Responsibilities fulfilled

“Men are not afraid of things, but of how they perceive them,” Epictetus said two thousand years ago, highlighting a shadow that has always accompanied humankind. I don't know about you, but for me, along with the analytical skill derived from self-knowledge, what most amazes me about Stoicism is its capacity to cultivate dispassion.

Not judging by appearances was one of his principles, in an era when a future like ours, with technology capable of generating digital content so convincing that it would be difficult to distinguish it from the real thing, was unimaginable. Philosophizing is this: examining and refining one's criteria, proclaimed the Greek thinker.

The benefits of being informed are very positive, as it allows us to make healthy decisions, avoid giving opinions on topics we don't understand, and make the right choices, whether it's choosing a vacation destination, a vehicle, or a bottle of wine.

A few weeks ago, a foodie shared some comments I made on social media, in which I stated that diners have a responsibility to know what kind of cuisine a restaurant offers before making a reservation. Simply put, if they don't, and the experience isn't to their liking, the responsibility lies with them. This is easy to accept, considering that if you buy a product off the shelf without reading the label, you might end up with laundry detergent instead of breakfast cereal.

This person, on the contrary, considered that my words attacked the right of users to go wherever they want and with whatever information they please, apart from being able to protest about whatever they want if they consider it pertinent.

The basis of his reflection was the idea that anyone can approach a book, a film, or a work of art without knowing anything about them beforehand and complain freely, since it is the buyers who provide for the authors.

From this, I deduced that "it's more important to prove something than to be informed" and posed the question: Are all those who complain uninformed? Considering that fitting this last question into the initial reasoning requires a contortion worthy of Toni Bou on his trial bike, and that accepting the premise that proving something is more important than being informed can have unexpected consequences, particularly in matters of privacy, I would like to respond with another question: At what point in my statement is it indicated that a legitimate complaint is inappropriate?

My statement said nothing of the sort. Essentially, it aimed to encourage the public to seek out information in order to make the best decision, at a time when almost any information is widely available through various digital tools.

Access to accurate information often leads to more comprehensive and effective solutions, far removed from unrealistic expectations. Of course, having your own ideas is crucial in any context, and sometimes you might want to take on an experience or job without references, but that doesn't eliminate the responsibility that comes with it. Especially if you want to avoid ending up getting off a plane in summer clothes at Svalbard Longyear Airport, the northernmost airport in the world, or sitting down at a table in a Sichuan-style restaurant when you don't like spicy food.

Subjecting existing knowledge to the enrichment of available perspectives leads to decisions more aligned with individual needs and preferences, since the success of an experience or transaction depends on both parties meeting their expectations. Therefore, it is everyone's responsibility to be informed about the terms and conditions. The fact that it is a business relationship does not imply that the customer has a right to everything without discussion or questioning. This way of thinking—that the one who pays has the right to protest whatever they please—can foster the belief that freedom of expression is contingent upon payment.

Or, even more seriously, the cheerful and common assertion that since I've paid for it, I can do whatever I want with it, opening the door to the possibility that someone who can afford to buy a bottle of Château d'Yquem to pour down the sink or acquire a 14th-century codex to light the fireplace might seem legitimate. The terms corpus mysticum and corpus mechanicum exist for a reason: to distinguish intellectual creation from the physical medium that gives it form.

Enriching understanding and strengthening knowledge has never been harmful; rather, it prevents unnecessary disappointments. It is attitudes that dismiss the expansion of understanding and reduce any opinion to a simple "like" or "dislike" that limit the ability to express nuance and complexity, while fostering polarization and confrontation. Isaac Asimov made this abundantly clear when he said that the opinion of an ignorant person is not worth the same as that of a wise person, nor is the opinion of an inexperienced person worth the same as that of someone who has lived.

A word to the wise is sufficient.