Upon hearing a particularly idiotic thing the other day, I had to point out that that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. The person who had uttered it by way of a piece of profound philosophy calmly retorted that the belief was subjective, that it worked for her, and that she did not care what anybody else happened to think of it.
Flashback to the 18th century, when the Church had finally realized that it neither possessed answers to the objections posed by science and reason; nor, any longer, the power to intimidate the critics into silence. On that occasion, Friedrich Schleiermacher had come to the clergy’s rescue by offering a brilliant solution to the problem: He advised his fellows not to engage with the critics when challenged; but simply to say, instead, that their faith was subjective and that it worked for them. There are only so many varieties of foolishness that human beings can come up with. That is why the same absurdities keep repeating themselves periodically.
Subjective-truth philosophy ran amok was illustrated best by a story Gary Miller narrated once: A primary school kid had written to a math professor at a university complaining that his teacher had made all pupils vote on what should be ‘adjudged’ the correct solution to a math problem, and that the kid’s own answer had been declared incorrect while another (which seemed to him to be wrong) had been voted correct. The student had attached both the solutions. The professor wrote back, reassuring the pupil that his answer was indeed correct, and showing how the one voted correct contained a silly mistake. When the professor recounted this episode in the faculty room, a humanities professor exclaimed that that was an atrocious way to run a class. And then he went on to explain what exactly was atrocious: He said, ‘This schoolteacher is trying to teach the kids that there are right answers and there are wrong answers!’
There seems to be an inexhaustible supply of those hell-bent on voicing foolish opinions merely because it is not a cognizable offence to do that. The situation, unfortunate as it already is, seems to be going from bad to worse. For way too many apparently educated folks show unmistakable signs of struggling to distinguish between facts and opinions. Not content merely with having their own (dopey) opinions, they insist on having their own facts as well.
Few ordeals can be more severe for sensible men than to suffer bearers of this brand of ‘wisdom’ based on cliches such as ‘All ideas are worth celebrating.’ (no, they are not!); ‘Each person has his own truth.’ (Then why preach it?); and ‘Listen to your heart!’ (Even if it whispers to you utter craziness?) This sort of tolerance (for lack of a better word) is nothing more than a conscious or subconscious ploy to rationalize not subjecting one’s biases to scrutiny.
Gross overestimation of one’s competence and understanding, being a very human failing, is hardly a new phenomenon. But it seems to have come to a point where it has become virtually impossible for most fellows to speak for two minutes without contradicting themselves. In fact, many cannot help making self-conflicting statements in a single breath. With the advent of the social media, the universal access to publication of undeliberated, unreviewed ideas may have something to do with it. Why, the cacophony of nonsense that went on even 20 years ago pales in comparison with what is heard today. Or is it age catching up with this scribe? It could be both.
A further cause for concern is the rather steep increase in the already alarming number of rebels per square kilometre. Consider such a specimen: he takes pride in challenging all established ideas, contemptuously rejecting each. Sounds noble enough. The problem, however, with this sort is that he invariably gives clear indications of having no idea what he is talking about. His observations make it obvious that he has never bothered to read anything ever written on any issue that he ever addresses. Since he typically believes that his criticism is completely original and outright brilliant, he does not for a moment consider the possibility that it may have been countered or shown to be utterly stupid on numerous occasions in the past.
On the opposite end of the spectrum to the rebel (but no less irksome) is the perpetual visionary that keeps coming up with brilliant new ideas. All his past ideas have without exception been plagiarized, stupid or both. But that fact fails to temper his enthusiasm in the slightest when it is time for him to unveil his latest plan. Like the rebel above, his cocksureness (and the resulting cringeworthiness) is inversely proportional to his lack of knowledge of the first things about the issue he has taken up.
Gross overestimation of one’s competence and understanding, being a very human failing, is hardly a new phenomenon. But it seems to have come to a point where it has become virtually impossible for most fellows to speak for two minutes without contradicting themselves. In fact, many cannot help making self-conflicting statements in a single breath. With the advent of the social media, the universal access to publication of undeliberated, unreviewed ideas may have something to do with it. Why, the cacophony of nonsense that went on even 20 years ago pales in comparison with what is heard today. Or is it age catching up with this scribe? It could be both.
