Do you agree with what these Muslim extremists did? No?
Alright then, let us say you criticize this idea. You would be doing exactly what you say shouldn’t be
done. Have you been able to gather 1.3 billion followers in your life? No, of course you haven’t.
Then, by your logic, what gives you the right to criticize Muhammad and the works of his followers?
But yet, you still do it. And you still disagree with the fact that ideas should be open to criticism. I
shall speak no more on this matter.

Now, as much as I do not prefer including religion in discussions as I am a person that wishes
to offend no one, especially since many of my friends are indeed religious, my third argument
involves the criticizing the idea of a perfect God. The Bible says God created us in his image. If he
were to be perfect, then why aren’t humans perfect? Why did Eve eat the forbidden fruit? If she
were created in God’s image, and this God were perfect, would she not be able to resist the
temptation of doing something she was told not to? If she couldn’t, that would imply that she is not
perfect, which also implies that God’s image is not perfect, which again implies that God himself is
not perfect. Now, a second case to this argument, and rather connected to the first part of this text:
If God were to be perfect, why did he not create a world that would be equal to everyone? Why
does Africa not have enough water for its people? Why are there fatal diseases? Would he not be
able to prevent all of this? If not, then would that mean that God is not omnipotent, which would
imply that he is not perfect?

To end this, because it has really gotten too long and my desire of sleep is growing stronger,
I shall say this to you: By saying someone is not allowed to criticize an idea simply because the idea is
supported by a large number of people is limiting that individual’s potential. You can never know
what he is thinking or what he is capable of, which is why everyone should be allowed to freely
criticize, disagree with and argue against ideas and theories. Even Einstein started simply by finding a
flaw in Newton’s laws of mechanics and he ended up pushing the world decades forward. Now, I
doubt I was able to change your opinion, even though I believe I have presented you enough
evidence to realize that the theory of free criticism is very plausible and very real.”