This post is a short response to the right wing mockery of empathy in judgment.

In order to judge matters correctly, a person must be capable of independence in judgment.  What follows is a simple proof which demonstrates the necessity of empathy and the consequences of its absence. 

(1) Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought.

(2) Freedom of thought presupposes the ability to shift perspectives.

(3) The ability to shift perspectives presupposes empathy. 

Therefore, (4) Independence of judgment presupposes empathy.

(1a) The absence of empathy implies the inability to shift perspectives.

(2a) The inability to shift perspectives implies slavery of thought.

(3a) Slavery of thought implies co-dependent judgment.

Therefore, (4a) The absence of empathy implies co-dependent judgment.

(4) and (4a) have something counter-intuitive to say: only through empathy can one think freely, and so, only through empathy can one escape the prison of herd mentality.  As the right wing makes fun of empathy in judgment, they implicitly champion co-dependent judgment. 

 

Frank Rich wrote an article for today's New York Times.  In it, he gives his take on the future of journalism.  He says that "what can't be reinvented is the wheel of commerce," and "we will get what we pay for."  While those comments are reasonable enough, and while he understands--for the most part--the importance of blogging, he does make an assertion with which I take issue. 

...[O]pinions, however insightful or provocative and whether expressed online or in print or in prime time, are cheap. Reporting the news can be expensive.

I don't think that's entirely wrong, but I do think it's misleading.  The essence of a blog is hardly opinion.  To say that, would be like saying: my judgment that 'my hand is on the doorknob' is essentially 'my opinion that my hand is on the doorknob'. 

Opinion is the preference for one event over another; it is also the perception of events that may or may not be a correct perception.  '1 < 2' is an opinion if the reference is apples--and you're really hungry for apples.  '1 < 2' is an opinion if the reference is diseases--and you would like to catch more than one disease.

But what about an example from scoring in the game of golf:  '1 < 2'?  That's not an opinion.  That's a mistake.  That's an incorrect judgment.  Because the lower the score the better, 2 is never better than 1.  So what about this: '2 < 1 in the game of golf--in reference to scoring'.  What do we say about that?  That's not an opinion either.  That's a recognition of the rules.  That's a proper judgment.  It is incorrect to say that this perception may or may not be correct.  It is correct.

And so when Johnny Appleseed declares himself the winner in a golf match--even though he shot an 82 and his opponent shot an 81 (assuming the game is not match play)--we say that Johnny Appleseed is either lying/joking/etc. or he doesn't understand the rules of the game.  But, we're not stating an opinion.  We're presenting a fact. 

And that's what blogging does--not always, but often.  When someone/some group breaks the rules, we say, "that person/group broke the rules."  That's not opinion.  When someone changes the rules without reason, we say, "the rules have been improperly changed."  That's not opinion. Some blogs don't cite specific instances, but just serve as reminders for what the rules are and why they are as they are. 

I like Frank Rich, and I usually love his articles.  But, I resent him misrepresenting blogging as opinion.  While he's correct that many bloggers aren't willing to do the heavy lifting and digging, he's wrong to assume that all or even most aren't willing to do so.  Reference: those who blog here.