Was thinking about the nature of writing in math today.
Just wondering this: In the past, people wouldn't be ashamed of putting "!"s in their text, because it was normal. It doesn't seem odd to have a letter or editorial with the occasional "how shocking!" It wasn't "wrong" to freely, and strongly state one's opinions. A writer could unbashfully consider him or herself "in the right" without worry. Similarly, the great 19th century novels were all written with the narrator outside the realm of events, an external perceiver seemingly capable of knowing everything about the story. It was perfectly fine to receive an account of events as if the writer was omniscient.
Today, we seem too well aware that ours is not the only truth. We couch our speaches in "some think" and "others feel." When our novels are written from the first person, it is made painfully clear that the narrator is not aware of events. It's the rise of relativist morality. Of there not being a universal "right" and "wrong." But in opening our minds and hearts, have we lost ourselves in some bureaucratic morass? Are we concerned more about being politically correct than our convictions? Are we afraid to declare those convictions, those potential weapons against us?
One more thing: are we really open here? By allowing for alternative points of view, do we give ourselves someplace to run to when we disagree? We say we have open minds, but we preserve this space of "we're both right" to protect our points of view when they are threatened. Because our viewpoints have this refuge, they are never tested, never refined. Our opinions are more closed off now that they are not exposed to public debate.
Just thoughts...