Written by Aldis Brennan

Some people are ingenious mathematicians, others virtuosic musicians; everyone is good at something, and for me that something is criticism.
Now before you go thinking how great that would be to be good at, let me drop some knowledge on you. Sure, it is on occasion handy to be able to dissect an argument logically, determining whether the conclusion follows from the premises or if the argumentation itself is fallacious. But consider this: how often is this truly a helpful pursuit?
It is of course important in pointing out inconsistencies and creating more coherent thoughts, but in an ideal world, this should not be something which someone should be talented at. It is, unlike the aforementioned talents, a negative talent; one which is corrective, rather than creative. Because criticism is not creative, it at best improves upon what has already been created. Criticism, however, seems to be used much more often as sophist rhetoric or to put it more pointedly as a verbal slap in the face. So at what point and why does it turn from being justifiably dubious and thorough to just plain cynical and nasty?
Well, perhaps it has to do with the nature of critical engagement itself. When you can point to an error in reasoning, it can often give you a sense of satisfaction, maybe even superiority and you say to yourself ‘well I wouldn’t have made that mistake’. This assumption of superiority seems to sneak into criticism constantly and with it comes the unearned mistrust of anyone else’s ability to think rationally. What you miss, of course, is the fact that everyone, no matter how smart they are, makes errors. This is not even the largest problem. What is of greater concern is that many criticisms are made, which should not be, due to their irrelevance or insignificance. Sure it is hilarious that Jerry Seinfeld is unwilling to date a woman because she has ‘man hands’, but in reality employing this sort of criticism on a regular basis would leave a person rather unhappy.
The obvious question now is who can I blame for this unfortunate gift? There is no easy target, as critical thinking seems to be supported almost universally. It is enforced by parents who enlighten their children as to the ‘true’ nature of Santa Claus in order to better prepare them for the harsh realities of the ‘real’ world. It is present in the education system which teaches students to always question the prescribed material (except when the teacher doesn’t know the answer). Even a young person’s dearest companion, the television betrays them to criticism; mocking them should they want to believe in the humble house hippopotamus.
It is through these formative influences that the seed of doubt is born and this is no mistake, it is intentional. The purpose of endorsing scepticism in the young is to reduce ignorance and a blind following of the status quo. It does this well, perhaps too well because while this function is commendable; the scepticism taught becomes so ingrained that it often crosses borders from the intellectual into the social.
It is one thing to eye critically educational material and quite another to turn that same critical eye directly on to another human being. The difference is that intellectual criticism is essentially logical. It must be supportable. Criticism on the social level is typically more internal and based on immediate reactions which are not and perhaps cannot be objectively justified. So, to critically analyze another student’s essay for errors in content or context is valuable, while using the same criteria to draw the conclusion that the student is an idiot is not.
As if criticizing the character of other people isn’t bad enough, what is truly debilitating about this excess of criticism is that it often turns on itself, leading to extreme self-criticism. Needless to say, this is not a comfortable position to be in and makes difficult actions more difficult. However, in order to salvage this article from being completely depressing, I offer you this tidbit borrowed from the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. He has a concept which is dubbed the ‘leap of faith’ and for our purposes it is actually quite literal. It is as simple as just trusting yourself or someone else, rather than remaining immobile and mistrustful due to unnecessary skepticism and criticism. Sure, when you make that leap you may just hit the rocks at the bottom, but there is at least an equal chance that you will fly. Without taking this risk there is nothing to be lost, but also there can be nothing gained. So leap.

Your anonymous comment may be printed in The Ontarion's print publication.