Do We NEED to Hear Opinions We Don’t Like?

I Dare You...

Dear Classical Wisdom Reader,

I’m going to start off today’s mailbag with a Dare. 

Whatever side of the political spectrum you happen to find yourself...next time you are watching the News, I dare you to watch your opposing side’s channel for at least 5 minutes. 

If you get your current events from CNN or MSNBC, for example, switch on Fox News or click on the New York Post. If you read the Washington Times, then check out the Washington Post. Apply this to whatever local outlet in whichever country you find yourself!

That doesn’t sound too tricky, I hear you say... but there’s a catch... the dare includes:

1: Not shouting furiously at the screen. 

And 2: Practicing a bit of healthy Skepticism (the ancient kind) and suspending judgment.

One of the more recent Media charts by Ad fontes Media (NB: Ad Fontes is a Latin expression which means "[back] to the sources" (lit. "to the sources")

That means watching and actually taking it seriously.

This is important - We all need to try to understand the best version of our opponent's argument. This is called 'Steelmaning' their position (as opposed to 'strawmanning', which is attacking the weakest version of their point. This will help strengthen one’s own understanding of the issue).

You might already do this! As a Classics lover you are probably predisposed to finding the nuisances in this messy political climate... In a world that encourages and cultivates immediate binary responses, having a historical perspective can expose those thousands of shade of grey as well as reinforce the idea that oftentimes it’s best to wait, learn and think before forming an opinion.

Perhaps, indeed, this missive would be best forwarded to friends and family still learning the Skeptic ropes… A bit of ancient wisdom for modern minds wouldn’t go amiss these days!

And in preparation for the inevitable questions to this little dare -or should I say philosophical exercise- we come to today’s mailbag question: 

Do we NEED to hear Opinions we don’t like? What is the Importance of Differing Views? And why should we try to be objective in the first place? 

As always you can reply to this email or write to me directly at Anya@classicalwisdom.com.

Now for a collection of reader responses including the Tall Poppy Syndrome and feedback to our recent Members Podcast with Jeffrey Rosen on whether or not the Founding Fathers were virtuous... 

All the best,
Anya Leonard

Founder and Director
Classical Wisdom

Reader Mailbag

Re: What is the Tall Poppy Syndrome? 

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” - James Madison.

Madison could easily have been proscribing against the excesses of a tall poppy. It is not good to cut them down. It is necessary to check. The tall poppy has the right to check and balance them in the marketplace of ambition with other tall poppies. The tallest poppy that has earned their position through honest endeavor deserves that position but only until they conflict with the growth and development of smaller poppies. As Madison proclaimed eloquently, the answer to ambition is more ambition to counteract the excess present in one tall poppy that has little competition.

Bush junior commented his public education goal was no child left behind. That means no tall poppies and no child gets ahead. Progress is set by the lowest. How has that worked out/ High school grads know not how to pronounce the three letter word “ode” much less have any comprehension of meaning. Chop down the tall poppies and society soon withers.

Charles F.

-

I see two perspectives on the tall-poppy syndrome. From the perspective of Tarquin the Proud, he wanted to take down anyone who might challenge him. That is he wanted to be the tallest poppy with no competitors, and he was ruthless to gain that end.

The other perspective is from the general populace, many of whom are envious or resentful of those who, through hard work and intelligence have gained more wealth, fame, etc., and want the same, without any idea of how to get it. Absent being able to gain wealth, they want to take down those who have it.

Regardless of the perspective, people who let the tall-poppy syndrome guide their thoughts and actions will tend to be filled with fear, resentment, envy and dissatisfaction. I may be offended by the behavior of the rich and famous, not to mention those who get there by corruption and evil deeds, but it is their conduct, not their wealth, that offends me. And generally, I refuse to live a life filled with fear, resentment, envy and dissatisfaction. I prefer to be happy.

Gordon F

Cuenca, Ecuador

-

Hi Anya— enjoyed your note about cutting someone “too big for britches” down to size via poppies story … I remembered reading an earlier version of the metaphor using wheat in Herodotus:

There’s an anecdote from Herodotus’ Histories in which Thrasybulus, tyrant of Miletus, is sent a messenger by Periander, tyrant of Corinth. The messenger asks Thrasybulus for advice on a ruling. Instead of responding to the messenger directly, Thrasybulus stood him up and walked him to a nearby field of wheat. Thrasybulus walked the field cutting the best and tallest ears of wheat. Then sent him on his way.

Brook M.

-

Great Tall Poppy article, thank you.

It is a very high spiritual initiation perhaps?

If we care too much about what society will think, we will stay in the crab pot even if we have stupendous human qualities.

Kindergarten starts the process of a new way of thinking which would be, "I'm different, but I'm going to accomplish my creative genius with or without acceptance by the others (in family/school/work/city/state/etc). I will hone my gifts even if it isolates me. etc.

Thanks for the article.

Re: Were the Founding Fathers Virtuous? 

I found the session with you and Jeffrey Rosen absolutely amazing and so appropriate for our times. I would love to be a part of a reading group as suggested.

I would also suggest as part of the list - John Rawls: Here's How to Design Society.  

Dorothy K.

-

Kent here. Been a while since we talked, but I've been following along. The talk with Jeffrey Rosen, today in my feed, was great!  I just now ordered his book!

His quotation of J.Q.Adams, on character minus virtues was a curse, I just ran across in a curious magazine put out by The Cincinnati Society, of which I am a member (though I do very little about it) because I had an ancestor in the Revolutionary War (a Capt. Peaslee), who was in on the founding of this Society, whose purpose was to help those widows and families of officers killed in the war.

So I was reading around in it—this issue a great article on the Indian Wars, 1770 to 1782, all over Ohio, and good little biography on Lafayette--and came across the Society's "Immutable Principles," and liked the following principle so much I wrote it out:

AN INCESSANT ATTENTION TO PRESERVE INVIOLATE THOSE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF HUMAN NATURE, FOR WHICH THEY [Officers of the American Army] HAVE FOUGHT AND BLED, AND WITHOUT WHICH THE HIGH RANK OF A RATIONAL BEING IS A CURSE INSTEAD OF BLESSING.

 That last clause is close in language to Adams, no?  And how true, eh? Without the virtues in some kind of place, our minds run evil—anger, jealousy, fear, ambition, avarice.

And the lovely bit about translations at the end of your talk. I'm going back to take notes. But gotta start with Cicero I think.

Kent D.