Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Wrote the line that is at the core of this particular rant... (the one stewing in my brain for the last week or so finally resurfaced.) In particular, it is this: "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds." A simple statement, really, and one that, perhaps, one has to understand intuitively before you can even think about what it means.
What it isn't is an admonishment against any consistancy whatsoever. Constancy of ethical and intellectual principals is often evidence of a well reasoned system of thought and belief. Inconsistancy without reason is random and pointless. Our minds focus on 'consistancy' in the line because it seems to be the subject, modified by 'foolish'.
What it does warn against is /foolish/ consistancy. It is foolish to cling to an idea or opinion only for the sake of being consistant. It is foolish not to consider the particulars of a situation when deciding on a course of action. Emmerson was chiding those small minded individuals who are often found as minor governmental or corporate functionaries who place the rules above reason. It also names as fools those who believe that changing your mind or reconsidering an opinion is showing weakness in one's self or in others.
In the world of black-and-white that a yea-or-nay vote forces, those things that lie near the border require consideration. Any system that requires binary choices forces that examination, even without the proverbial 'grey area'. You have to decide which of two principals is more important, which is the least of two costs. Moreover, these decisions are not made in a vacuum but in the fluid environment of our world.
I can only wish more people understood. They would see that GWB's unwillingness to change a stance that has proven itself dangerously wrong is the act of a fool. They would see the folly in using 'flip flopping' to stigmatize nuanced and reasoned opinions.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, as the only ones who bother to read this are my friends and dont' need a set of talking points from an armchair pundit like myself. I tend to view rants as a kind of conciet... the thought that your ideas are cool enought to warrent the time it takes people to read them. So I am aware that this is all just some elaborate form of intellectual masturbation, but hey, it relieves some tension.
What it isn't is an admonishment against any consistancy whatsoever. Constancy of ethical and intellectual principals is often evidence of a well reasoned system of thought and belief. Inconsistancy without reason is random and pointless. Our minds focus on 'consistancy' in the line because it seems to be the subject, modified by 'foolish'.
What it does warn against is /foolish/ consistancy. It is foolish to cling to an idea or opinion only for the sake of being consistant. It is foolish not to consider the particulars of a situation when deciding on a course of action. Emmerson was chiding those small minded individuals who are often found as minor governmental or corporate functionaries who place the rules above reason. It also names as fools those who believe that changing your mind or reconsidering an opinion is showing weakness in one's self or in others.
In the world of black-and-white that a yea-or-nay vote forces, those things that lie near the border require consideration. Any system that requires binary choices forces that examination, even without the proverbial 'grey area'. You have to decide which of two principals is more important, which is the least of two costs. Moreover, these decisions are not made in a vacuum but in the fluid environment of our world.
I can only wish more people understood. They would see that GWB's unwillingness to change a stance that has proven itself dangerously wrong is the act of a fool. They would see the folly in using 'flip flopping' to stigmatize nuanced and reasoned opinions.
I know I'm preaching to the choir, as the only ones who bother to read this are my friends and dont' need a set of talking points from an armchair pundit like myself. I tend to view rants as a kind of conciet... the thought that your ideas are cool enought to warrent the time it takes people to read them. So I am aware that this is all just some elaborate form of intellectual masturbation, but hey, it relieves some tension.