Anderson: Looking back, there may be more to opinions than just having them
Informed opinions constitute the cornerstone of a democratic society.
By Joshua Anderson (Contact)
Friday, April 25th, 2008
I’ve spent a great deal of time this semester worrying. Not about tests or grades as much as the backlashes for columns I ‘ve written.
I’m not naive enough to be surprised at this. I know where I stand in relation to many who disagree with me on many issues, but it doesn’t change that I am actually a fairly sensitive person and am not the biggest fan of confrontation.
Because of this, I’ve thought of this semester as “the opinion.” I’ve derived a number of ideas, a few of which I’d like to relate here.
1. There are many types of opinions: informed opinions, uninformed opinions, logical and illogical opinions, well worded and impressive-sounding opinions as well as perplexing and ambiguous ones.
Granted, some opinion pieces function more as observations of the world through an author’s unique lens instead of as statements of truth. Others, however, have absolutely everything to do with a morality - whether something is right or wrong.
2. A certain amount of critical thinking must be involved not only the formation of the opinion, but also in understanding another’s opinion. A valid opinion is more than a hunch or a political leaning. It is a matter of logic and reason. Our response to an opinion should involve as much consideration for the truth (or untruth) of what it says as the penning of it. That way, someone’s hunch doesn’t give birth to a knee-jerk reaction.
Our culture is permeated with a sense of our inalienable right to instant gratification. Our dealings in the world of opinions and dialog should not follow this model. There is no drive-thru window to healthy dialog, and once we take a bite we should chew it seven times and let it digest for 30 minutes before we jump back in the pool.
A responsible attitude and behavior toward opinions is essential, because informed opinions constitute the cornerstone of a democratic society. In a sense, this nation is built on the foundation of the Opinion page, on the back-and-forth of ideas and values.
In order for this to happen, there are a number of bad habits me must work to rid ourselves of.
1. We must abandon the doctrine of assuming. If I make the statement that A is better than B, it would be irresponsible to assume that this is because I in fact hate B with an illogical and genocidal hatred.
Assuming why or how a person can come to such a conclusion is much less valuable than knowing why they think that way, let alone actually dismantling their argument.
2. Accusations leveled at an author that do not address the text of the author’s argument are despicable, because they exist only to unsettle a reader’s understanding of what the author is saying. There are many forms of this: name-calling, calling into question the author’s life experience or education, or associating the author with negative elements outside of the argument itself. Besides, this sort of thing is just plain childish, and should be left to children and presidential candidates.
Opinions, editorials and the dialog that flows from them in our culture should all be crafted in such a manner that they work towards the betterment of individuals, society and the whole world. Our goal should be to foster a language - not of simplification (politics) or repetition (the media)- but of understanding.
Anderson is a Perry junior in creative writing.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.