Nescio, sed vero cogito

Nescio. "I do not know."

This was also the title of my first blog. The message is simple enough to grasp. I am a thinker, yet, in my own way, controlled by passion. This does not lead to sober rationality, but rather, a volatile form of cognition in which I jump from idea to idea, topic to topic, conclusion to conclusion. In so doing, I often find myself in desperate need of a reminder that I do not have answers to any of the questions I pose, and whenever I posit a position, though I may ardently believe it to be the truth, I simultaneously must consciously force myself to realize that I am certainly mistaken, in one way or another. So I quote Socrates, and I mean it, though my personality often leads me to betray my own will.

But, as I begin this new effort here, I wish to note this addendum. Sed vero cogito. It's probably not exactly proper Latin; I'm not a Classics major any more. But it means, loosely, "but I do think." I don't mean that to denote that I am thoughtful or rational, not that I don't believe that to be the case as well. Rather, I mean it in the way I describe myself above: I think what I say to be the truth, though I know but minutes later I should change my mind. And this will I believe dictate the formula of this blog.

I started the first as part of an effort to create a balanced digest of viewpoints, both for myself and a number of friends who I think occasionally read my suggestions. Today, however, I have an altogether different goal. I know no longer see much need to provide balanced viewpoints, for the sake of balance that is. If an argument is valid, empirically-based, and holds under the standards of common sense and rationality, then surely I will consider it, whatever it's conclusion may be. But I see no point in doing anything other than putting forth what I believe is true. There are billions of voices to be heard, each uniquely opinionated. Why should I give voice, legitimacy, to their opinions if I find them irresponsible, irrational, dishonest, or in some other fundamental way, lacking, other than to note that disagreement and put forth my own argument? I will respect and consider other arguments, joyfully engage them and those who make them, seek both to prove and to be disproven, but if they cannot show me their merit, then acting as the arbiter of some golden mean or balanced center is a fool's errand, and counter-productive. It is to give credence where it is not due, and I know I am not alone in thinking that such is the manner in which our society's political discourse now errs.

So consider me one more voice, adamantly committed to an ever-changing philosophy. I will only compromise intellectually when the other side is worthy of a middle ground. Among honest, reasonable persons, this should and will always be the case. Such is not the person we face. And I will never rest as long as such is the case.

Please begin to disagree now.