Intellectual Curiousity
In the public sphere there really seems to be a lack of that these days. I'm tired of so many talking points. You can pick them out too, I don't know what it is, but you can. There is something about the delivery that gives away someone repeating a script versus someone who has actually considered their response and is putting a component of their own thought into it.
I can't be bothered to find the link, but I think that Andrew Sullivan may have posted on this subject. Regardless, Dennis Perrin has a great post on the matter today. And Mr. Perrin was the one to get me thinking on this matter today.
I don't want to call the problem partisanship (though it certainly relates to partisanship) because there is always going to be parties and party loyalties. It's something else, I want to say groupthink, except that I don't think there's all that much thinking involved either. These days, it's just a matter of bolting together prefabricated debating points in the right order.
One of the reflexes to this critique is to be relentlessly middle-of-the-road. After wearying of talking-points-debate, people stake out a very firm position in the mushy middle. In some circles I get the sense that this passes for a mark of intellectual sophistication. Except that it isn't.
So what position are okay? Well, any of them - if that is, in fact, what you actually believe. If you believe one thing or another about a particular issue that's fine and good, you can even be in the middle. What I tire of though is the reflexiveness of it all. If you think about your opinion and the way you narrate it makes it sound exactly like a press release from a political party or and interest group, then you need to stop and think.
I think I learn the most about my own opinions when I can have a serious discussion - not a shouting match - with someone with different ones. Sometimes I learn that I'm mistaken or even wrong. Sometimes all I learn is a more nuanced way to formulate or express my understanding of the world. But at least this is learning.
Tags: Dennis Perrin, Intellectual Curiousity, Debate.
I can't be bothered to find the link, but I think that Andrew Sullivan may have posted on this subject. Regardless, Dennis Perrin has a great post on the matter today. And Mr. Perrin was the one to get me thinking on this matter today.
I don't want to call the problem partisanship (though it certainly relates to partisanship) because there is always going to be parties and party loyalties. It's something else, I want to say groupthink, except that I don't think there's all that much thinking involved either. These days, it's just a matter of bolting together prefabricated debating points in the right order.
One of the reflexes to this critique is to be relentlessly middle-of-the-road. After wearying of talking-points-debate, people stake out a very firm position in the mushy middle. In some circles I get the sense that this passes for a mark of intellectual sophistication. Except that it isn't.
So what position are okay? Well, any of them - if that is, in fact, what you actually believe. If you believe one thing or another about a particular issue that's fine and good, you can even be in the middle. What I tire of though is the reflexiveness of it all. If you think about your opinion and the way you narrate it makes it sound exactly like a press release from a political party or and interest group, then you need to stop and think.
I think I learn the most about my own opinions when I can have a serious discussion - not a shouting match - with someone with different ones. Sometimes I learn that I'm mistaken or even wrong. Sometimes all I learn is a more nuanced way to formulate or express my understanding of the world. But at least this is learning.
Tags: Dennis Perrin, Intellectual Curiousity, Debate.
posted by Dan at 10:34 PM
<< Home