Topsy-Turvy World

We criticize a thinker more sharply when he proposes a tenet that is disagreeable to us; and yet it would be more reasonable to do this when we find his tenet agreeable.

In the age of post-truth, a world where facts mean nothing and a swift hit to one's pathos reigns supreme, we are becoming increasingly intolerant of people who hold different views to us. This clearly is evident in politics, where thinking has fallen to a very black and white state. If you are not with us, you are against us. When did we get to such a point where false dichotomies were rife?

The issue, however, especially with the rise of the internet, is how easy it is to fall into an echo chamber. Algorithims and isolated online communities make it so easy to place ourselves in a noiseless world, where everybody agrees with you. This is not healthy. The world does not operate like this. So, when these people move out into reality and encounter real human beings with real, contrasting points, they rip them to shreads. What they should be doing is trying to see their point of view.

Indeed, Nietzsche had a point. If we are surrounded by people who hold the same views as us, shouldn't we be questioning that? We should be digging deep, finding out why nobody has an opposing view and trying to find where that opposing view is. There are two sides to every story; to only know one is suicide for your own personal development. Why would you want to hear nothing but the same agreeable points? Nobody pushes themselves, grows and learns when everyone they know (or speak to)  thinks the same.

Why are people so afraid of seeing a subject from every possible angle? Nobody is saying you need to then change your mind (and if you do, that's okay, too). You cannot attain mastery of any subject unless you know all the ins and outs of it. A pianist may prefer to play jazz music but, at some point in his career he will, at least, learn what a waltz is and how to play one.

Photo by Elsa Gonzalez on Unsplash