Just calling someone "glib" - that's a cop-out. It's a cop-out because glibness entails some pretty concrete lacks. There are flaws involved, without which there can be no glib. Glibness lacks: depth, sincerity, something along those lines.
So if somebody comes along and you think they might be glib, well, which is it? What do they lack? Depth or sincerity? Either you can spot the lack or you can not. If you can spot it, then you can call them on it and specify why. If you cannot, then - well. What business do you have calling them glib, when you can't even say whether they're being insincere or merely shallow? But if you can spot the lack and you don't call them on it...well, now who's demonstrating a lack of sincerity, convictions, commitment to truth? Someone who calls another glib only to capitulate - to what, "superior glibness"? - that takes a rather high-toned sort of coward, now doesn't it?
Personally, I don't let the glib get away with it. If I can call them glib, that means I've spotted what it is they lack, and I will knock them sprawling with that. If I can't spot the flaw, then I'd have to admit, well...maybe, they're not glib. They could just be cocky and RIGHT. They could just have an easy way of coming out with the truth they mean. Because it takes a concrete flaw - a lack of truth, or depth, or sincerity - to reduce what they say in their cocky certainty to mere glibness.
It would be hard to say what's worse: the presumption to claim glibness where one can't actually see it? Or the cowardice to see it, resent it, and be able to show it up, but then not actually do it.
In any case, if I were ever called "glib" - I'd be DELIGHTED to have anybody show me where I'm not sincere, or where I lack depth! That's a big help to me. I'm always after the more sincere truths, the more sublime depths.
When it comes to the philosophical deeps, I'm a real bottom-feeder.
No comments:
Post a Comment