The Answer
Posted by
Martim Barata
|
Posted in
|
Posted on
11:52
Listening to some tunes on my mp3 player as I strolled down the challenge of a landscape that is the streets of Covilhã, Portugal (legend has it that the town has more climbs than descents! A must-see!), a thought popped into my head. It wasn't very painful, I'm used to it. Thought I'd share it with you, and maybe enlighten the few of you who actually read my posts (hi Mom).
A lot of my acquaintances have the annoying habit of asking others for advice. Well, to me it's annoying, I have enough trouble dealing with my own problems, no time to sort out your shit. So it got me thinking, why? What is so meaningful about another person's opinion that'll make you refresh your views on life and finally get a move on with what needs to be done? As I see it there are 3 situations one can be in where one asks for advice, and only one of them is truly justified. I'll do my best to sum these up and not tl;dr you guys - got potatoes to look after anyway.
First, you have those who don't necessarily know what the best course of action to take in a crossroads is, but they have their mind set on one (you could argue that no one knows what the best thing to do in situations is, but I'd tell you to shut the fuck up - it'd be the right thing to do). Yet, even though they've mentally convinced themselves that that choice is the one they want to take, they seek advice. Notice how I cleverly italiscized advice. There it is again. Man, I'm good. What I meant with this brilliant aesthetical ploy is that these people don't want actual advice - they don't give a damn about what you think.
Sometimes they are sure of what they want to do, that it's the right choice for them, and want others to agree with them for morale. Other, more complicated times, they're unsure if their choice is the best, but are either sure they want to do it anyway, or are too afraid of the other (possibly better) choice. In this second case, you're expected to agree with the person's opinion unconditionally, or face wrath - unsure people are very defensive of their choices fueled by fear or uncertainty.
In essence, these people want to feel that the choice they want to make is the right one (don't we all?) and, to that end, they press people to agree with them. Because having a bunch of people telling you that you're doing the right thing makes it all better. Honestly, unless the people you're speaking to have some sort of credible level of authority on the subject (and since these topics are usually about life, not any matter in specific, and no one is the authority on life except maybe Morgan Freeman), why is their opinion any more valid than your own? If the choice you made is making you feel uncomfortable, it's probably wrong. Being able to admit that instead of barking at those who admit it for you is a good step towards not being annoying.
Second, you have those people who seem to have no judgment center in their heads. They find themselves faced with a dillema, and decide it's best to consult the Oracle (which in this case is some douchebag friend of theirs mostly) and from his/her words of wisdom (heheh, italics) they will draw their future. Only in a literal sense. These people will take others' opinions for granted. Sometimes even to the level of plain absurdity.
There's nothing wrong with asking for advice if you're genuinely stumped (see below), there is a problem if you're basing your life's choices on the ideas of a person without subjecting them to any sort of critical process. Think about it: there is no one person who can tell you what to do and be right all the time. No one is randomly more enlightened that others - the thing that differentiates your opinions may be past experiences, but even those can cloud judgment. Any time someone tells you something, question it (especially if he looks like a rapist. If it's a she, it's OK to let it slide a little, I think).
Third, and final, people who are genuinely confused. They haven't closed their mind on one single answer, they use reason to assess validity in other's ideas, but haven't quite got there yet. These people annoy me because it's much harder to deal with them - in the other cases you either just agree or say whatever. Besides that, it's what everyone should be doing. As has been said, no one is in sole possession of the Truth (unless it's what you called a potatoe of yours, like I did), and that includes yourself. Social contact and exchange of ideas has fueled democracy for centuries and it's the basis of modern co-habitation and life. You'll be hard pressed to survive if you go by your own judgment all the time, just as you will if you go by others all the time.
Hopefully your parents, friends, experiences and beliefs bestowed upon you a certain set of dogmas and morals which, while they shouldn't be unquestionable themselves, give you the basis from which you can create ideas, principles, goals and mould your rationality. With the impressive ability humans have to reason and critiscize, you're able to put everyone's ideas to the test and hopefully extract something of use.
Besides this rant about annoying people (I like to vent, keeps me young), I've been thinking about answers and what they really are. There is one common denominator between the three aforementioned groups - upon asking for advice, seeking an answer, what they want is an idea that makes sense to them (morally, economically, idealistically, etc.). You'll never accept advice you can't understand, or that doesn't fit with your personality or ideals at any level, regardless of it being the right choice or not.
In the end, there are no right or wrong choices (unless you narrow your goals to an economic perspective, and in that case you're limiting your life to money or profit? Good if you're a potatoe farmer, not good if you're... normal). The best you can hope for is to... man, this is going to sound corny (and I hate corn). Follow your heart. Do what feels right, after thinking it through properly, gathering sufficient data, whatever. Question authority. Fuck the system. And other beaten and old catchphrases which now oddly make sense.
The only time you're doing something wrong is if you're doing something you don't want to for no good reason except that someone else said it'd be the best choice. If everyone follows this, maybe the world will be a lot calmer place (anti-depressant producers will suicide en masse, though) and you'll feel a lot better for going through with your own opinion rather than someone elses, even if it goes wrong in the end.
Bad Religion, "The Answer"
Bad Religion, "Before You Die"
Listen to these songs, and think about them.
Oh, and feel free to question all I've said. After all, I'm just a humble Potato Captain.
The Cap'n
Asking questions when knowing the answer is a damn good way to see how other people think.
And more often the least expected answer is the one you really wanna hear.
Welcome to life in the 21st Century, where everyone thinks they know everything, yet question everything, and hope to know something new first before everyone else does.
First.
Although that's a fair point, asking a question in order to mislead someone into revealing their thoughts isn't really asking for advice in any shape or form - it's more like recon work.
Despite this, if you want to know someone elses opinion, despite keeping your own, you're either looking for validation because others agree with you, or for validation because you have an original thought. In that sense it fits into the first group of people I mentioned.
I think your picture of the 21st Century is rather bleak, you've got people painted as arrogant know-it-alls that question only to ascertain if they're "smarter" than the rest because they thought of something first. I like to think people who question things properly are people who can admit that they don't know everything (or anything, in a metaphysical sense) and feel that the closest way to the "truth" is by rationally discussing the subject with rational people. I may be being naive.
There can be instances where you ask someone his/her opinion just to determine more about themselves. But I think you do this either to learn more about the person (and build up a notion of that person, construct a possible relationship or avoid one, etc.) or to validate yourself in the terms above.
You have explained rather well why I made my first comment. There was no intention of creating a "4th group". The first part of my comment was basically me saying which part I belonged in, even though you already knew that.
Gonna keep my distorted view of the century though, hard to explain why mainly cause it's so overwhelming but I like how even the most humble person is in fact an arrogant twat who thinks he is too good to actuary say "I'm better then you, go figure it out for yourself and maybe we can talk when you're closer to me level". Every man who truly wants to know something can either be guided by an empirical thirst to know more, and drive himself to question everything until he knows everything he needs (ex: a kid asking a teacher questions before an exam), or a man can be guided by simple need-to-know basis, where he feeds himself only a small portion of what he wants to know so he can live his life without bigger issues bothering him. (ex: A lawyer quizzing his client on particular aspects that could make him innocent, over guilty).
What I like to think about both these type of people is that the raw motive that drives them, in it's infancy, the very simple craving to be the first one to create the correct answer of how anyone should truly live their life.
I was gonna say "Well, that's just you insisting that everyone else thinks like you do!" when I realized: your point fits me perfectly.
I mean, if you put it literally, what I'm doing with this blog is attempting to put across ideas that I hope people will acknowledge and follow. I want to be right about these ideas, of course.
However, the main point of difference is that I insist that people question everything, including myself (in fact, the only unquestionable thing should be that you should scrutinize all that is said to you). Dogmas are mental handicaps you place on yourself, and why would you damage your ability to reason any more than it already is? Humans already have a difficult time conceptualizing anything abstract or unfamiliar, and if you add personal beliefs or set-in-stone ideas to the mix then there are some aspects of life you'll never truly understand. This is debatable, because at some level everyone needs some sort of dogma to serve as a basis for discussion and construction of thoughts - I'm not denying this, I just think that even those most solid foundations one has should be open to modification if reasonable cause for it is found.
In short, no one should be arrogant to the point where they claim to be right about something. Everyone wants to be right, of course; the search for truth motivates mankind. No one should ever expect to know the correct answer to life though. So while it's OK to socially act omniscient and all (heck, it's a lot of fun), you should always be aware that most likely you know absolutely nothing of life, or very little.
Naturalism teaches that people, through science, are actually never right at all. All you can do is conjur up one theory that works, fits the paradigm, FOR NOW - there will always be another theory or "law" that will override it as new knowledge is achieved and discovered. Keeping an old idea as a dogma prevents progress of the mind and evolution of intellectual circumstances in mankind. A very conservative way of living your life if I may say so myself.
I find it relaxing to imagine that no one actually knows what they're doing. It means that all answers to my life can be found by myself, my own mental work, be it through personal introspection or exchange of ideas with others.