Caiphus: Is criticality inherently negative?
Moralam: Criticality is a tool. Consider the case of the artist; is not her critical eye a vehicle through which beauty is reached?
Caiphus: You are arguing then that the ends justify the means?
Moralam: Naturally not. Let us pursue this matter further. First, what is your definition of criticality?
Caiphus: To be critical is to notice what flaws make themselves apparent in a given context, is it not?
Moralam: Would you say that one must actively seek out those flaws before one may be considered "critical?"
Caiphus: No. All people notice those things which are incongruent to some extent. In this way, all people are critical; however, might I posit that the degree to which they seek out these discrepancies should have an effect on the way we perceive their analysis?
Moralam: Do not confuse criticality and analysis. Although the two words are functionally identical, it is criticality that we discuss, primarily for its negative connotations.
Caiphus: Nevertheless, is the search for flaws relevant, or merely incidental to the greater picture?
Moralam: If we postulate that searching for flaws in certain contexts is immoral or unwise, then we must assume not only that it is possible to deaden oneself to flaws, but that it is admirable to do so. I find this thought apalling on multiple levels.
Caiphus: Is it not admirable to examine oneself for flaws, but to ignore the flaws of others? Should we not seek to remove the plank from our own eye before removing the speck in our brother's?
Moralam: You have moved from the realm of the internal to the realm of the external far too hastily. What actions we take based on our critique should be the topic of another discussion.
Caiphus: Very well, we must then turn to intent - is motive relevant, or is it too simply an adjective tacked onto the greater subject?
Moralam: Intentions are the status of the heart quantified. A man scarcely has control of his actions if he does not reign over his intentions as he should. It is intentions that drive men to both evil and good, and it is immoral intentions that beget immoral behavior - the tools by which they accomplish this are incidental.
Caiphus: Critiques then should be reserved for the intellectual or the loving.
Moralam: If truly done for the sake of love, no action can be truly evil.
2 comments:
*sighing with jealously at your profundity* ;-)
I agree that criticality should be left to the person who strives to fulfill either a loving or intellectual purpose. For such a person, it is not inevitably negative.
I find it interesting that you have not discussed the object of the critique. You argue that criticality is a tool; however, the tool is useless if that which it endeavors to act upon will not render itself to improvements. If not willing or desirous of improvement, pointing out flaws has the potential to harm rather than help. Nevertheless, if loving intentions produce a loving action, then criticality in this context is not truly negative. But I’ve moved into discussing actions. (Yet to discuss intentions, you must also consider actions, for how else can intentions be judged?)
Criticality of architecture, literature, music, etc. is a different matter. Seeking out flaws in such cases forces the seeker to consider how they could have been avoided or may be repaired- thus broadening the mind, discovering truths, or teaching lessons that can be applied to one’s own endeavors. If the aim is intellectual gain, criticality in such a case can be positive, not negative.
Reading back over that, it occurred to me that you could argue that considering flaws in another person and/or their actions could also be used to help evaluate and then improve oneself and one’s actions. In that context, the object of the critique is irrelevant.
If I keep going I’ll end up contradicting myself- I’m not sure if I agree with everything I’ve just written, but these were the thoughts that came to mind. Disregard those that don't make much sense. :-)
If you're concerned about contradicting yourself you could always do what I do and just write as if you were having an internal dialogue - one way or another you'll win every argument! ^_^
Post a Comment