Monday, December 3, 2012

Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?


Growing up, I constantly heard sayings that emphasized the importance of actions rather than words. We’ve all been told things like “actions speak louder than words” or “show me, don’t tell me,” from which we are taught that our actions are much more valuable than what we say or think.  





However, in our last lecture, we discussed philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, who believes the exact opposite. That is, he advocates the phrase-- “Don’t act. Just think.” Zizek strongly believes that our generation needs to think and come up with new ideas, rather than act.  

Here is Zizek discussing this philosophy


Zizek incorporated this belief into a lot of his answers to the questions posed in the interview that we read. For example, Zizek points out that the Occupy Wall Street movement didn’t have a lot of success because the 99% did not know exactly what they wanted, they didn’t have set demands. Or in other words, they acted (protested) without thinking first. In the video above, Zizek states that, “maybe today we should say, ‘In the twentieth century, we maybe tried to change the world too quickly. The time is to interpret it again, to start thinking.’” (http://bigthink.com/ideas/45126). This has made me wonder which philosophy is correct, do actions really speak louder than words, or should we be thinking, not acting?

I considered these opposite philosophies in terms of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Some people, like Zizek, think the movement was unorganized and didn’t bring about any real and lasting change because it was not thought through (although Zizek does acknowledge that it brought attention to the problems it was protesting). However I feel, in this situation and circumstances surrounding the protests, that without any action the movement would have been completely non-existent. The terms 99% and 1% would not have become infamous both in America and world-wide, and the unsatisfied portion of the population would have remained unknown. Action is still necessary to bring about any real change, especially in America, it just must be thought out thoroughly first. In this case, I think both action and thinking are necessary for success, not one or the other. 




An example of actions versus words can also be found in the Malcom X speech that we read. So what do you think? Which philosophy makes the most sense today?

7 comments:

  1. Like you said, I think a little of both are important to successfully solve any problem. Obviously, acting without thinking leads to rash decisions and consequences that one may regret when looking back, but at the same time, if you think and think and think about a problem but don't do anything to fix it, then you're in the same position you were in before. Nothing has changed, physically. I do think that thinking is always important before acting though. Changing one's mindset is a crucial aspect of changing one's behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the philosophy of taking action makes a lot of sense in today's world. If people feel relegated in society, they must take action to be noticed by those they feel are doing the ignoring. For example, if protesters in Occupy Wall Street feel as though society revolves around the wealthy, they must work to be noticed so that society can begin to think about them too. Reading Malcolm X helped me come to this conclusion as he believed that when society ignores a group, that group must act in order to gain respect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe that both are essential for making a real significant impact, especially if the protest is focused on a specific issue. I would have to agree that Zizek's biggest criticism of the 99% movement is that they had not really put enough thought into what the root of the problem was. It is essential that both thought and action is involved for the reason that the actions are directed to a well thought out cause where the movement is able to provide reasonable solutions to the problem they are protesting. In contrast, I think that this processed can be purposeful when done in the reverse order of action and as long as the actions are non-violent like in the 99% movement. The action of protesting a unspecified issue can have the effect of provoking essential thought and attention to certain more general issues, so people are inspired to take action on a smaller scale.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This post brings up an interesting dilemma: is it more important to act and get the ideas out there, or to think about the ideas first and then act? I cannot truly answer that question because I do not know the exact answer to that question. However, I would have to side with Zizek in that it I think it is better to delegate over issues before acting out. If one acts out before thinking about something, then they will apear uninformed and overall dumb, which could bring about harm to the movement they are trying to support. I think this is somewhat of what happened in the Occupy movement. Yet, in acting out, the Occupy movement was able to raise awareness to what they perceived to be the general problems of things, and were able to bring about some change as a result. As a whole, I believe that it is important to come up with an answer before attempting to put in place a solution, but the Occupy movement has proven that sometime it is important to simply act.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that these phrases are just sayings, like slogans, and they should not be taken so seriously. It is pretty obvious that one cannot act without thinking, and it would do society no good if one just thought without acting. I find it frustrating when a political philosopher makes bold statements like these, suggesting one or the other. I believe that there should be a balance, and that we should only act once we have a strong mind-set of what we need to accomplish, because acting with no purpose or a lack of clarity thereof is again futile. Thinking without action is also useless in that nothing gets accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the philosophy of taking action makes a lot of sense in today's world. If people feel relegated in society, they must take action to be noticed by those they feel are doing the ignoring. For example, if protesters in Occupy Wall Street feel as though society revolves around the wealthy, they must work to be noticed so that society can begin to think about them too. Reading Malcolm X helped me come to this conclusion as he believed that when society ignores a group, that group must act in order to gain respect.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the philosophy of taking action makes a lot of sense in today's world. If people feel relegated in society, they must take action to be noticed by those they feel are doing the ignoring. For example, if protesters in Occupy Wall Street feel as though society revolves around the wealthy, they must work to be noticed so that society can begin to think about them too. Reading Malcolm X helped me come to this conclusion as he believed that when society ignores a group, that group must act in order to gain respect.

    ReplyDelete