O Fortuna

You've all heard  O Fortuna, though you may not know that you have.  This medieval poem was set to music by Carl Off in the 1930s.  The poem itself is a rather grim, even angry, description of the goddess Fortune.  Set to music, it is an ominous, and then thundering, condemnation of the vagaries of cruel Fate and the life we're made to live while on Earth.

The pagan goddess Fortune was, no doubt, cursed from time to time, though my guess is more effort was devoted to placating her than cursing her.  In this poem, though, we have what I think is a very Christian work, consumed as it seems to be by hate and despair of Fate in the kingdom of this world.  Life on earth, after all, is almost by definition inclined to evil, as are we, or so it was thought by the Church when this poem was written.

You've probably heard it in various movies and perhaps even during a TV show, used to render a scene portentous, or comical when heard during something silly and it's used to mock.  I remember thinking it might be something of Wagner's when it was played during the movie Excalibur along with Siegfried's Funeral March and bits of Parsifal and Tristan and Isolde.  Oddly, it was played during a scene when Arthur and his knights road out to face Mordred, and the country was coming alive in spring blossoms with the return of the king.

We might think it appropriate as part of the soundtrack of our times, when everyone weeps with us.  A Stoic of the ancient past might think life, however changeable and hurtful, was only seemingly so, and evil only in the limited view allowed us as the kind of creatures that we are.  What the Universal Reason dictates is beyond us, but necessarily good.  A more modern version of a Stoic might have no trust in a spirit of intelligence motivating the universe, but would aspire as would the ancient Stoic to recognize that it is foolish to allow what is beyond our control to disturb us and be content to govern ourselves if not events.

Governing ourselves, thinking of us as a group of any kind, seems beyond our power these days, however.  The tendency is not to do so, in fact, but to leave that to someone else, provided only that our governor seem to be not only powerful but a panderer, playing up to us and gratifying our increasingly material and simple, meaning baser, desires.  It seems we'd be content with very little, really.  Perhaps it's always been so, in the end.  Food, shelter, entertainment and the sense that we're better than others are all that are needed to make us content, Fortune be damned.  

Those of medieval times may have felt that they were responsible for the evils inflicted on them by the world, or God.  Many of us no longer think that way.  We're more inclined to blame others, not Fortune or Fate. Others make us angry, and are much more easily punished than Fate, or Fortune or God.  We don't bemoan our fate, we make others bemoan their fate.  But the soundtrack of our angry, vengeful time may still include O Fortuna for its effect if not its meaning.

Read No Evil

What could be more satisfying than prohibiting that certain thoughts be thought, words be said, and books be read?  Prohibiting that certain persons be born or live near to us might be more satisfying to some of us, I suppose, but here we don't dream of unlimited power, but consider power that may be exercised by ordinary humans, especially parents.

There have been reports of school districts banning, or being asked to ban, certain books, or perhaps more properly the teaching and reading of certain books in schools.  Perhaps they may not even be mentioned by teachers or be present in school libraries, or their titles displayed; I'm not sure.  Neither am I sure how widespread and significant the bans or demands for banning are at this time.  But given our long history of prohibiting so many things, and destroying them when we're able to do so, the imposition of bans on the written word should raise concerns.

It's said that all parents hope their children will be "better" than they are.  Better in what sense, though?  I think that "better off" is what's hoped for; better in a material sense.  That may mean that children must be better educated in the sense that education may facilitate economic prosperity.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that parents hope their children will be smarter than they are, or "better" than they are in morals or wisdom.  I suspect that most parents think themselves smart enough, wise enough, moral enough to satisfy if not please everyone.  To them, the thought of their children being better than they are in those senses may not even arise. They may not consider it to be a possibility.

The thought of someone else thinking themselves better than they are, and telling that to their children either expressly or by implication, would be horrifying.  It would even be intolerable.  But teachers are in a position to do just that.  Teachers see children more than parents, in some cases.  Teachers have the authority not only to suggest that children read certain books but require them to do so.  

Certain books suggest, or state outright, that parents aren't wise, or moral, or smart.  They may also suggest or expressly state that things parents hold dear or believe to be the case are unworthy, even evil.

So it's not all that surprising that some parents and school districts have taken it upon themselves to ban certain books from school.  I can think of some I'd like to see banned, frankly.  But what I'd like to see banned aren't necessarily those other parents would like to see banned.  Here is the danger in banning.

There was a time when conservatives were leery of government control in general.  Now, it seems, they support government control of what is taught in schools, provided that means that what is taught in schools is that which they believe should be taught, and not what they believe should not be taught.  This isn't necessarily only a conservative concern.  Books like Huckleberry Finn and Of Mice and Men are considered racist or demeaning to the disabled by those who aren't conservatives, politically or socially or culturally.  

I think that banning, as a rule, isn't effective.  Students will find a way to read and see and hear things of all kinds, and will be especially eager to do so when they know their parents will disapprove.  They probably will be eager to accept what their parents don't accept or even hate or fear.  For good or ill, this is a part of growing up.  In any case, eventually, someone should think for themselves.  

And I suggest that should be the goal of schools.  It's obviously necessary that children learn to read and write, know basic math and science.  It's also appropriate that they know something about history.  Beyond that, they should be taught how to think critically.  Knowing how to do so, they're in a position to exercise their own judgment on what to read.  That would be ideal, in my humble or not so humble opinion.  Schools, and parents, shouldn't be in the business of determining or proscribing what students should or should not read.

This wouldn't necessarily be acceptable to parents, however.  It would require that students be taught the basics of logic and rhetoric, learn to analyze claims and opinions, test them to the extent possible.  That may be more frightening to some parents than learning their children are reading about critical race theory.  Personally, I think that learning to think critically would have the result that critical race theory wouldn't be accepted without question in its entirety and its wilder conclusions and inferences questioned.  That would be the case for other theories, conclusions and inferences as well, however.

And as that would be the case there are no doubt parents who would want critical thinking to be banned.  Well, there's a choice to be made.  Presumably most of us want our children to be able to think.  Then it becomes a question of whether they should think well or not.  If there are parents who are against their children being taught how to think logically and clearly, it would seem appropriate to disregard them when it comes to regulating schooling.