The Brick Wall of Opinions

Maybe its because it's an election year. Maybe it's due to climate change or a struggling economy. I suppose it doesn't really matter why, but I have noticed an increase in the amount of opinions lately. This is not necessarily an increase in quality, merely in quantity. They are all over the place. Newspaper editorials, coffee house conversations, and churches are overflowing with opinions.

Not that I am against conversations. I am delighted that public and private conversations are being had on issues or race, carbon emissions, immigration, sexuality, economics, gender, social equality, ethics, AIDS, and war. What disturbs me is the concrete finality of so many opinions. People are closing themselves off to new ideas. They settle into themselves as they trade the vibrancy of life for a sense of security.

In Mortimer J. Adler's classic How To Read A Book, he writes (roughly) that to read a book properly we must become sympathetic readers. This means that, during the reading of a book, we must accept the premises of the author. (The opposite of this would be reading defensively.) After finishing a book we reflect upon what we have read and then integrate whatever elements are of value, even if these element challenge our way of thinking and view of the world.

This might seem to be an obvious point, but who has not picked up a book with preconceived notions about what it will be about and whether we will like it? There are too many books available not to use some amount of pre-judgment in the selection of what we read. The problem arises when we avoid literature merely because we disagree with the conclusions (in non-fiction) or the morality of the characters (in fiction).

The principle of sympathetic readers applies more widely than book selection. For example, I know that one day my kid will play some music that I do no instantly enjoy. I need to remain sympathetic both to experiencing the music and as well as to my child's experience of it. If I reject the music as "trash" or "noise" all I have done is form a divisive opinion. I have lost both an opportunity to learn about a new type of music as well as, more importantly, the chance to connect with a human being whom I love.

The same principle can apply to issues of race, carbon emissions, immigration, sexuality, economics, gender, social equality, ethics, AIDS, and war. Unfortunately, some of the loudest voices in society are not being sympathetic listeners or speakers. Pundits, preachers, and politicians are out to accomplish and achieve and are uninterested in listening sympathetically. Admittedly, it is hard to listen sympathetically and spew an opinion at the same time.

While it may be impossible to not use some level of pre-judgment when we talk about issues or people, we should not avoid discussion the of an issue (or ideas, people, art, food, cultures, etc.) simply because it does not instantly gel with our sensibilities.

We can become locked into an opinion at any time. However it's easiest to see as people grow older. Listen carefully for some key phrases like, "That not how I was raised..." or "Back in my day..." or "We were never brought up to..." The passage of time and growing older should never be an excuse to stop learning, from opening your mind to new experiences. The moment you stop listening to new music, or reading, or you let your ideas stagnate is the day you begin "have opinions" rather than continue to learn and grow and change.

I don't know if this is entirely avoidable. Life changes so quickly that it is hard to keep up. But as long as we draw breathe we must hold onto the wild vibrancy of life rather than succumb to fear and hide behind a wall built out of the bricks of opinion.