As most readers know, I hate influence. Yet that is an absurd contradiction, one with which I struggle constantly. Avoiding influence is impossible, so I see it as one of those hopelessly unachievable goals — like goodness or perfection. In what is probably a contradictory act of damnable hypocrisy, I will quote a famous person (Oscar Wilde) who was about as much against influence as it is possible to get. Which means that quoting him on this subject is wholly improper, but I’ll do it anyway:
“There is no such thing as a good influence. All influence is immoral – immoral from the scientific point of view.”
“Why?”
“Because to influence a person is to give him one’s own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of someone else’s music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him.
The aim of life is self-development. To realise one’s nature perfectly – that is what each of us is here for.
Easy to express such a sentiment, whether as eloquently as Wilde did or not. But it is a lot harder to follow it.
My problem is that despite my attempts to be logical and rational, and evaluate things objectively, in matters of opinion I cannot help being influenced by the personalities who utter opinions, even though I know I should not. This happens every day; if there is a controversial item or news event floating around, I know who I like (and therefore trust), and who I dislike (and therefore distrust). Right there I am in trouble, because liking and trusting are in no way synonymous.
But I have noticed that if I hear a new idea or opinion, my assessment of it is very much influenced by my opinion of who uttered it. Which means that I hate it when I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan, and that reminds me of a recent comment by Kathy Kinsley (that an attack on Newt Gingrich by Media Matters makes her want to take a look at whatever Newt said again).
When I hear something coming from the lips of someone I dislike, I am much more likely to disagree with it than if I hear it coming from the lips (or keyboard) of someone I like. If Newt Gingrich or Pat Buchanan were to say that Julian Assange should be shot for spying on the United States, I would be far less sympathetic than if Glenn Reynolds or Ann Althouse said the same thing. Worse yet, I might be further improperly influenced by the order in which I heard these statements! This is completely irrational, and deeply concerning, because I want to be able to take pride in not thinking that way. So I have a penchant for writing long posts sometimes just to figure out what I think, or what I don’t think. And even if I end up being confused or inconsistent, I want it to be my own confusion and inconsistency.
None of this is rational.
I’m tempted to conclude that if we avoid being influenced, we are still influenced.
Comments
7 responses to “avoiding what cannot be avoided”
Influenced by the season? By the weather? It happens.
Whatever. I am feeling very imposed upon by bad influences!
🙂
No man is an island.
The more insular we try to become, the more we are noticed, and draw negative attention. Not being noticed — by blending in — is more likely to lead to privacy than standing out, and thus the desire to be an island is analogous to the proverbial nail that sticks out and is then collectively hammered down.
Thus, it is better to pretend to go along with the herd than to make a public spectacle of refusal.
Whether I agree with what I just wrote is irrelevant, because Veeshir made me write it!
Assange ought to get drawn and quartered regardless of who calls for it.
The more insular we try to become, the more we are noticed
Story of my life.
My goal is to leave people alone as they leave me alone, somehow, my not believing as my neighbors believe is an affront to them.
All influence is immoral – immoral from the scientific point of view.
From the scientific point of view, nothing is moral or immoral. The concepts have n scientific meaning.
to influence a person is to give him one’s own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions.
The only way of getting around this “problem” is to take children away from their parents immediately after birth and place them in total isolation for the rest of their life.
I very much doubt that a single person in human history has thought “natural thoughts” in the sense Wilde describes. Wilde himself certainly did not. According to Wikipedia, “Wilde’s parents were successful Dublin intellectuals and from an early age he was tutored at home”. We are all the creations of people other than ourselves.