For this article, I have chosen to talk about a less common topic: apathy. I always find it funny when, to seem cool, people say that they are generally apathetic about things. This is because those who are truly apathetic tend to not give an opinion of themselves. True apathy means that one wouldn’t have an opinion at all. Having an opinion contradicts apathy, so therefore it is non-apathetic.
I like to call the phenomenon of non-apathy “pathy,” and those who are not apathetic “pathetic.” Now, having a preference to call those who are not apathetic “pathetic” would mean that I would be calling myself pathetic. Having a preference is akin to having an opinion. So, following that logic, one can say that I am calling myself pathetic. So, what are the implications of this? Am I calling myself pathetic because I have an opinion of myself, or do I actually feel that I’m pathetic, as I’m useless? Maybe both? Probably both.
So, what about when one introduces multiple people with opinions into the equation? What happens when one lumps a couple of pathetic people together? The best way to explain this phenomenon is through a real-world application. The definition of a certain word follows, “activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.” This is the definition of the word “politics,” ladies and gentlemen. Politics is nothing more than the conglomeration of pathetic people seeking to achieve power. Other duties include sifting through the opinions of other pathetic people they represent only to ignore their concerns. This brings me onto the next concept of opinions: the value of them.
So, how come peoples’ opinions are not valued equally by those pathetic people in politics? Opinions derive their value from a few different places: the quantity of people who have that opinion, the utility of the opinion and a third variable, which I’ll get to later. So, how do these variables work, exactly? Well, it is quite simple.
The more people have a certain opinion, the more it is valued. This is contrary to the conventional economic axiom that says that the more you have of something, the less it is worth. But, it is not enough for a certain opinion to be held by a lot of people; it has to have worth, too.
Some pathetic people have beliefs that may be more pervasive and more supported but lack utility. For example, a community of 100 people has 60 people who think that they should sell all its water and food in order to have a dance party. What good does a dance party do if they don’t have any food or water? The 40 other people say that they should keep the food and water so that they have a chance to survive. A rationally thinking person would say that the 40 people have the better opinion. This would probably be true. As you can see, it’s not just a numbers game. So, if you have these two factors determining the value of an opinion, why is it that the government does not answer the opinions of a large group of pathetic people?
Oh yeah—I forgot to mention the third variable: the “trump” card, one would say. It’s something that can totally envelop the valuable opinions of a large group of pathetic people. It’s an incentive, and it’s called money.
This variable takes too long to explain. It’s a complex variable with even more complex repercussions. For that reason, I’ll end this article right here. I’m not sure how to end it through. I don’t have an opinion.
Chiodo is a member of the class of 2017.
