On the one hand, I would like to see “Invisible Man” incorporated into all high school curricula. On the other, I don’t think kids are capable of understanding it on the level of one with more life experience. I read it in my 40s, but had I read it as a teenager, a lot of the impact would have been lost on me.

So if you have not yet read this masterpiece, you’re missing out. One caveat: At the bookstore, if you ask for “THE Invisible Man,” you’ll get the H.G. Wells sci-fi novel. This is simply, “Invisible Man.”

Relativism doesn’t work. Truth is not an agreement between two people: that is simply a shared opinion. Relativism means that we usually take whatever the majority perceive to be true as a universally functional truth. Understanding that there is such a thing as absolute truth means that minorities armed with facts can fight institutionalized fictions.

Some concepts cannot be expressed as truth or lie because the word becomes meaningless when applied to it. If you can’t establish it as an actual fact, then don’t call it truth.

That said, I think this book sounds wonderful and you are right that everyone is an individual; the idea that racism/anti-racism (snobbery/class-consciousness, sexism, homophobia etc) are all buying into stereotypes is right on.

Everyone is unique. Everyone has a story.

If that was true, how could it be true? If there is no truth outside our experiences than there can’t be a universally true truth that “there is no truth outside our own experience.”

Mwuhahahahahha

The Wikipedia entry does it no justice, nor does the Amazon description. Check it out for yourself. You’ll be glad you did.

“The truth is that there is no truth outside of our own experience…”

I understand and appreciate the part that Michelle already asked about and you clarified. That’s a great concept and one I wish more people lived. But, I don’t understand that first part of that sentence.

I assume that your concern is that people will become obsessed, live a limited life, and end up accomplishing neither their explicit goals (e.g., to end racism) nor anything else.

Where do we draw the line? How much is too much? I suspect this is a classic case of “Your mileage may vary”, but here is where I think the line can and should be drawn for most people:

Donate to organizations that promote equality.
Support candidates who do the same. Boycott racist corporations. Write letters to the editor. March, if the opportunity arises. But don’t get obsessed, and don’t let the continued existence of racism (in spite of your best efforts, damn it!) get you down.

Of course, this applies to any issue one cares about, not just racism. I hope I don’t confuse anyone by continuing with the example that Trent started.

Are you saying that it’s fine to fight racism (and engage in other socially worthy activities, I presume) but that it’s equally important to live your own life and develop your mind so that you can achieve things that no one but you can achieve? That’s the only sense I can make of your point, since I know you are not advocating selfishness.

If so, it reminds me of something that Josephine Baker supposedly said, although I can’t find it on line. Near the end of her life, when she had problems with taxes and other such things, she was asked if she had any regrets. She responded “I lived Josephine Baker’s life. No one else could have done that.”

I’ve always liked that concept.