Mart-deBlog

Some time ago I was asked how it is possible for me to defend superficial and cliché statements; given my character as someone who pretends to hate the static normativity of mainstream opinions and despises dogmatism in general.

It is exactly the hate for dogmatism that can cause the occasinal defence of apparently simple views. Having been in a supposedly intellectual environment for years now, it still strikes me how often the origin of 'a more intellectual' opinion is the simple reaction against mainstream ideas, sometimes simply to demonstrate one's elevation while copying the intellectual environment. Surely, there is as much dogmatism on the street as there is in the many ivory towers. And thus it becomes interesting what superficiality exactly means? And what it means for an opinion to be deep? Being deep could mean that you really know what you are saying. But do we ever fully know? Superficiality sometimes means overgeneralization. But doesn´t a difficult abstract thought refer too almost everything. Philosophy is full of generalization, does this make it superficial? I do no think so.

For me, a deeper thought can be roughly defined as something experienced more intensely than a superficial thought. When we are influenced by mass opinion, we rightly say that we are probably being superficial because there is only acted, theatrical vehemence in the thought and the superficial opinion does not derive its meaning from our individuality. For example, ´the islam is bad´ is superficial when it is not embedded and consistent with your complete worldview and, more importantly, when it is not stated with authentic conviction. Some people hardly have a personal worldview, not even an unconscious one, and are therefore doomed to skim over the surface of life. But take the apparantly more intellectual view: ´judging different cultures from the viewpoint of your own culture is ignorant´, this is similarly superficial when the meaning of this statement is not intensely experienced but learned as a logical necessity imposed by some textbook. Something is lost when you recognize where someone's opinion comes from, it becomes simply boring and empty. So it is all about the foundation of what is said: is it your surrounding context, some empty logic or your personal history and individual mindset? Now your thought can be similar to the majority´s and yet have conceptual roots running deep into the meaning of your experiences. Could something be truly deep when you need a never-ending book that is both biographical and reflective to explain why and how you mean it?

Of course this is all a stub. There is so much more to say. For one, I am unsure whether superficialty is a bad thing or good thing necessarily. Superficialty can be a way of life, and as such there are so many ways of being superficial. Deeper people can be heavy, over-suffering and disconnected from society, as I see clearly in my own weaknesses. Superficial people can be boring and desperately empty, yet fast and part of world. It can be wonderful to live on the surface instead of underneath it. Still, I indeed pretend to hate superficialty, but even more so I deeply hate the people who grow stuck in either superficiality or depth. In my opinion, we should all strive to take things from the surface down along its deep roots, while also climbing up from the depths to bring something hidden to the surface. I think it is morally justified to despise people in whom-, or those character traits in which, either of these movements is lacking.