What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

"I do not concern myself with great matters, or things too wonderful for me."

Psalm 131:1 is not, perhaps, ever going to be a popular credo for bloggers.

The older I get, the more I realize how little right I have to an opinion about most things. The realization typically lasts a few seconds, and then I resume pontificating on every topic under the sun. The fact is that much of what I present as knowledge is better described as dubious impression; and much of what I present as reasoned argument is better described as instinct and prejudice. I'm working on changing my style, but there it is.

That doesn't mean everything I say is worthless, of course - I consider my impressions, instincts and prejudices to be pretty close to the gospel truth - but consider yourself warned: caveat emptor.

You would think that self-knowledge would lead to greater humility. It should, but I can't say that it always works out that way. My not-so-humble self happens to think that most other people are in the same boat, having little right to their own miserable opinions, probably even less right than I have to mine. Which is comforting but, alas, nothing more than a clever form of hubris. (See, there isn't a single positive disposition that the devil can't turn against you!)

If you ever go on an extended silent retreat, upon returning to "the world" you will probably be struck by the frivolity and, yes, even the sinfulness of most human conversation. "In the multitude of words there shall not want sin." - Prov 10:19. Taken in a Christian way, one should nurture a solidarity and sympathy, rather than contempt, towards others whose opinions are just as quarter-educated and half-baked as one's own, or perhaps only a little more so. No, wait, that's not it - instead one should consider the mass of gossips, busybodies and poseurs as better than they sound, which in fact they probably are, and consider the worst of their verbal torrents as mirrors into one's own soul. If it was a good retreat, you will have at least learned that much.

I once had strong opinions about the proliferation of opinions, blaming it on American democracy, a system which unfortunately makes holding ill-formed opinions practically mandatory for political participation. But no, one finds this disposition among men everywhere, political and non-political, and it can even be argued that the subjects of non-democracies are more prone to conspiracy theories than citizens of democracies. American democracy confirms and ratifies a pre-existing flaw in human nature, but it doesn't create it and might even restrain it slightly (at least that's what my personal anecdotes would indicate).

A bigger contribution to the problem might be that of annoying, talkative, sanguine personalities browbeating more restrained and thoughtful personalities into expressing an opinion whether they have one or not. I've been known to do this to my older children and I'm quite sure it will be to the detriment of their characters. They usually manage to put up an admirable resistance, so there is hope for them.

It's encouraging to know that, even in America, one can be successful in politics without having pre-packaged opinions about everything. I recall how strange it sounded to me when a man running for city council a couple of years ago, while sitting on a debate panel, declined to answer numerous questions because he "just didn't know" and he "needed to study that some more". What? The other candidates had their answers down pat. I admit to thinking this candidate might be incompetent. I was seriously wrong; this humble farmer is now our highly respected mayor. But he's one small town mayor who's never going to be a congressman or governor.

Comments (11)

Psalm 131:1 is not, perhaps, ever going to be a popular credo for bloggers.
True.

And the rest of what you have to say has a number of honest admissions and interesting observations in a world that, according to Hobbes, is governed by opinion.

Ortega y Gasset's opinion about the formation of opinions may be of further interest. He states this opinion in The Revolt of the Masses:

The majority of men have no opinions, and these have to be pumped into them from outside, like lubricants into machinery. Hence it is necessary that some mind or other should hold and exercise authority, so that the people without opinions - the majority - can start having opinions.

Nicely put, Jeff, and beautifully humble. If this post had a "like" button, I'd click it several times.

Gee, it's hard to remain humble when so many around you have every right to be even more humble! :-)

A right to our own opinions! What a world of problems that little expression contains. Just for example, does a non-doctor have a right to an opinion about whether antiseptic procedures are good surgical practice? Does a non-engineer have a right to an opinion that the bridge design exceeds the capacity called for?

Alex, most men have no firmly fixed opinion on most topics, but after watching one 18 minute segment on one show they will find not only an opinion, but one that so far exceeds in firmness the data that it is based on that it should be called faith rather than opinion. Men have very little respect for the tools of thought by which one may take on a point of view that is tentative, hypothetical, possible but not certain. They don't like uncertainty, so they reject any intentional reservation to their assent: once they accept an opinion, they adhere to it as if it were a fully established fact.

I once had strong opinions about the proliferation of opinions, blaming it on American democracy, a system which unfortunately makes holding ill-formed opinions practically mandatory for political participation.

No. I blame it on tv, oh, and vanity.

The Chicken

Most men have no firmly fixed opinion on most topics, but after watching one 18 minute segment on one show they will find not only an opinion, but one that so far exceeds in firmness the data that it is based on that it should be called faith rather than opinion. Men have very little respect for the tools of thought by which one may take on a point of view that is tentative, hypothetical, possible but not certain. They don't like uncertainty, so they reject any intentional reservation to their assent: once they accept an opinion, they adhere to it as if it were a fully established fact.

Tony: Many articulate people one encounters on a causal basis seem to fit this kind of profile. They tend, for example, merely to parrot the opinions of the social democratic establishment - most likely because they haven't learned the grounds of those opinions. Assertions of incontrovertible fact by 'experts' pontificating through the mass media are often tendentious opinions in disguise. And people swallow the sentiments wholesale.

In an age of political correctness, there are topics on which people are sometimes no longer allowed to voice their opinions - even if they are true. So it's a very good thing that sites like this exist to publish authors who attack that conformity and even give us hope that the internet could be the death of politically correct opinion. I think it was Orwell who said that a genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.

There are two different and in some ways opposite phenomena that seem to be going on. On the one hand, it's true that the blogosphere can increase dogmatism. On the other hand, we have the proliferation of phrases like "in my opinion," "it seems to me," and "I think." It would be interesting to see an actual analysis of the prevalence of such phrases in language samples from pre- and post-blogosphere, but anecdotally my impression is that the incidence is a lot higher now and especially in these electronic contexts. This has led some people to say that we are becoming too undogmatic rather than too dogmatic and also that our conversation is coming to be entirely about ourselves--about our own opinions and thoughts--rather than consisting of manly and straightforward statements about topics of real interest.

Probably both trends are going on. And it may even happen that a person who uses "I think" or "it seems to me" a great deal is more dogmatic than a person who merely says what he thinks (without the prefatory phrase) if the former is stubborn about his opinion and the latter is willing to accept contrary evidence.

Probably both trends are going on.

I knew I was becoming more dogmatic about my undogmaticism...or was I becoming more undogmatic about my dogma?

People have always had opinions. It is the quick-draw nature of modern opinions that is the problems. This is not just a problem with humility, but also with the decay in prudence - the correct use of the speech act. The increasing pace of communication and mass-media foster this. TV stimulates the attention orienting/responding portions of the brain while simultaneously supressing the cognitive portions. The result is that one is often antsy both during and after participating in tv/computer activities. This, coupled with sociability expectations being heightened by the instantaneousness of social media, is fertile breeding ground for motor mouthing on a variety of topic.

I talk. I talk a lot when I talk. I also spend most of my day in silence, thinking. Even cloistered nuns need a recreation period, however. Nuns have, in the better cases, learned, however, to make each statement count as an act of charity, either in speaking truth or relieving someone else's burdens.

In the modern decay of society, we have less prudence, less humility, less charity, and less silence that at almost any period in history. Soon, we will have less history, because words are less important than deeds. We have so many words. What we need are deeds.

The Chicken

A great reminder... thank you, Jeff!

Because of the constant onslaught of news via news and talk radio, the 24 hour news cycle on cable, and the internet,it has been my practice to absorb events in the electronic media with caution and refrain from comment until the dust settles. I do prefer to wait until the major stories of the day are in print after a period of 24 hours or so, particularly if the article is in a good paper or magazine. I agree with the Chicken with regard to the increased pace of communication, what it produces, and how it affects the brain. "Motor mouthing" is a great way to describe the phenomenom.
These past few days I have found myself ignoring my own convictions due to the news of bin Laden's demise. Already, in phone conversations, I have authoritatively announced (moter mouthing)several facts about the raid on his compound, based on the fast and quick TV/radio reports, that have now been corrected by the White House. I wish I had refrained and waited for all of the facts to be sorted out. Once that has happened, and providing I, or others, fully understand the facts and their implications, it is all well and good to speak dogmatically.
This Lenten season was an opportunity for me to begin to extricate myself from the bondage of my addiction to the media by avoiding all Talk Radio. I have for some time been convicted of the squandering of time spent listening to the same hyperbolic blathering by people whose job it is to create a crisis at every turn. It's not that all of the opinions were worthless, it's just that I only need to hear it once and not in a protracted form. I will return to occasional segments of Talk Radio, but I do think that it is one medium that encourages "motor mouthing" by the rest of us.

I'm often guilty of winding up by using the words "I think" when I'm not confident about the facts (if there are any) or to indicate a certain reticence until I can say "I know". By this weak dodge it's sometimes implied that I might be corrected by people with better information or maybe a better substantiated belief.

Of course I still cherish my share of groundless opinions and prejudices. It's unlikely that anyone can change my mind about them.

I have for some time been convicted of the squandering of time spent listening to the same hyperbolic blathering by people whose job it is to create a crisis at every turn.

Yeah, yeah...I have about (I'm guessing) 200 boxed tv series and have spent countless hours numbing my brain in front of ye-old-dvd-player instead of pondering my relationship to my Creator and other mysteries of the universe. I might have won a Nobel prize :) and I could use the 1.7 million dollars! Maybe, I still might win a Nobel prize in medicine (not my field, but hey, I'll take the money any way I can get it) for discovering a way to free teenage girls from their addiction to telephones.

I can just imagine God at the particular judgment staring at me and asking, "Was watching episode 4 of season 2 of Stargate, SG1 for the fifteenth time REALLY necessary...

The Chicken

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.