"Shallow people don't know that they are shallow." The thought came to me today while listening to the sermon. For those of you who heard the same sermon and are scratching your heads, no, I don't have any clear idea how I got there either.
This leads first to some thoughts of some people we dislike or have trouble with and wondering Hmm, is what I dislike about them is that they are shallow? I got a few quick hits on that, but the inevitable next question came up quickly after: If I were shallow, would I know it? How would I know it?
Shallowness is a slippery word. We use it in at least three different domains, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual. On the intellectual front, we use it of someone who knows only a little about a subject, only the obvious or cliched. It stretches to cover people who know a little about many things, but none with any thoroughness. Yet we are already on uncertain ground, and I think this will get interesting when we come back to it. We do have a sense that there are some people who know a great deal about a subject or three but are still shallow, usually because they assume their real knowledge in one area gives them special insights into others. I had a doctor who would explain Bible passages to me in his I'm-a-doctor voice. Something of a blowhard. (Though I have also known clergy who would explain to me very patiently about economics or politics, and what Jesus thought about these things.) And further, sometimes we do regard someone who knows a little about many things as a deep thinker in some ways, because the do not overstep, and connect things in surprising or interesting ways. Hmm, not deep, perhaps. But we give them credit for not being shallow.
Notice that this two exceptions where the definition gets fuzzy both revolve around humility. Hold that thought.
When we switch to emotional shallowness, does the same definition apply? We regard someone as shallow when they do not give much of themselves to others. They may be pleasant, even to many people, but when the chips are down you can't count on them for even a kind word, never mind a favor, because they haven't even noticed your need. Would we call a person who refused to do a favor shallow, or would that be inadequate. Hm. Variable. Hard to tell because people wouldn't just say "No, I refuse to do that for you." They would have some plausible excuse. We start to need repetition to know what's up with the shallowness. As with intellectual shallowness, someone who is not generous to many but quite generous to a few doesn't get called shallow. We do restrict this to real generosity, not counting those whose "generous" action is a hidden trade. And as before, we give credit for non-shallowness when they are moderately generous to many, so long as that is also not some sort of trading, or showiness.
So humility turns out to be important again. Not the whole definition, but pivotal.
On to the important one then, spiritual shallowness. Let's bring the previous suit of clothes out and see if it fits this sibling as well.
I'm posting this now, and coming back to it later, probably in a separate post. I am interested in your thoughts before I go further.
2 comments:
Peter Abelard argues that intention is the key measure of sin. If you don’t understand your capacity for sin is then greatly diminished. What Tolkien calls the Wise are therefore in far greater danger from the judgment of God.
In the days before computerised medical records, there was so much more looking in people’s eyes and assessing what is underneath. Now, this has to be silently fought for, with those who aware of the change and the loss leaving the arena -/ time passes. And the young who have never known different, don’t know.
Just as Ayatollah Khomeini was not wrong in all things, as he opposed ‘Western’ eye candy media erosion of literary high culture, we are losing valuable human achievement.
The ignorant are not innocent in this, though. The absence of appropriate regret is not absence of any.
Post a Comment