Barfield’s Law
October 5, 2009
When a book appears with anything upsetting in it, the few who read it don’t need it, and the many who need it don’t read it.
–Owen Barfield
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
It seems that one could easily apply that quote to the blogosphere, given that people (myself included) tend to read sites that reaffirm what we believe and do not necessarily challenge our beliefs.
Mickey
True. He said this before the internet was made, though it applies for all kinds of texts. We tend to read what affirms what we already accept, and reject texts which would challenge our viewpoints. Of course, some such texts are not worth our time (some are really bad). But others are important for our development (when we are ready for them). A challenge will help one grow.
I think my greatest difficulty with “upsetting” text is developing some way to choose which upsetting texts I might profitably read. It’s hard, for example, to imagine that I’d learn anything of value from reading KKK-inspired texts. Since it’s much easier to discern what upsetting texts other people (especially the ones I don’t like) should read, perhaps my best source of leads is people from whom I instinctively recoil.
Purposefully, I’ve started reading beyond my comfort zone and have been surprised. Salon.com, for example, has proved not nearly so painful as I expected. I’ve learned some things. I’m not sure when or why, but, at some point, I felt “ready” to go afield. And now, I am finding some hunger to find the opposing point of view. It no longer provokes anger or irritation in me. But I don’t fathom the process, honestly. Perhaps someone could write a reflection . . . Lord knows, Jesus specialized in going afield …
The process by which we engage and learn from others, including those who hold views opposing our own, I think differs from person to person.
For me, it is quite intellectual and something which I clearly think through in a conscious way; others, I think go through similar processes, unconsciously. But I tend to go about it in a simplified version of the scholastic method (like St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, et. al.). I try to read and learn what someone has to say, and then break up their points in my head. This will allow me to see that much of what they say can be true, even if I disagree with their conclusion. I see which aspects of their view I disagree with, and I try to figure out why. I also try to figure out, if possible, the logical process they use to get to their conclusion, and why I don’t think their conclusion follows with my beliefs. I then do the same with my own beliefs, in reflection to what I’ve learned, and consider if there is something I need to add to my perspective, either because the other person had an element of truth which I didn’t reflect upon, or because I think I need to respond to their view in a better way (at least in my head).