For those who leave behind a true search for wisdom and a sound basis for living life, then opinions can move them in directions portrayed as fun or amusing, but which are usually bad for them.
As one comedian said, “I want to be amused.” Too often, the concern of some is simply avoiding boredom. For those who have opportunities and the ability – use it. Or you might wake up 5 or 10 years from now and look back at what could have been if you tried and looked and planned.
If you don’t know what you believe then opinion can take you anywhere or even knock you down.
Peace,
Ed
Maybe then, the problem isn’t that people discuss their opinions, but rather, that their opinions are based on how they feel, rather than their own personal world view? Opinions would be very useful if they were all based in rational thought, would they not?
The internet is a wonderous thing, connecting people from every corner of the earth, and having people place their opinions on it isn’t a bad thing at all. But, celebrating entertainment for entertainments sake, art for art’s sake, or indulging in anything just for the heck of it…Well, in my opinion, *that’s *the problem.
Opinons are fine, but let’s have them be more than the pithy assesment of the present, let’s have them be windows into a person’s world view! And let’s view opinions then as such, with all the seriousness their deserve.
(C’mon, Chesterton!)
*"It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to
another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: “The golden rule is that there is no golden rule.” We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion
on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He
may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters–except everything.
Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of
cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist. Let me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, “Life is not worth living.” We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will
strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter."*
