21 Jan 2017
We thank God
that we are not
like the ones
Instead, we fight
with words and images,
tweets and memes,
dollars and budgets.
The weapons are different,
but the pain is just as real.
If we are to fight,
may we fight for something
worth fighting for,
Not our ideologies,
nor our egos,
But for what is right,
and for those who have no voice.
15 Jan 2017
We live in a time of change,
sometimes inspiring and exciting,
sometimes distressing and frightening,
but always challenging.
Yet even in the midst of upheaval,
we can be sure of this:
The Father still loves us,
the Son still calls us,
The Spirit still leads us,
and we must still follow –
13 Jan 2017
And perhaps the great day will come when a people, distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free will, “We break the sword,” and will smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself unarmed when one has been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling—that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither oneself nor one’s neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear, does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared—this must some day become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth, too.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and His Shadow, 284.
12 Jan 2017
The greatest tragedy
is not to hate God,
for the one who hates
has God ever present
before his mind.
It is ambivalence,
thoughtless and uncaring,
a life that is at once
both full and empty,
full of trivialities,
yet empty of meaning
Heal my lukewarm heart, Lord,
and restore me to my first love.
09 Jan 2017
This internet meme has been making the rounds lately:
The graphic shows two people on opposite ends of an ambiguous figure on the ground. One person points down and says “Six.” The other points down, saying “Nine.” The original caption is “Just because you are right, does not mean I am wrong.” That caption is crossed out, and this rebuttal placed below:
But one of those people is wrong, someone painted a six or nine, they need to back up ad orient themselves, see if there are any other numbers to alight with. Maybe there’s a driveway of a building to face, or they can ask someone who actually knows.
People having an uninformed opion about something they don’t understand and proclaiming their opinion as being equally valid as facts is shat is ruining the world. No one wants to do any research, they just want to be right.
There are number of things wrong here. First, the minor and less interesting problems:
- The distinction between opinion and fact — an opinion is just something someone believes. A fact is something that is the case. True opinions express facts; false ones do not. So, an opinion can very well be as “valid” as a fact, if it indeed expresses a fact.
- I do think that people having uninformed (I assume that is what was meant, not “uniformed”) opinions is bad, however, I suspect there are worse problems in the world. Failure to be informed is not evidence that people want to be right, but that they want to win. There’s an important difference.
Now for the more interesting issues:
One thing the explanation gets right is that context is important. Context might very well show that one person is in fact wrong, but context could also show that both are right. The explanation assumes that the figure is painted on the floor or ground, but that’s not clear from the cartoon. Another possibility is that the two people are looking at a large sign that was not intentionally placed, but simply laid down. To save money, the sign-maker may have produced 9 different signs for the numerals, intending the same sign to be used for both 6 and 9. So, both are correct. It is both a 6 and 9. The explanation assumes that the person who placed the figure there was trying to communicate something, but that isn’t necessarily the case.
Another possibility, imagine that the two people live directly across the street from each other — one at 6 Elm Street and the other at 9 Elm Street. Not being very bright, they thought it would be cute to paint this large figure on the street between their houses. One points out that it is a 6, the other, a 9. Both walk away happy, and there is no real disagreement.
To the broader point communicated by the original statement:
We’ve all probably had disagreements that seemed irresolvable. Then, after some patient discussion, one person says, “You know, I think we’re really saying the same thing.” We often find that there are many different ways to express the same thought. One way being right does not mean that the others are wrong.
Statements also have meaning relative to a linguistic context. We may assume the other is wrong, but we’ve just misunderstood the context. For example, one person says that it is 25 degrees outside, but another says that it is -4. Can they both be right? Of course, if they are assuming different temperature scales.
So, in cases of disagreement, there are several possibilities:
- The disagreement is merely apparent. The parties believe the same thing, but do not understand each other.
- The disagreement is genuine, and the issue is such that only one party can be correct.
- The disagreement is genuine, but the issue is such that, even though they don’t realize it, both parties can be correct.
To know if someone’s being right entails that another person is wrong, I have to know facts about the question, the issue, the linguistic context, etc. That’s often not very difficult, but sometimes it is very hard. It’s important to note that we are always hypothesizing about these things and our assumptions may be wrong. So, in situations of disagreement, maybe we should try to exercise a bit more charity.
In the end, then, it is both one person’s being right and facts about context that determine if the other person must be wrong. So, the original statement stands, one person’s being right is not alone enough to guarantee that another person is wrong. We should certainly seek to be informed, but we should also seek to understand.