A Correlation

I had a talk with a friend this week. Maybe acquaintance. Still (re)working that part out.

Anyways, he had a very long, extremely passionate and perfectly worded rant about something. I got so caught up in the power and poeticism that I completely forgot to form an opinion of my own. So, I went on with the week, re-thinking things through that perspective.

But then yesterday, while enjoying some delectable vegan noms with a definite friend, he said something in passing that made me realize how incredibly subjective the aforementioned rant had been. It had contained traces of truth and it was mixed deeply with good intention, but in the end it was still an opinion, and as such inherently amoral.

This switcheroo got me thinking. So often we hear and accept things based solely on the fact that it was presented well. In a world where beauty is equated with all good things, our intrinsic desire for truth is satiated (albeit momentarily) by something gorgeous, be it person or poetry.

The idea of beauty as truth is so paramount in our society that the concept of finding truth in a poorly worded phrase seems contradictory. Yet it is often for the very reason that it isn't true that something gets a pretty package. Straight up lies are usually too abrasive to be swallowed, so they get coated in half truths and commonly held ideals so they slide down more softly.

Not to say that the rant was all lies, but his basic thesis (or at least the thesis I picked up) was neither right nor wrong. It was his opinion.

Of course, by my own admission, the fact that I can properly explain, re-explain, give examples and use large words in my effort to introduce this idea to you doesnt mean it is valid. No, the truth of a matter is fully independent of its expression.

In summary:

There is no direct correlation between the articulation and validity of an idea or statement.

So:

Question things.