Open-mindedness and gullibility: one is a virtue while the other is a weakness. The real differences are subtle. Now, I usually don't respond to personal attacks, but I feel like this is a good opportunity to make a point. In my previous post regarding my reading of The Road to Serfdom, I noted two times in which my mind was swayed by admittedly polarizing works; the aforementioned book and a Michael Moore film. The article became popular on reddit.com and a flood of comments ensued. Among those comments were remarks indicating my gullibility, my frailty of mind, my "fail"-ure as a thinker. This, all because I heard an argument and agreed with it. My question is: regardless of the argument's validity, how am I supposed to react? I can cite a million arguments at which I've scoffed, but to highlight the two that actually incited self-reflection makes me feeble in the brain.
As a blogger and a discussion forum administrator, I am well familiar with the average internet denizen's contrarian mindset. "You may be correct, but I am more correct." Still, this does not explain the vitriol I attract when simply admitting to be human. What does everyone expect of an author? Are we to come up with our entire political, economic and existential philosophies on our own and then spend our lives deflecting arguments like jackasses? One should note that the influential authors of our times are the ones who amalgamate the ideas of their predecessors into coherent arguments. Calling upon influences should be celebrated, not scorned. Where does open-mindedness cross over into gullibility? Does it happen when we swallow only half of what we're told? A quarter? Could a person ever be too curious? Too considerate?
The standard of proof is not the same for every field of knowledge. When it comes to science, we have experiments and measurements. In math, we have theorems and proofs. However, in economics, politics, and philosophy, we have constantly moving targets that nobody ever seems to hit with much consistency. So, while I would be a fool to convince myself that the Pythagorean theorem is false, there is not a soul on Earth that can prove the superiority of socialism over liberalism beyond a doubt. Why, then, am I such a fool for re-evaluating my stance on such a subjective issue? While I am nowhere among the great thinkers of the world, when it comes to pass that one of them "switches sides" to opposing ideologies, the reception is usually a celebrated one. Nobody from the benefiting side is disappointed to have a weak-minded flip-flopper in their midst. Rather, it is a symbol of validation. I suppose that anyone who falls on the losing side will think otherwise, but those, my friends, are sour grapes.
Academics aren't the only ones with valid changes of heart. In the atheism community of reddit, members congratulate others who shirk off the burden of faith, considering their de-conversion a sign of mental strength, not weakness. Conversely, when it comes to losing a compatriot to a different ideology, we're always quite resentful. I felt that way when my sister became a born-again Christian and I'm sure everyone has a similar story. I know her friends at the church were quite elated, though.
Maybe I'm not addressing the real issue. Maybe it is the particular material that swayed me that makes me look like a goon. Let's talk about Michael Moore first. I was incensed by his film "Capitalism: A Love Story," but to get some perspective on his validity as a polemic filmmaker, I would like to point to his previous film, "SiCKO." The healthcare battle that many of the people who bashed me have stakes in was incited in small part by that fat, ugly sensationalist. He's not a complete hack, and, while I in no way feel he is infallible, he has made two very eye-opening arguments with his latest releases. Is my mind really so flimsy that I let him affect me, or did he simply say something that I knew was true and simply never thought too hard about it before?
In the case of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom, we have an author whose ideals are just as relevant 66 years after they've been published. In fact, Hayek was cited by the previous author I had read, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, as being the one guy who "got it right" where others had missed the point. NNT, as he calls himself, is no fool to be dismissed, either. His economic philosophy is more profound and real, based more on actuality, than any other theory I've heard to date. So, after reading Hayek's book and finding that it both reminded me of my principles and introduced consequential logic to the thought process, I don't feel much like a willow branch in the wind. Even my own admission of his "slippery slope" arguments was more to hang a lampshade than anything else.
Alas, if not educational, I do try to make my articles persuasive. It could be that my own persuasion is a bad argument for the idea I am promoting. If this is the case, then this is what should be nitpicked by the detractor. I've always given, as advice to the would-be internet debater, that one should attack the argument, not the person. Affronts to my reasoning I can accept, but dismissing my argument because I haven't held it for too long is like taking 3 years to recognize that we have a new President. When a new one comes into office, it is assumed that the proper vetting has been done and it is determined that they are the winner by a call of voting. I go through a similarly thorough vetting process with the ideals I subscribe to and I hope my readers trust me on this.
5 nibbles: