Essay: What You Make of It

 Politics. 

The end.

In the United States—I wholeheartedly feel that’s how any conversation containing the word politics should start and end in these rather tumultuous times where discourse is no longer that. What once was a somewhat philosophical discussion on the ins and outs of what is or should be allowed by the government(s) has somehow become subject of confrontation leading to a type of animosity akin to rivalry. Clearly, debates are a lost form.

I have found myself unable to continue conversations embodying the displeasure of political rhetoric as a pivotal point of a discussion where something is somehow amiss. It is my belief, adults have the necessary language and maturity to be able to communicate succinctly. The use of crass lexical dexterity is/was often regarded as unfit for the parlance of common public spaces (today social media in most cases), thus reserved for closed-door lawless individuals/activities. Similarly, the need to use politically divisive  statements to indicate displeasure with a subject is at best as lexically deprived as the sneering of the underground establishment aforementioned. 

I like, I dislike, and anything else signified by an “I” in a statement, whether implied or not, goes to describe a personal stance. Personal stances are by nature opinions which carry no weight inasmuch as they are  unverifiable; in the sense that a conversation is occurring without a subject matter expert present. In that sense, no conversation—lacking said topic expert—should ever approach a point where a level of ire is reached. 

The orator in classical times of philosophy, I argue, was one whose control of varied subject matters could seduce an audience by denoting topically existing elements in any field. While the doctor, the mathematician, the biologist, or other scientific persons carried designed knowledge of their practice, the orator could sometimes carry a conversation with more fluidity than the professional; not to mean that they were versed in the particulars, yet knowledgeable enough to reach an audience of the common person. As such, philosophers could point to a specific point of a subject, whether politics, religion, or other charged affairs, and discuss various means of approach to it from the perspective of a thinking person as well as that of the ill-tempered one; all persons should be considered after all.

Intelligence cannot be brought into question in any setting. For every intelligent person there is someone smarter as well as there being less intelligent people under those of lower intelligence; dare we not in our erring delude ourselves into thinking we fit one of the four categories mentioned. There is great importance in understanding all groups involved in a loquacious imparting of ideas; regardless of intelligence and perhaps more so because of it, points of often unexplored corners of suggestion can be taken into account in order to further knowledge befitting of all involved.

Brainstorming in our society has reached a point where it is no longer about sharing ideas/thoughts, but about refuting everything in the account of a person being right over the other where the mentioned “I” rules the comments at every intersection. “I read somewhere”, “that’s not what I heard”, “can you be more ignorant”, and etcetera are what has become the pragmatic means of palaver subjects where even the professional is challenged by the average person. Respect is no longer part of the approach; which presents a peculiar problem where we all, who are part of society, depend on others in our busy lives. It has been argued that we cannot all be plumbers, or doctors, or botanists. We rely on those professionals to provide clarity in matters where we possess little-to-no knowledge.

To overlay the ignorance we all partake in while on social media, while torpid to knowledge we could be seeking, it bears mentioning this may be part of an endemic problem. Forums, blogs, podcasts, and other means of communicating ideas exist in all forms from the mundane to the scientific. Yet, there is a, I dare say, depravity that clouds what should be a thirst for knowledge, which permeates over all of us. We have reached a state where we allow our feelings to dictate our lives instead of conscious thought. From the person who wants to see the world burn, those who wish to incite thought, those who get a rise out of making others angry, the researcher, and more, we all are part of this magnificent thing we all share: life. For a society that so arbitrarily uses Newton’s third law of motion as a type of mantra, it is at times incomprehensible that knowing that every action will result or be met by a reaction that those who begin something are somehow not prepared for the results of that which they started.

Looking back at a time when there were no cars or phones, forward to television and computers, and later to beepers and compact discs, there is an underlying theme that is very hard to see at times and that is, we knew less yesterday than we do today. Maintaining a thoughtful mouth, silent fingers, absorbing ears, and turbulent machinations can lead to the wonders we have today transformed into the unknown of tomorrow; not while we are busy questioning without knowing, arguing without reason, reacting instead of thinking, and perpetuating it all by sharing. We are the whole of our life, from inaction to action, hate to love, life to death, and an empty brain to what you make of it.