No Inconsistencies Aloud?

Sometimes we think we know stuff. Sometimes we think we know it better than anyone else. Particularly when that stuff is something we know about ourselves, about how we feel about things. But it’s often when we come to talk about what we know that we realise all the stuff we don’t – or else don’t know well enough. Safe inside our heads our thoughts about things seem solid, sturdy, watertight. But get them out in the open by speaking about them and all of a sudden gaps can become apparent.

I have a pair of boots I like to wear. They have a habit of letting the water in when it rains and I end up with cold, wet and dank smelling socks. It’s not terribly attractive (nor fragrant) when it comes to taking my boots off at the end of the day, and it’s not terribly comfortable either. So why do I wear them? Because they fit. Because I like how they look. Because they go well other things I’m wearing. But are they the best thing for my feet? Maybe not. Maybe I need to get myself some wellies.

I think thought can be a bit like my leaky boots. We all have ideas, opinions, views on things. We feel comfortable with them. We know we can pull them out the back of the wardrobe when we need them and slip into them with great ease. But thoughts are not always built for an all-weather terrain; sometimes they can stand up to the scrutiny of questioning no more than my boots can a heavy downpour.

I wonder then, do all our thoughts need to have the robustness of a pair of wellington boots? Or is it ok to let the water run in a bit?

I experienced a leaky-boot moment in my thinking not so long ago when I agreed to take part in some research for a BBC radio show. I was to be interviewed on my thoughts on the concept of an interventionist God – undoubtedly a biggie when it comes to ‘Stuff to Think About’. I have views about God though, and I’m very happy to talk about them - so what could be easier? Or so I thought. For it wasn’t until I started to try and verbalise my thoughts on things into a microphone that I suddenly realised how hard it was. All my certainty about what I know, what I feel, suddenly began to slip away into the gaps of what I don’t know. What’s more, I heard myself talking and was struck by how many inconsistencies there were in what I was saying.

I stuttered.

I stammered.

I felt my skin prick with tiny beads of waffling perspiration.

I said “Err” quite a lot.

Realisation: What I think just isn’t watertight.

Now, being charitable towards myself, I could say, well wasn’t this just the subject matter, or the circumstances of being interviewed? It’s none to easy talking into a Dictaphone at the best of times, let alone on such a grand subject. And maybe I’m just not that great at talking about how I feel about things in front of strangers?

Or, I wondered, is it something about the nature of thinking aloud? Does the act of speaking thoughts highlight all the murky spots in our thinking in the same way an apple oxidises when you open it up to reveal its insides? And, more to the point, how much do the murky spots matter? Being an ex-Philosophy student I love listening to people talk and watching out for inconsistencies in what they’re saying. Whether I’m listening to a politician espousing policy on TV, a work colleague making recommendations on ‘how we should be doing things’, or a friend talking about their views on such-and-such and whatever, I’m always on the lookout for those points in someone’s expression of their thinking when I can say inwardly to myself “Well, that doesn’t really make sense does it? You’ve just contradicted yourself”. I like to think that this isn’t arrogance or geekiness on my part, but rather by-product of my study that I search out inconsistencies in the same way a train spotter is always searching for that elusive model number missing from their pocketbook. In any case, I consider myself as someone who appreciates a well constructed and well grounded argument.

A certain degree of robustness of thought is important I think. It really does matter that we submit our thoughts and views to a certain amount of internal scrutiny before we put them out there, speaking them aloud for others to hear – and obviously more so in some contexts than others. But is it not also the case that it’s part of being human that sometimes we just don’t make sense?

As much as we might like to pride ourselves on our ‘superior intelligence’ in the animal kingdom and kid ourselves that we, as humans, have a level of mastery of logic, the fact remains that we are not perfectly rational beings and we don’t always spot the inconsistencies in our own thinking; sometimes it’s full of holes and thoroughly leaky boot.

I’m not sure though, that it always really matters. This isn’t to advocate that we should all go around thinking what we like and spouting out our views to others with any consideration or scrutiny over the logic of our thinking – most definitely not. But just that maybe perfect waterproofness is an unreasonable goal when the best we can really aspire to is water resistant – with the holes filled in as best as we can. It’s ok to embrace the inconsistencies, and it’s ok to speak them aloud, so as long as we recognise them for what they are – opportunities to reflect and review our own thought processes. After all, to err in our thinking is human, to be gifted with the power of thought at all is nothing short of divine.