Ignorant Opinions Believed To Be Wisdom
 |
| Almost every opinion can hold even a sliver of truth. Almost any argument can sound convincing. Yet to interpret popular opinion as fact, or words from a celebrity or wealthy person as wisdom, is to judge a message according to its packaging, not its content. |
It seems that perhaps a famous person interprets their fame, whether from their work or vocation, as being highly valued or something that is an invaluable contribution to society.
There are great instances where invaluable contributions to society are evident, from all kinds of people from all walks of life.
It isn't only the statesmen, or the learned intellectual, or the religious icon that has contributed great amounts of value to mankind.
Does making a lot of money from __________ (fill in any such variable) really equal value, or truth, or important contribution to society?
These points are arguable and can be seemingly divisive.
Clarity is dependent on one's value-set and mentality.
Lots of times opinions are simply arrogant or ignorant (or both), while some opinions carry profound truths with them, while containing some revealing limits of facts.
One point on arrogance I would touch upon is what happened to me personally after making a bit of money doing things that others don't know much about (don't worry, it was legal).
I became arrogant, and thought too highly of myself (and my opinions).
Of course, at the time I was blind to my arrogance... it wasn't until later I realized how foolish I had become.
Some would argue I still come across arrogant... perhaps, but this is not my wish and if so, it is yet another character flaw I'm plagued with (among the many others).
This is where one is able, if they try, to accept what is true or factual while deciphering what is bogus, incorrect, or less than valuable when others speak (myself included) or share their thoughts and opinions.
Popular media is full of the opinions of actors, athletes, business people, religious people, and news people and professional opinion-givers.
Taking two examples: a star athlete and a star news reporter.
What do we see?
The news person is largely reading words from a teleprompter, and these are words they likely did not write themselves.
Then, something confusingly happens which is a major departure from what journalism is supposed to be; the teleprompter reader gives their opinion about what they just read.
Their opinion, and the possible bias behind the words they read, is considered 'news'.
Now looking at an athlete, we see a physical entertainer skilled in some activity.
Something confusingly happens also with the athlete: they give their opinion of political situations and either resonate a chord of truth with their hearers, or something less than ideal comes out of their mouths.
The athlete's popularity is confused as a place of 'leadership', and the person reading the news to you is also confused as a place of 'leadership'.
But the opinions are rarely deciphered according to the facts.
Every person has truth to speak, undoubtedly.
However, does every single person on earth know perfectly what they desire to talk about?
The honest scholar, professor, scientist, genius of whatever subject matter (or whatever you consider to be a highly intelligent person) may be apt to humbly say 'I don't know everything there is to know about the subject I am an expert in'.
But not all 'experts' in their respective field may exude such humility.
Instead, according to the human condition, any given person is going to argue their point of view.
No single person on earth knows all there is to know about whatever they argue to know.
Yet, notice how a mob mentality runs after their favorite opinion-givers, or their favorite athlete, as if such people were gurus with wisdom pouring out from their pores.
It is quite humorous and entertaining, but it should be realized for what it is: dangerous and appalling.
Why?
Because poor opinions are being touted as undeniable facts.
You can look at any expert in their field, or genius who has produced or worked on any given service or product, and it is somehow assumed that their expertise in one vocation somehow carries over into another topic.
An example exploring the meaning: a person who is expert in producing a near-perfect automobile is now confusingly believed to be expert in the humanities and interpersonal relationships, or an expert historian able to describe fluid dynamics of individuals and collective civilizations.
Surely any individual can be an expert in a litany of topics, and no two topics need to be closely related.
However, what of a person who can hardly read or write attempting to correct a professor of literature?
They would seem a bit arrogant.
Perhaps their offensive remarks would be convincing, but they'v only convinced other ignorant people... who likely also are illiterate or ignorant of the subject matter.
Usually, such arrogance was ignored as ineptitude, but in today's climate of socialized media and how popular sentiment is believed to be 'truth', this is how tyrants have arisen in past times through force of power... but today the 'force' is ignorance and popular intrigue.
Or what of a professor of literature (who cannot do anything physical other than walk without falling down) critiques the sporting style of a professional athlete?
Hasn't the professor overstepped their bounds in expressing their opinion of something they cannot do nor know much about?
Everyone is free to express an opinion, and they are free to find themselves foolish.
But what of the audience of such a professor who agrees with their sentiments and dismisses factual physical abilities?
Their bias will be seen clearly.
These examples can be extensively argued, but I think the point is made.
Each individual's voice is important, but all expressions carry with them a level of responsibility and the weight of consequences.
One's words and the character behind one's words should be measured proportionally to each another.
Do the words carry meaning despite their author's character?
If the author is despicable in character, yet their message is reasonable and resonates truth, it would be imprudent (and judgmental) to dismiss the words according the character.
The same is true in the opposite manner.
If the words of a person reasoned to be of decent character are always accepted as accurate or valid, perhaps their humanity and evidence of mistakes would not be seen.
We see this with religious leaders most often, or despots.
To simply accept and believe anything emanating from a decent character would be unwise and nearsighted, just like siding with your favorite celebrity or public persona in all things would be unwise and nearsighted.
Same with automatically disagreeing with any words coming from places and people you've already judged as 'wrong' or 'incorrect'.
Sadly, this is what is seen so evidently in today's popular culture... and historically is nothing new.
The words of a hated person are largely ignored (because of their faulty character) although some of their words may speak very profound truths.
A popular person is widely applauded although their words, at times, may be mostly nonsense or steeped so far in ignorance that only the ignorant are convinced.
Cults of personality.
When wealth is defined as 'wisdom' or a 'sign' that someone is highly educated, or highly valuable, value sets are quite irrational.
Notice how in certain history books tyrants are applauded by their peoples, their murderous ways justified, their hostile legacy honored, their wickedness praised.
Loudmouths become 'leaders' while those with clear answers are ignored because they don't exude the popular myth of wealth = truth, or popularity = value, or some other inverted reality.
The minstrel plays a key role before the king (both today as in times past).
The minstrel portrays before the king the reality on the street, the sentiments of the public at-large, the mob's feeling and anger and joy.
Since the king does not stroll through all the various neighborhoods in his realm, usually only the minstrel or friends of the minstrel are able to convey certain sentiments to the king.
The king can count on the minstrel presenting grievances in a way that walks a fine line between insult and unadulterated truth.
The king is able to decipher when the minstrel is portraying the sentiments of his people, even when the minstrel oversteps their bounds and directly insults the king.
An honorable king understands the minstrel's humanity.
However, to think the minstrel could some day become king, or could somehow execute the role of a king, is deemed only an act of fiction - yet another stage performance for the minstrel, but never a reality.
We live in a day that minstrels have believed themselves capable of becoming king, and the people have somehow been convinced by this fictional proposition.
The position and definition of 'king' has been brought down so low that books like Don Quixote properly address such a mental ineptitude.
At least Don Quixote is of some noble stalk while being confounded by his wild imagination.
For a minstrel to be considered noble they must cease acting and speaking like minstrels.
The popular sentiments of mere minstrels should be measured according to facts in reality, not simply argued for the sake of feeling a part of the mob.
When all people think they are king, anarchy is what comes about by definition.
The place of king is not up to a noble's decision to occupy, for even when pretenders take the throne by force, they are revealed to be mere impostors, false prophets, foreign occupiers, irrational and self-indulged dreamers, wealthy yet diluted individuals, beautiful people on the outside yet so ugly on the inside.
I think it is a better idea to argue objectivity and not take sides, for there is always something to criticize within ourselves and others... yet where is your nobility?
To take the opinions of most people we hear on television as more valuable than their content - either an athlete, or a teleprompter reader, or an entertainer turned politician, or politician turned entrenched bureaucrat - is to be unable to see clearly the pettiness, vulgarity, arrogance, and insult.
It is to be lost with them, instead of being able to help them in their minstrel delusion.
To take sides instead of reflecting and relating our humanity with theirs is to lend too much weight to people's opinions no matter how famous or wealthy they may seem to be.
Opinions which do not come from at least experts in the subjects being opined, or opinions that do not at least reflect a semblance of logic and rationality, but instead resonate from a place that does not humbly acknowledge their place in humanity and before true nobility, should be seen as the distracting tool and silly entertainment it is.
I suggest stop taking cues and talking points from mere entertainers, no matter their political affiliation, or religious intrigue, or physical ability on a playing field, or their faulty opinions following faulty information peddled as journalism.
I suggest working on being noble.
Comments