It is easy for us to have a “point of view” on a particular subject. As the name suggests it is a vision, an interpretation of a subject from our “point”, ie from our microcosm of information and knowledge. This “point” from which we see the subject is unique to everyone and is unfortunately today almost totally dependent on the information and knowledge that the media or social networks have transmitted to us.
So it’s obvious that if my News Feed suggests information that’s the opposite of yours, our “points” will also be the opposite. There then appears a situation where, with exactly the same reasoning, we come to opposite conclusions. This is because the raw material, the data, the information in our possession are basic, themselves opposite.
On the contrary to the “point of view”, opinion is deserved, we must forge it and to forge it, it is necessary not only to keep in mind your “point of view”, but also to go around the subject, that is to say to contemplate the subject of all possible “points of view”. So it’s enlarging your vision until you can examine the subject through the eyes of those you considered crazy. You will understand why they became so. This is perhaps the most difficult part, it comes back, in other words, to replace the “judge” with the “understand”.
We all feel it, a crisis of confidence is affecting our society. A whole section of the population began to doubt the foundations of our political and social system. Added to this was a widespread hint of incompetence by the political class and the media, such a strong suspicion of dishonesty and even malice. While these sentiments have been present among many of us for a long time, the health crisis has amplified the phenomenon and uncomplicated well-considered discourses such as subversive discourse. What for?
Well, because the dizzying new speed of information has eradicated what Philippe Ricaud and Laurence Corroy call “the complexity of reality.” We no longer have time for nuances. So from un nuanced information to uns nuanced conclusions, we narrow our field of vision to this ridiculous point of view.
And what happens when all this unstunified information is naturally filtered by Google, Facebook and your relationships to be constantly confirmed and reconfirmed? Well we become confident enough to hold the truth to become pretty sure of ourselves and shout out loud that anyone thinking differently is a fool. Don’t we see that on the networks every day? These lunatics, however, also have a whole range of uns nuanced information confirming each other and which absolutely justify having strong and opposed points of view.
We’re all somebody’s crazy, aren’t we?
In this scheme, which is already important to understand, those who admit not knowing are seen as soft, or disinterested in the debate. They do not necessarily have a clear opinion, do not debate circumstances and are better at philosophy than in dialectics. So you don’t see them in the media, and yet they are the ones who, thanks to a sufficient knowledge of the subject, are the only ones who understand its complexity, the real dimension and therefore say “I don’t know yet”.
The “moderates” are the future, take the time to form opinions, it is urgent to do so. Dare not to know, dare not be an expert and say it, dare to waste time getting to the bottom of things, dare to have no certainty and paradoxically be totally certain of those you have.
Sources and illustrations:
Utopias and mass media – Philippe Ricaud and Laurence Corroy
Illustration: Maximilien Vergnaud and Bend Bulletin
To go further in video: Etienne Klein – The long-term urgency
The “meta-media” in the digital age, section of the page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9dia