Ariela: Thanks a lot for being here today, Socrates. The last time we fictionally opined was in my 2005 application to The University of Maryland.

Socrates: Wasn’t your hair much longer then?

A: As a matter of fact, Soc (is it OK if I call you that?), it was. But enough about me. I invited you to my column today to discuss a rather of serious issue — the lack of questioning, and overall skepticism, in our society. As you are a champion of the aptly-named Socratic method for questioning in law cases, and were actually put to death because of your frustratingly hard-hitting questions about Athenian society, I figured you’d be a good guest to have.

S: Well, what exactly is troubling you?

A: I’ve been fearful for a while that American society today is rather complacent. Where have all the questions gone?

S: Do you mean that citizens sit idly by, not revolutionizing?

A: No, I don’t really mean that, I mean something deeper, something much more latent. In terms of “why we aren’t revolutionizing,” there have been all sorts of theories postulated about the difference between the “revolutionary” 60s and our generation. One recent example is that of New York Times Essay Winner Nicholas Handler (Yale ’09) who says that a revolution is still taking place for our generation, but in a different manner.

Whatever your thoughts are about the activism of our generation, I’m talking about questioning society outside of creating a revolution. As Salman Rushdie put it last Thursday when speaking at Cornell, the First Amendment is quite possibly the only reason that the United States has maintained any sort of dignity in the international arena. I know you probably don’t know who Salman Rushdie is or what the First Amendment says in particular, Soc, but put it this way: our society has a long-standing tradition of asking questions, of challenging the “powers that be,” of being able to voice our skepticisms. Now, in our post 9/11-society, we have “free speech zones” and —

S: But you’re not really talking about top-down censorship, are you?

A: No, Soc, you’re right — I’m not, and that’s the scary part. I don’t think the problem is that people are constantly being skeptical of society and then their voices are being repressed. I think that, for the most part, people feel that they don’t need to be skeptical. Consequently, in the least extreme, we miss out on valuable learning experiences to investigate various societal rules, norms and ideas — and in the most extreme, we are duped by our government and ourselves.

S: Well, why do you think that is?

A: I think it partially has to do with the revolutionary concept “innocent until proven guilty,” which in my opinion has become tarnished these days — but that’s another column entirely. The idea of “innocent until proven guilty,” I feel, has extended into different areas of society outside of the criminal arena. In theory at least, it leads us to believe that everything is normal, everything is fine until there’s a glitch in the system which proves that it’s not. We accept everything we’re given, until there’s absolute proof which contradicts our notions a la The Matrix.

S: What kind of questions do you want people to ask?

A: That’s a great question, too. Gosh, you’re good. Well, I certainly don’t want people to feel like they’re living in The Truman Show. I don’t want to advocate over-exaggerated skepticism to the point of a paranoid schizophrenia. But I think that being slightly jaded is extremely underrated. I’m advocating skepticism to further self-awareness. Here in the university setting, our professors have to bribe us with “participation” points for us to speak in class!

S: What kind of questions can people ask to further self-awareness?

A: For example, instead of jumping on the sustainability bandwagon, how about asking what sustainability really means? Or “fair trade,” “corporate responsibility,” even “informed citizen?” These catch-phrases seem to roll off our tongue, and we use them without really understanding what they mean. If we put more effort into understanding various concepts and philosophies instead of accepting them because they seem like the right thing to do, we might become stronger individuals and a stronger society as a whole. If we double- (or triple- or quadruple-) check our news sources instead of accepting one media source as having some kind of corner on the truth, we might get closer to defining what “truth” means to us individually.

S: Does this whole “questioning kick” you’re on have anything to do with the fact that you chopped your hair off?

A: The importance of hair has definitely been something I’ve been questioning for a while, as well as societal notions of “beauty” and “femininity” in general. Why is hair so important? Why don’t we see more women with very short hair? When did long hair become a trait associated with females? I thought that I could only grow from answering all these questions — and experiencing them — firsthand.

Anyway, Soc, now I have to ask you a question. As a historical figure with the reputation of being homosexual, what do you think about Dumbledore coming out of the closet?

S: … I think that’s the end of our question-answer session today, Ariela.

A: OK, Soc. Thanks for being here today and thanks for all your great questions. Keep ’em coming, people. Oh, Soc, before you go, do you want to finish off this column with its customary haiku?

S: Why, I’d be honored. I’ll use a quote that I’m pretty famous for:

“I know nothing but

Question what that means.

Ariela Rutkin-Becker is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be contacted at arbecker@cornellsun.com. Dude, Where’s My Karma?­ appears alternate Tuesdays.