Dogmatism v. Integrity
NOTE: I didn't write last week because I was in Maine. You can see pictures here. My posts will become increasingly sporadic as the summer continues. I've got a few more trips in line before I head west to start school. I'll do my best to post pictures, but expect my half-baked essays to be even doughier and less frequent.
I got one of those email questionnaire things last week. You know, it was one of those lists of slightly silly questions that float among friends via forwards and reply-alls. I never got around to answering all 61 questions, but one of the questions really caught my attention: What characteristic do you despise?
The gravity of the question and the responses made it stand out among the rest. The answers were good: Lack of responsibility. Ignorance. Sloth. Showy or arrogant. Lack of integrity. In fact, two people answered "lack of integrity," and it got me thinking about integrity again. Integrity has been one of my favorite concepts ever since I heard Geddy Lee sing it in "The Spirit of the Radio." It's a useful term, but I'm afraid that it's becoming hackneyed, at least in my mind. The dictionary offers three definitions:
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
I'm going to focus on the first.
While I'm hesitant to despise many things, I suppose lack of integrity is something that I certainly look down upon. The problem that I encountered as I examined the question was that while I laud integrity, I despise dogmatism, and I'm afraid that they might be confused occasionally.
Dogmatism: an "arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief" is easily hidden behind a facade of integrity. It's not a characteristic to admire or laud. One may hold any manner of belief—no matter how damaging it might be to themselves, their family, or their community—and defend it staunchly in the name of integrity. Personally, I strive for integrity, but I find it's something that I cannot rush, nor is it something that I can conceive easily. I find it interesting that the third definition of integrity resembles so closely the first definition of perfect: "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."
I've got a long ways to go before I'm complete, and I'm afraid that my own arrogance and stubbornness might erode my integrity rather than maintain it. It's a fine line.
Integrity is nearly always found in company with humility. Which is to say, those who posses integrity are nearly always self-effacing.
That is because to have integrity means to admit when you are wrong as much as it means to stand by what you believe to be right.
Dogmatism, on the other hand, is nearly always found in company with arrogance. It is the belief that you are right, without the understanding that someone else might also be right.
I have found that integrity - true integrity - is exceptionally rare and is therefore to be prized, and cultivated wherever it is found.
As for dogmatism, the only consideration it deserves is to be shown the sharp edge of the sword.
Posted by: aporitic at August 11, 2004 11:51 AMPS - While you're discussing vices, how about indolence, eh?
Ya reprobate.
Posted by: aporitic at August 11, 2004 11:53 AM...to have integrity means to admit when you are wrong as much as it means to stand by what you believe to be right.
So aporitic perfectly articulates my point in exactly 24 words.
And yeah, indolence...I've got a ways to go.
Posted by: Jed at August 11, 2004 01:34 PM