The paradoxes of Parrhesia presentation was given by Dr. Hartmut Leppin from Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Parrhesia is defined as the freedom of speech, and in his presentation, Dr. Leppin asserts that everybody has the right to freedom of speech, but the paradox is that it does not work in theory, due to what I think is differing cultures and power. For example, not all women in the world have the ability to speak what they think and feel, because women are seen as inferior and men as the most predominant. If there are different cultures, there will be different interpretations of Parrhesia. Additionally, what is another layer of complexity is if speaking what one feels the truth is not agreed upon. Truth can be influenced by perspective and how one thinks, such as a perspective being that immigrants should not be allowed into the USA. Republicans may think of this idea as a truth, and blockade people from entering our country. On the flipside, Liberals may believe in open borders and opportunity for all people into the USA. It is argued that in Parrhesia, one should speak their truth, but that truth is not always agreed upon because everyone thinks differently. I personally think that not everything is worth saying and one should hold back in rude remarks, but in theory of Parrhesia, everyone should say what they think.
Interestingly, although Parrhesia is a right for all people to have the freedom of speech, there is a loss in meaning due to the usage of it. For example, if a minority group of people with power use their freedom of speech to overcome the majority of people, there is a loss in having Parrhesia for the majority. In this kind of ruling system, overtime people start to lose sight of what Parrhesia means because there is a loss in the freedom of speech.
Parrhesia can give power to those with intellectual ability, even if under-resourced or poor. In my perspective, this statement makes me think about myself and being at Haverford college. I am a first generation and low-income student, and though I may be under-resourced and behind compared to others, I still have the intellectual ability like my peers. Although I do not have much luxury, I do have the mindset and ability to put in the work and try my best. I personally do not feel I am silenced for encouraged to be, but I do feel that some of my FLI students may feel intimidated being in an elite environment such as Haverford. Haverford does encourage togetherness, non-competition, and collaboration, but one thing that still stands is that Haverford is an elite college and people may not see unity but solo-work. I think that in using my out-goingness and my willingness to speak up about problems or concerns, I can be an advocate for my FLI peers and also encourage them to be advocates as well. Even if FLI students may not have the resources or experiences as the wealthy, we still have Parrhesia and the future to bring change into our families.