The Reception Dilemma (And How to Solve It)

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems)

"If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise"

-- Rudyard Kipling, "-- If"

(Background music)

A Philosopher's Guide to Criticism and Praise

When success reveals you into the public eye, be it online or offline, your work becomes a canvas for an indefinite amount of opinions. No matter how excellent your competency is, you'll inevitably face conflicting, and even harsh, reviews. Even alongside praise, negative critiques can sting, leaving you with a crucial choice: Should you succumb to pessimism and self-disbelief, or learn to "toughen yourself up", and accept the criticism?

For a truth seeker, like a philosopher, neither option suffices, alone. Truth is our quarry, and both critics and fans, however unwelcome the latter's biases, may hold gems of it. Discard either, and you'll discard these "gems" either way.

Take my own experience. My former headmistress, in a burst of boundless optimism, declared me destined to be "this century's most renowned philosopher". The flattery wasn't intoxicating to me, for I knew its potential for distortion of reality. And I don't live to be intoxicated by emotions, no. I am dead inside. I live to philosophize, and emotions stand in the way of understanding the world beyond our minds.

The internet is filled with countless philosophy blogs and seasoned thinkers, rendering such prophetic pronouncements, like hers, deserving to be questioned. Even well-intentioned praise, however gratifying, can be a deluding trap to the truth.

So, how do we navigate this feedback labyrinth? Here are some guiding principles:

1. Acknowledge the Value of Every Voice: Every opinion, positive or negative, offers a unique perspective. Critics, often dismissed as naysayers by the sensitive, may highlight blind spots, or suggest unexpected angles. Even unconstructive criticism can reveal a gap in understanding or communication.

2. Filter with Discernment: Not all feedback deserves equal weight. Learn to differentiate between informed critiques, fueled by genuine engagement with your work, and mere negativity born of bias or jealousy. The latter, however uncomfortable, deserves careful consideration.

3. Seek Any Sparks of Truth: Strip away your emotional attachments to content and search for the nugget of truth in each feedback, however unsettling it may be. You should encourage yourself to ask yourself: Is there a valid point hidden beneath the harsh language? Or, conversely: Does the praise highlight an aspect you overlooked by your own negativity bias?

4. Embrace Humility: No one, philosopher or otherwise, possesses the godly trait of omniscience. Recognizing this inherent limitation fosters intellectual humility, the breeding grounds for open-mindedness and continuous learning.

Remember, the pursuit of truth may easily be solitary trek, paved with both praise and adversity. As we navigate this landscape, let us not seek validation, nor silence the chorus of voices. Instead, let us learn to discern the whispers of truth amidst the symphony of opinions. Only then can we truly embrace the philosophical calling: to relentlessly seek to be enlightened by the truth.

Navigating the Labyrinth of Reception

The applause of the crowd can be intoxicating, but the sting of criticism can linger long after the echoes fade. As philosophers, we are grappled with the inevitable dilemma of reception: The subjective dance between your work and between how it's perceived. While grains of truth may lie within, releasing them from the emotional whirlwinds of opinion is a constant challenge.

These are at least some of the components which are integrated on the question behind the reception dilemma: How should we react to how others react to our content?

The Emotional Biases

The human heart fuels reception, and is fueled by it as well. A passionate reader might overlook nuances for the sake of a compelling narrative, while an angry critic might cherry-pick flaws to support their default disdain. These emotional biases add another layer of complexity to the feedback puzzle. Perhaps, understanding the emotions of your audience could better determine the objectivity of their feedback.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

Imagine being judged not for your ideas, but for the lack of a degree in a field irrelevant to your argument. This fallacy, the ad hominem attack, shifts the focus from the content to the creator, belittling your voice based on perceived personal shortcomings. Recognizing this tactic is crucial to discerning genuine critique from mere insults masked, or even marketed, as proper intellectual discourse.

The Ad Populum Fallacy

A chorus of applause can be tempting to mistake for absolute truth. The ad populum fallacy, however, thrives on the seductive power of majority opinion. Just because a thousand voices echo your ideas doesn't guarantee their validity. A lone dissenting voice, offering a different perspective, might hold the key to unlocking a blind spot in your own reasoning.

The Philosopher's Dilemma

Weighing both sides of the coin is a philosopher's duty, but we are not immune to the sting of criticism. The world, however, rarely offers empathy for hurt feelings, as that isn't the responsibility of others, but ours, to be stronger. This can stress as it can exhaust as well. Offensive language and personal attacks deserve no place in a respectful exchange of ideas, but it's equally important for us to acknowledge our own emotional vulnerability.

In this day and age, content is king. Unfortunately, in some niches, such as those related more to the intellect than to the heart, relenting to our emotions is a weakness, for it stands in the way of our work. Such is the Rubinshteinic theory on contentism.

The Sacrifices of Sensitivity

Some sacrifices are inevitable when navigating the minefield of online discourse. The same, as, you know, truth-seeking in general. Your sensitivity, however rooted in your being, may require a degree of suppression. Perhaps the true challenge lies in cultivating a community where respectful dialogue thrives, where diverse perspectives are heard, and where sensitivity is not weaponized but acknowledged and embraced.

And yet, it has to be decreased in philosophical discourse, as the truth cares not for your feelings. Constant philosophizing may alter it, as well.

Additional Points to Consider

Ditch the Positivity-Negativity Binary: Not all praise is golden, and not all criticism is morally wrong (is there even such a thing as "morally wrong criticism"?). Approach both with a measured skepticism. A compliment like "you're the fittest person I've ever seen" to someone visibly struggling with obesity, while well-intentioned, likely misses the mark, when it comes to the truth. Look beyond the surface, and delve into the logic and reasoning behind the feedback, in order to assess its reliability.

Embrace the Counterpoint: Every critique, however harsh, offers a potential counterpoint to your own perspective. Instead of being defensive, instead of succumbing to the feelings of "being attacked", engage in critical discussion, instead. Is there validity in the critic's arguments? Do they highlight blind spots you've overlooked? Use their voice as a head-start for self-reflection and intellectual growth.

Offense Not Taken: True philosophers, like seasoned travelers, learn to shrug off the petty insults that inevitably sting. Remember, not everyone will resonate with your work, and that's okay. Their disapproval doesn't diminish the legitimacy of your passion or the value of your pursuit. Focus your energy on the pursuit of wisdom, not chasing elusive validation. It's not like you have any use for ad-hominem expressions.

Draw the Line Between Disapproval vs. Offense: While open minds embrace healthy disagreement, there's a clear line between constructive criticism and malicious intent. Blunt insults, bullying, and harassment have no place in any healthy, mature discourse, regardless of your philosophical standing. Freedom of expression should never justify the silencing or the "cancellation" of legitimate voices.

Clarity, Content, and Conscious Detachment: These are the philosopher's tools for forging truth. Prioritize clarity in your communication, focus on the substance of your content, and cultivate a healthy detachment from the noise of popular opinion. It's through rigorous examination, not fleeting emotion, that one truly ascends the ladder of knowledge and expertise.

Afterthought

"Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence." -- Thomas Szasz

A philosopher is necessarily a "party pooper" or one that is willing enough to break any biasing aura that would mislead us away from the truth. As such, the competent philosopher should even be willing to challenge, even, people's own beliefs in his or her favor. As such, the philosopher is the least to be a people-pleaser, even when other people aim to please himself/herself.

And to break an approving reception of you in the name of the truth, that is a task which requires much courage. A courage to defy your own interests in the name of the truth (if the truth is your top priority as a philosopher, which it should).

Thus, to think clearly, you must be brave enough to understand that you might not know like you think you know. You must also be brave enough to apply this same conclusion to other people as well. That way, their reception of you won't bias you towards delusion.