“Do you not see, then, that you had no right to have any opinion whatever on the subject?”
Thus said ‘the Great Knock’, the tutor of the young C S Lewis, in response to his subject’s views on the Surrey landscape. But it ought, in truth, to be blazoned across our media generally and the internet particularly. Indeed, some people ought to have it as a screen-saver.
It is more than three weeks since I last posted a ‘proper’ article on this blog. Partly that is down to the busy-ness of Christmas, partly to a holiday thereafter, partly to trying to do some reading and partly to the demands of running the Benefice during our current interregnum.
However, I have continued to visit the odd blog or two and to look at the comments made in online newspapers, and the one thing that has increasingly struck me is that most of what is written is complete twaddle, not only in what is said, but how, and even why.
Too many people, it seems, have little grasp either of basic comprehension or of logical reasoning. The result, thanks to the internet, is a constant pouring forth of opinions fiercely held and rebuttals vitriolically delivered, but little actual engagement or sense.
I am reminded of a group of largely-unemployed men who used to gather at a church-run coffee shop I knew. What characterised them when they debated together was the great passion with which so little was said. It was clear that they had strong feelings on the various subjects under discussion, but they lacked the educational or intellectual ability to get very far in their analysis. The result was doubtless fun for them —and why should it not be? —but it would have made a poor radio broadcast.
Now some, I am sure, will feel I am mocking the ‘inferiority’ of these men. I am not. But I am asserting that argument or discussion may be of a greater or lesser quality depending on the abilities and skills brought to bear. My target is not the cheerful ‘bumpkin’, who is a threat to no one, but the person who really does believe they have understanding and that therefore they have something to say.
Such a person will probably have negotiated our educational system with some success. Indeed, it is likely they have a degree. However, as the scarecrow discovered in The Wizard of Oz, a diploma is not the same thing as wisdom.
The first problem I observe is the sheer lack of comprehension reflected in many people’s comments on an article or issue. Quite simply, people read without taking things in. Their responses therefore are often tangential to, or sometimes even unrelated to, what has actually been said.
When I was in my early years at school, we were required to write two sorts of ‘English’ essay —comprehension and composition. I much more enjoyed composition, where we were allowed to express ourselves on a subject. Comprehension essays, where we had to sum up the content of someone else’s work, I found dull and repetitious. Yet I now understand the value of the latter, for if I am to engage with the ideas and opinions of others I must first comprehend what they are saying.
Such comprehension, however, is clearly lacking in many today, as evidenced by comments which miss the point, which ignore what has been said or which, most frustratingly of all, attribute to an author ideas or views which he or she has simply not expressed. The latter, which is all-too-common, arises perniciously not from the words of the author but the opinions of the reader, who has gained nothing from the effort of reading save an increase in bile.
It was a very important lesson to me, in my university days, to realize that although one might be able to read very well, it did not guarantee one understood what was written. This was brought home to me by an assignment to read chunks of David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding over the Christmas holidays. Sitting on a bus from West Croydon to Charlton, I realized that although I understood every word on the page in front of me, I simply had no idea what Hume was saying. Only during tutorials in the following term did I finally, and slowly, get the hang of comprehending Hume’s words.
Lesson number two also came through the philosophy module, where I eventually, and painfully, learned the difference between meaning something and saying it. Too often, essay marks suffered because although I knew what I meant, it simply wasn’t there in the words on the page. It was almost an epiphany when I realized this was the problem, and my writing improved dramatically. At the same time, however, I realized that what was true for me was also applicable to others, and that I could therefore only take their meaning to be what they had actually expressed in their words —for better or for worse.
Unfortunately, far too few people have any experience either of being taught to read or to write in a disciplined way. The result is too much careless reading and thoughtless writing.
And then there are the disciplines of argument and evidence. Too many people, again, imagine that philosophy and the natural sciences are about the ‘big ideas’, without grasping that these entail the basic building blocks of reason.
Recently, I was browsing the philosophy section of a bookshop, looking for an introductory work on the subject. The first book I picked up purporting to be such almost immediately introduced the reader to the question of the existence of God! (Indeed, it was surprising how many works on ‘popular’ philosophy and science touched on religion.) Of course, this is an interesting topic, and one on which much philosopher’s ink has been spilled. But the point is, how can someone who has not yet learned the basics of philosophy understand whether the presentation itself of such a topic is philosophically sound or otherwise?
Before we can usefully debate the arguments for the existence of God, we must understand the principles by which argument works, at the heart of which is the notion that “If p, then not not-p” —the axiom that two contradictory things cannot simultaneously be the case. Those who are unfamiliar with such a concept, or who find it too abstruse to grasp, are surely not in a position yet to trust their own arguments for the existence of the Deity or to dispute those of others!
As I hinted in the introductory quote, however, what is lacking today, above all, is humility —humility, in particular, about our abilities or understanding. People ‘read into’ more easily than they read, and opinionate more eagerly than they reflect. The Bible’s advice concerning the latter is clear: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself” (Prov 26:4). Equally clear is its advice regarding the former: “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Prov 26:5).
It is the wise person indeed who will stop to think before rushing to comment on how to reconcile the two.
Revd John Richardson
16 January 2010
PS: Just to illustrate the relevance of, and need for, basic 'philosophical' skills, readers might like to consider
this news item and list the points which require critical awareness of the nature and rules of argument.
