OPINIONS ? No
We, Canadians , are witnesses of an ‘anti-trumpism” obsession, quite not healthy because we are different country, albeit with the same cultural and civilization roots. Some of Canadians, especially members of younger generations more infested by leftist ideology which they do not properly understand, are confused by the idea of opinion, considering that any public express ineptitude ought to be respected by everyone because it is a personal opinion. We have to understand that opinion is not a postulate.
I am a simple man totally vaccinated against the arrogance of knowing everything but having a permanent and strong desire to understand the facts around me. Aristotle defined us, human beings, as “zoon politikon” meaning that we are animals (zoon) connected to the life of out state (polis). In a perfect world everyone ought to do his part to make the “polis” to function and be prosper. The confusion is : in order to have an “opinion” one has to have the basic information related to the subject. It is like in a math: you cannot solve an equation if the basic elements are not presented. Screaming hysterically on the street (see Ashley Jud) or verbally vomiting obscenities (see Madona) doesn’t constitute “opinion”. The most recent example, yesterday’s riot at Berkeley university is a painful show of ignorance exacerbated by anarchic elements financed by lugubrious elements like George Soros. In another countries, during past times, the privilege to vote – because to vote must be a privilege and not a right – the electorate was formed by people with a certain level of education and economic status. Otherwise if you are not connected to the economic life of your “polis” how can you express an opinion? Going on street, yelling empty slogans, destroying the “polis” is anarchy and not an opinion.
The expression “we have rights” is also misused, misspoken .
If one doesn’t like a form of government or a leader, one has two options: leave that “polis” as some of us did with the risk of our lives, or use the democratic ways, in my view, enhanced by coordinates related to education and wealth. But when a leader is democratically elected all these ignoramus do not have any right or privilege to go on the street and “demand” the change by force (as Rosie O’Donnell “opined”, screaming in favour of a ….military coup!)
Are these opinions?
Basically opinion replaces the lack of knowledge, the ignorance.
Today is not a Renaissance time when a renaissance man had to know everything. During Italian Renaissance it was a famous person, today forgotten, named Pico della Mirandola who wrote a lot about the importance of the human quest for knowledge. From him we have an alleged saying, full of modesty, which stated that “I know whatever has to be known plus something else” – or something from that effect. It is not the case today to anyone . The present quantity of knowledge overwhelmed us. We, the most, can know just a slice of something.
For this reason , in order to simplify the discourse, I would divide the ignorance in 3 types:
1.- a normal, expected one, which is not malefic. I cannot expect as a cabbage farmer to talk with his family, during the supper time, around the table, subjects like Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft) by Immanuel Kant, nor I would expect a shoe repairman to read Spinoza’s Ethica (Ethics), although I met one, in my childhood, named Karol Paris, German national. Are they ignoramus? From a philosophical point of view they are, but in reality they are not because the rest of us are ignorant in cabbage business or shoe repairing business.
2.-The narcissistic ignorance.
It is the most spread and influential. It is the ignorance which I refer to when I mentioned Lala Land. In today’s world of various way of information, people from Hollywood, most of them without a proper education but with beautiful physical attributes are totally confusing the public success with the narcissistic idea that they are knowledgeable in various subjects. I agree that not ALL from Hollywood are “ignoramus” , but the environment is, generally speaking. Unfortunately they easily got attached to the leftist ideas because they are not ideas, therefore it is easier to ingurgitate some empty slogans. It is a strong peculiarity of the left , firstly to use some demagoguery like “socialism”, progressivism”, “liberalism”, “globalism” – ejusdem farinae- and after that to find a reason to use them , to find a dogma, a bible which will justify the use. As a consequence, this group of leftists are prone to use aggressive adjectives, like Nazism, Hitlerism, fascism, etc., against those who are , intellectually, superior to them. Because the left doesn’t discuss, doesn’t have “opinions” , they know to accuse only everything which doesn’t fit in their aggressive intention.
It is a procustian activity which is very evident in that mentioned area, meaning Hollywood, which is an sad state of artistic decay and penury of ideas. I said “narcissistic” because their so called “protest” and “opinions” are used for their five minutes of fame. I noticed a typical example: one, self styled “actress”, who is a very typical dropped out, her education looks like is resumed to a very intense sexual one and vulgarities of vocabulary consisting in some 5-600 words, like a gipsy dictionary, asked about First Lady and if she will interview her (?) the reply was that the First Lady barely speaks English. Besides of disrespect for the office, that Lady speaks FIVE languages and is a very accomplished business woman, (before Trump) without going through a lot of boudoirs in order to succeed. Same narcissistic ignorance can be exemplified by a long list of hollywoodian “stars “ and starlets.
3.- Aggressive ignorance
This is a very dangerous one, because those who consider themselves as part of “academia” make the basic mistake , thinking that looking to a few trees they understand the entire forest. It was sent to me a column from National Post written by one Canadian journalist, who is there because of his family relations and not talent and who wrote “Trump takes lying to a whole dimension”. His subliminal message is that D.J.Trump is a mythomaniac. Knowing that this affliction is defined as excessive or abnormal propensity for lying and exaggerating , I presumed that the author is a renown psychiatrist like the German Anton Delbrueck who, in 1891, described the pathological lying as “falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime”. My last checking shows me that P.J.Trump is not that fictional Baron Munchausen, literary creation of 18th century. Is that journalist aggressive ignorant? Of course he is because he doesn’t know anything about that physiological affliction which Trump is accused of. He is in the same league with another dropped out who, member of the scientology cult, had the ridiculous illusion that he knows psychiatry. This is very strong example, not unique, of aggressive ignorance. They are funny examples of academics who, not having a strong argument except their empty “humanistic” lines, repeating them like a parrot , avoid to discuss and accuse those with real arguments as using “inferior sources of information”, in fact proving an aggressive ignorance . They are in the same category with an American commentator, black, who accused the conservatives “parading mediocre negroes” in front of TV camera” instead to accept street violence perpetrated by , I presume, “superior negroes”!!!
I am not happy to conclude that we are living during a very dangerous time when due to the left’s violence, which is typical for this category ,we do not have a civil discourse, reasons and arguments, but in lieu we have “opinions” without merit and content.
Johannes de Silentio