Why Study a Foreign Language on Short Notice?

March 25, 2008 7 Comments


So here I am with eight weeks to go before I’m in Kiev, Ukraine, to spend a week teaching a philosophy course. Ukraine is divided linguistically. In the western half, Ukrainian is the language of choice. But in the east, including Kiev, it’s Russian. Some of the students will be proficient in English. For all of my presentations I’ll have an interpreter. My host has sent me a single page of “key words and phrases” he thinks I should know. So it’s obvious no one expects me to be able to speak Russian like a Cossack when I get there.

On the other hand, I genuinely enjoy studying foreign languages. It’s hard but rewarding work—especially if you have sufficient time and you have the opportunity to visit a country where the language is spoken “officially.” I could recount the many advantages to learning a foreign language. But here’s my question and I welcome your advice: Why study a foreign language on such short notice?

I’m looking for advice from people who believe it’s a good idea. In a separate post, I’ll beseech my readers for practical tips on learning a language in a hurry. But the first tip I would give myself is this: Have a good reason, and know what that reason is; the more reasons the better. That’s where you can help me. Load me up with the best reasons to go for it!

I have some ideas of my own, of course. And once I’ve had the chance to sort out the advice you send me, I’ll post it for all those in the same boat (there must be at least three or four out there).

Filed under Foreign Language Tagged with , , ,

Survival of the Fittest? Richard Dawkins Duped

March 19, 2008 8 Comments


On Thursday, March 20, I plan to see a screening of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The documentary features Ben Stein, author, cultural commentator, finance guru, and occasional film actor. Last September, Ewen MacAskill reported that the film’s premise is “that scientists sympathetic to intelligent design are penalised by being denied academic posts.” His brief article, published in The Guardian, reports that Richard Dawkins is among those who were interviewed for the film. And now Dawkins is showing a spot of upsetness. His complaint appears to be that he was duped by the producers of the film. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” said Dawkins. (See Ewen MacAskill, “Dawkins rails at ‘creationist front’ for duping him,” The Guardian [September 28, 2007].)

Ben Stein’s reply is interesting: “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about.”

A couple years ago I was asked by Penn and Teller to be interviewed for a religious feature they were taping. I knew their reputation, and asked for a sample video of a similar program they had produced. I watched the sample carefully, more than once, and telephoned a few of my friends to get their advice about whether to go ahead with the interview. About half of them said to go for it, while the other half advised against it. I phoned Penn and Teller and thanked them for the invite, but told them that I was not interested in doing the interview. That was that.

I haven’t seen Ben Stein’s film yet. But I can’t work up much sympathy for Dawkins’s consternation, regardless of its quality. Surely he could have inquired a little more fully about the specific nature and aims of this film, before agreeing to be interviewed. There’s a Darwinian explanation for what happened to Richard Dawkins. It’s called “survival of the fittest.”

Filed under Film Reviews, Intelligent Design, New Atheism Tagged with , , , , ,

Newer posts →