Judgment.

As a post-pubescent teen living primarily in a Western society surrounded by a torrent of relentless judgment, I resent the fact that I am not different at all different than the next person to judge someone (particularly over the internet). I too, judge people, and I guess it's only a a result of my existence in a society that subtly tells me to judge through socially unavoidable mediums: the tabloids, the text, and the telly.

And I find it degrading and shameful to myself as a philosopher that I oft judge people upon merits which any Tom, Dick or Harry would. Perhaps this is beginning to offend you, perhaps you are now thinking: "How dare you bring me down to your level, how dare you suggest I'm as shallow and low blown as you are". Well perhaps then, you should stop reading.

Oh how I wish I could cover these judgmental acts of mine up with an adept sophistication of words, twisting meanings, and diluting the point. But seeing as how that would be unethical for myself (not to mention that I lack sophistication with words), I'll keep this digression relatively blunt. I judge people upon the following merits: their fashion sense, their intelligence, their beliefs and lifestyle, and when all is said and done, I judge people based on the content of their character.

Cutting to the chase though, anyone who knows me should know that of those listed, I hold intellectual integrity in the highest regard. Mad deference to those who are well learned, and not just book learned, but common sense learned. God forbid we exile a lot of what schools teach us today, God forbid that we should be forced to use common sense for once, and not just what we're taught in chapter 3, page 177. Such is the beauty of common sense - it cannot be taught in a textbook, but it can be taught in nature.

Anyway, to the point of this post, I oft judge people under the suspicion that my judgments are invalid. Not because my opinion is wrong, not because I am ignorant of how the object of my judgment really is (because really, if I were to ask who you were, you wouldn't be able to give me a wholly truthful answer, such a question I'd like to expand on in another post), but under the impression that my judgments fall under the "Ad Hominem" fallacy.

Now for those of you who don't know, the Ad hominem fallacy is simply where an arguer is guilty of "attacking his opponent rather than his opponent's evidence and arguments". But under closer scrutiny, does the ad hominem really apply when it comes to judging people? I mean, when you're judging someone, aren't you judging the "opponent", and not his evidence? And I only say this because it applies to me. For I don't know if I were ever to tolerate someone based on that somebody's "evidence and arguments".

Let me make an example - let me re-use one, Revanth Mantatikar. Regardless of whether he is a good guy or not, whether he is a good person, I don't like the guy. If he were able to miss the point of things any more, I'd call it a superpower. I'd call him Dr Oblivianto/Captain Oblivious. Now what would I say to him? I hate you Revanth based on the grounds that you're an idiot and I think you're a tit. Turns out the ad hominem fallacy doesn't apply here it all. I don't think there's anything wrong with me hating people based on grounds that I choose, based on my judgments. Because when it comes down to it, what the hell else am I meant to judge them on? I mean, wouldn't we all agree that one's nature is self sufficient, that what defines me is not dependent on anything outside the realms of me?

So what then, am I to use as evidence for judging people, for hating them, for admiring them, for loving them? Am I not to use their personality, their actions, their experiences, their interactions, their relationships? Are these "personal attacks" not testaments to their identity? Or are we as humans more cunning and malicious deceivers of ourselves than we think?