A Critics Critique

    “Is there a difference between a critic and a critique?”

    “I think it’s a matter of semantics. Some say potato, some Paw-Ta-tow, some critique, some criticize; gives people something to do but worry about important things, like survival.”

    “So, in your opinion, there is no difference between critiquing something, and being a critic of that same thing. Interesting. Critiquing to me, means examining something and then giving your opinion as to how you feel about whatever it is. A critic is someone who simply criticizes something because they don’t like it, or want to make someone reconsider their thinking, without the facts to back it up. A critic is inherently negative, whereas a critique is an analysis whose outcome could go either way.”

    “So, which are you? You seem to enjoy taking things apart, examining them, and then having forgotten how to put them back together, you leave them in a jumbled pile for someone else to reassemble. If you asked me to guess I’d say you were a critic, based on your recitation on the differences between the two.”

    “I don’t think that’s accurate. I may be judgmental, but I like to believe I analyze the facts before committing to something. You seem to be inferring I look at something in hopes of finding something to criticize. I assure you, I examine something with the purpose of determining if it meets a certain criteria that endorses the claim being forwarded. That is not being a critic, it may seem critical if I find more wrong with the proposal than right, but that is the fault of the one making the proposal, not mine.”

    “So what you are saying is that you believe you are capable of looking at a proposal with an open mind and determining, based on the facts presented, if there is a valid assumption being put forth.”

    We could go on like this forever. She has an ability to analyze proposals, events, people, but does so with an air of superiority, she believes to be insight. She is not the only one that lets their personal views influence their so-called objectivity. The news we receive today is heavily weighted in one direction or the other. News has become the advertisements for a particular agenda. Critical journalism which seeks to find all relevant facts and certify their legitimacy, has dissolved into a political argument whose side has, by the process of selective choice, won before the debate has begun. 

    I would agree there is a difference between a critic and someone critiquing an idea or proposal, but it is just a matter of semantics. To criticize something because it has failed to produce facts that validate an assumption, is fair, while critiquing that same proposal, while selectively choosing facts that fit an agenda, is not honest.

    How we decide which is more beneficial in providing a definitive answer, will depend upon the facts used in the determination. If facts are purposely omitted, or altered to influence the authenticity of the facts, the outcome will not be legitimate. What is necessary to provide a satisfactory result in a debatable situation, are the facts, and who has determined their accuracy.

    “Myorca, let me put it to you this way. When you go to those marches of yours, and you listen to the speeches, do you think about what is being said critically, I mean do you analyze what is being said, do you look for flaws in the logic, or do you simply agree with what is being said because that is what you want to hear. Do you find anything in what is being said, that you analyze for accuracy, or do you simply accept that what is being said is accurate, factually. There is a difference between accepting someone’s theory because they present facts that convince you to believe what they infer, and believing them because you want to. A proposal parallels your agenda, and therefore you don’t need to question its accuracy. Have you ever thought about why you agree or disagree with a philosophy?”

    It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me when one is intent on saving the world, they should not only have a purpose, and that purpose should be supported by facts that can be confirmed, better yet, have been confirmed, so that you feel justified in advocating for whatever cause you are supporting that week. 

    I just find it difficult to believe that Myorca doesn’t dig through the dust bins of history in search of evidence to back up their theories about human rights, over population, or injustice of any type actually. It strikes me that those who are most animated about justice, are those that find ways to do little more than talk about it. Those that are for what the Myorcas of the world consider injustice, are the ones gambling in the temple and promising to give the proceeds to gamblers anonymous.

    No one any longer can look at a fact they haven’t predetermined the sex of. It is like a disease that could be cured, but for the suspicion surrounding the intent. Or the intent is obviously the very thing that will save the world, and yet no one trusts that is possible, so no one is willing to give it a try. Looking for the nefarious nature behind every proposal has become a parlor game. They have managed to merge the butler with the ring in his nose and a hammer in his pocket, with Mary Poppins and her band of merry boys. Two opposing gangs on the west side of Every Town, fighting not for a cause they necessarily believe in, but fighting for the sake of fighting.

    “Well Jerome, let me put it to you this way. Have you ever made a decision based on nothing at all. Based on a whim, or flight of fancy, or because you saw something written on a bathroom wall that changed your life. It had nothing to do with facts, purpose, ideology, it just made you believe that there was someone else out there who felt the same way you did, and for no particular reason. I’m betting you haven’t, because you can’t; not won’t, can’t.”

    “It doesn’t make sense to me, if your decisions are not based on facts that have been proven reliable, not by ones convictions, but by truth. If we can’t believe in or agree on what truth is, then there can be no reliable anything. Life will be a series of random accidents that are founded on nothing, and therefore prove nothing. When we are allowed to create our own facts and purpose, without reliable information, we are living a fictious existence. I can’t live like that.”

    “But don’t you see, I can.”