“The obstinate man does not hold opinions; they hold him.” - Samuel Johnson

An obstinate man both holds and is held by his opinions. If he did not hold his opinions he would not possess the opinions, while if his opinions did not hold him he would not qualify as an obstinate man. To truly have an opinion, and to truly exist as an obstinate man, you must hold your opinion and your opinion must hold you.

An opinion manifests itself as a view or belief you have about an idea or aspect of life. Therefore, for an obstinate or stubborn man to have an opinion, he must hold his opinion; correct in his belief or not. In this instance, the words “have” and “hold” read synonymously. The obstinacy of the man in question further reinforces the strength of opinion, and so the strength of his hold on it. For example, if a man holds the opinion that President Bush acts like a fool, he holds the opinion that the President acts foolishly. The strength of his opinion, in accordance with his obstinacy, corresponds to the strength of his hold on his opinion. The idea of a man holding his opinions also allows for the revision or change of these opinions. If a man holds his opinions, he controls them rather than them controlling him.

Opinions also hold a man, and especially an obstinate man. To have a belief in something, the belief must at least partially grip and intrigue you. If an idea doesn’t do that, the likelihood that you will develop much of an opinion about it diminishes. Therefore, an idea must hold you before you can have an opinion about it. Once you have an opinion, it must continue to hold you in order for you to hold firm in your belief. Were you no longer held by the idea, and your opinion, your defense of it would falter, as you no longer believed it yourself. For example: a man who eats meat versus a vegetarian. Both have an opinion about eating meat: one for it and one against it. If the two men discussed or argued about their beliefs, and belief of one of the men no longer held him, he would quickly surrender to the other’s argument, as he would have no reason to defend his stance. He would lose the argument as a result of his opinion not holding him. To be obstinate without having a firm belief in your opinion cannot occur: to defend without tire your belief requires it to mean something to you. It must exercise a hold over you.

A man must hold his opinions and his opinions must hold him for a combination of the two above reasons. To have the opinion at all, he must hold it and it must hold him. To defend his opinion, the opinion must hold the man, and he must hold the belief in order to call the opinion his own. For example, though probably a very common one when discussing this type of question: the idea of slavery as it pertained to the pre-Civil War South. A White child born in the South would not come into the world with the opinion that Africans were meant to be slaves, or that he was better than they. As the child grew, the opinion caught hold of him through various aspects of his life and experience. The belief of White dominance over Blacks would catch hold of him. Over time, he would adopt this belief as his own, rather than only his society’s and parents’ beliefs. The young adult would believe that Africans were meant to exist as slaves. The opinion would begin to hold him, with his also holding it.

Opinions rely on being held by and holding the believer. Neither can exist without the other. In the case of an obstinate man, these holds are much stronger than those of a man of neutral opinion. Holding an opinion allows the man control over the opinion, if only he can break its hold over himself. The hold of an opinion over a man provides him with the strength to defend it against those of conflicting views.