Assertiveness

This article contains the explanation of different points of view: Hare’s theory about the bliks and the statement of Flew about assertions. Hare declares that Flew chooses for attack is to regard this type of talk as some kind of explanation. Hare, in his term, protects his point of view as for the bliks. He sticks to the point that without a blik people can not explain some events in their life and what is going on in the world. Hare is sure that not everything can be explained, as it is our bliks, and only a person herself can decide what can be explained. As the example he says that everything may happen by the chance. He says that it is not an obvious assertion, as it may happen or not happen. There is no need to assert something only because somebody is trying to deny it. It goes from this, that Hare’s opinion completely differs from Flew’s one, that if somebody asserts something there must be other person who denies it. Hare says that people should not be able to foresee, to explain or to plan anything, because in other case they will be like those people who are asserting anything. He states that those very bliks are strong beliefs in the person’s mind and they do not need explanation or approving.

It is well-known that people are different and they have different points of view on this or that situation. It is one’s own business what belief to choose or how to act in different situations. Hare says, that giving the theory of bliks, he tries to show some sort of difference between those people who really believe in God, appreciate him, trying to find His presence in every situation and asking for His help, and people who does not believe in Him.



http://www.google.com

Continuing the speech, Flew touches upon many other statements, such as “God’s plan” or “God made the world”. He calls them dangerous for theological utterance. He also states that at first sight they are like statements, but in fact they are not sure to be real statements. Flew sticks to the point that every assertion should be denied. It means that if the person states something, there must be someone who will deny it. Further he moves on by saying that anything, counting against the statement or anything, which can make the speaker consider it as the mistake must be partially the negation of the statement… and if there is nothing to be denied by the statement, there is also nothing to be accepted by it. So, it can not be called as an assertion. What does it mean? He proves the idea, that the statement may be regarded as meaningless when it is not supported by facts and evidence, counting against it.

As the illustrating example he used the conversation between the Skeptic and the Believer. The Skeptic said that everything he Believer called invisible, eternally elusive gardener differ from the gardener at all, and from the imaginary in particular. The Skeptic was arguing with the Believer that there was no gardener, as they examined the territory very carefully and none was found. The evidence witnesses against the gardener. The statement of the Believer was crushed by the counterpart that it was not assertion at all. That statement was considered to be meaningless, because it was not proved somehow. People may say different things, but not all of them deserve to be the meaningful assertions. Antony Flew claims that fact that every belief should be proved in order to be meaningful. In other way it would not be regarded as the assertion at all.



http://www.google.com