After jumping through endless rings and hoops in graduate school (or medical school or such), a person will become a doctor, and have the strange right to have Dr. in front of their name rather than something else. After jumping through endless rings and hoops in a circus, a clown will still be a clown and still be called by a one-word adjective like fuzzy or happy or smiles.
I think one of the worst things about the world is the idea of titles, the idea of status in general, the idea that some are better than others. Now, if you take a specific dimension or domain, of course some are better than others. The Olympics are a great example of this. The fastest speedskater or luger or downhill skier will get a gold. The second fastest will get a silver, and the third will receive a bronze. This extends to any domain. The manager is probably better at a business than the assistant manager (though, like sports, it isn’t always fair).
But the idea of titles means that some people are generally better than others. I think that maybe some people can do things so heroic that they deserve recognition. Perhaps that is fine, but to give people titles based on arbitrary achievements (like writing a dissertation) is not a good thing.
The greatest concept to develop from the “Enlightenment” was the idea of the innate value and equality of humanity. Now, this wasn’t the first time that idea developed, but this was when it became most prominent as an international force. Previously, the belief was that some people, usually by birthright, were fundamentally superior. They were the only ones with the ability to lead and thus this gave them a right to be richer, to be more powerful. A lord, for instance, believed it was his right to shepherd his serfs. Many slaveowners also thought the same about their slaves.
However, in the 17th and 18th century, the idea came that humans had value intrinsically based on being human. “All men are created equal” is the famous line from the Declaration of Independence, but it was echoed by many other thinkers of the period. Even this was taken as far to have societies (the Quakers being a notable group) that would refuse to address anyone as titled.
But by giving some people, based on arbitrary achievements that have no bearing on the world, the title of “Doctor” the same thing? Being in the academic circle, I feel like the janitors who sweep the floors are more worthy as human beings to receive any titles than many of the professors. Now that is just my visceral opinion and has no validity, but the fact that I feel that I could justify it means that I don’t think there is a criterion that can justify giving some people the title “doctor” by an arbitrary achievement.
The only way that people can justify the title doctor is the pervasive belief that there is something special about having intellect or having learning or scholarly achievement that makes it more special than other achievements. This notion has been in Western thought since the Greeks, at least (and maybe in other schools of thought), but it has the idea that the learned man is more important than the mere worker. I don’t think such is the case, nor do I think that it should be the case.
I think people should be happy to be called “friend” and not doctor, unless you’re a medical doctor, because I think the term medical friend would sound weird.
