Andrew (perspectivism) wrote,

Latinate, cute, wise

The middle ground, I fear, is often mistaken for wisdom. I want to contrast the difference between these two concepts. A work that touches no edges, that makes no statement, is one that walks a middle ground, a �safe� place. However, while a writer who possesses considerable wisdom will appear to be rather �safe�, it is important to note that it is not because they disregard standards, which is a sure path to middle ground. Rather, they are aware of the fact that standards are necessary if one is to make progress � to examine the edges of things, we must be willing to admit that they exist, and that they interest us! Their apparent safety is due to sound premises and standards, not to some sort of sick, politically correct equivocation wherein every person and idea are of equal value. Part of what is wrong with journalism is that it seems to have only two default expressions � either walk a safe middle ground and contribute to the watered-down media, or take an extreme view of things and contribute to the obnoxious xyz-party line media. Meanwhile, good theoretical papers take care to examine in writing the possible shortcomings of their hypotheses, and they are not at all to be considered middle ground. In these cases, the writer intends to attack arguments while they are still in the cradle, to further justify the validity of their theories, to show that thought has been given to potential failures. All too often, this is done halfheartedly and with lack of sincerity (our tendencies are to treat our own theories as pets) � but when it is done objectively and obsessively, it generates wisdom � it helps to further the theories that will stand up to honest testing. A beautiful thing! (introvexia)
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.