Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bridging the Abyss
It’s been difficult at times to post on Ricochet, and nearly impossible to discuss politics with anyone who isn’t a conservative outside of Ricochet. With some of these conversations erupting into conflict, I decided to shed some light on the topic of conflict. It doesn’t matter which “side” you’re on: I’m talking to you. After all, if you experience serious conflict, it’s your own fault.
Let me explain a few things before I delve further into this topic. First, I use the term “serious conflict,” because every living human being experiences conflict several times a day, every day, whether or not you visit Ricochet. So I’m not talking about minor skirmishes, choices of whether to start your diet today or tomorrow, or whether to go out for Chinese or Italian. I’m talking about the heavy duty stuff. There is no permanent elimination of conflict—at least, not until you die.
The first reality to acknowledge is there’s no objective reality. Yes, I see the conflict already in my statement. Unfortunately each of us thinks we have the clearest vision of the world, of Truth, and everyone else can and should see the world as we do, right? Wrong. No one else sees your reality or your world, or whatever you choose to call it. You may argue that there are universal truths, though. Well, good luck when you try to identify the list: all of us can state universal truths—based on our own world views. What about the objective realities of mathematics or science? One only needs to study Einstein or climate change to know there is no fixed or objective science there, either. Even with the simple experience of sitting right next to a person in a closet: you may generally describe the closet in the same way, but you’ll likely have a different experience of that closet which influences your perceptions of the closet. It gets very interesting when you try to describe what seems to be a clear-cut experience and you both describe it quite differently: who’s right? Who’s wrong? Both of you and neither of you.
Describing a closet that you occupy with another person is a relatively harmless activity. But when we begin to share our values, beliefs, preferences, biases and politics—which, by the way are precisely what form reality for all of us—we run into trouble. And that trouble is laid out in full, living color, because it isn’t enough for us to hold to the belief of our own realities. Everyone has to share our perceptions and agree with them. Our egos demand it. There is honor only when we are right, and everyone else can see that. When you are passionate about your beliefs, there is no room to allow for differences in perceptions. You have to trumpet your “rightness” and condemn the other’s wrongness.
Now I’m not saying that I am the example of even-handedness and equanimity. Hardly. I have my moments when I want to make myself right and make everyone else who disagrees with me to be foolish, self-centered, nasty, hateful—well, I trust you to identify your own predicate adjectives for your adversaries. But I’m tired of the finger-pointing, accusations, denigrations—aren’t you? I know some people thrive on conflict, stirring things up, making angry comments; it makes them feel powerful and in control. (I won’t even pursue my lecture about our having almost no control over anything.)
One of the biggest reasons people get into political arguments is because they assume that they know what the other person thinks or believes. Unless you are clairvoyant, or unless people tell you what they think or why they think that way, you don’t know. I just want to tear out my hair when someone says, “Well if you did this or you said that, then you meant or intended this.” That’s a lazy approach, and a dangerous one to follow in political discussions, unless you’re looking for an argument. Instead, how about actually asking them the reasons behind their positions? You might be surprised.
So at this point I’m just saying, “Stop it.” Know that your reaction to others is your fault, not theirs, and you are the only person who can stop it. You can’t change others—their ideas or their behaviors (and that includes my ability to influence you). And insulting them won’t change their minds. Allow people to have ideas different than your own; a person with integrity accepts that the world is filled with differences, and we can learn from our differences, if we make the effort.
If there is a huge abyss of differences that we are peering into, we are the ones—all of us—who have created it. And we are the only ones who can bridge it. You know that word that the Left thinks it owns but abuses all the time? Tolerance. I realize that tolerance is only a start: for many of us, it means barely holding it together when we want to bash the other person. But if we would only change, each of us, our own behavior instead of waiting for the other person to change, we might just have a chance for civil conversation. Isn’t it worth trying?
Published in Culture
Great Post. I do believe in an objective reality independent of the observer. Our backgrounds and perspectives do affect how we perceive reality.
Uh, no thanks. I’ve got enough angry people around. I can’t start blaming me and beating up on me; that would be the ultimate betrayal. It…just…might…break me…
Voltaire said something similar to “Cherish those who seek the truth, but beware of those who claim to have found it.”
I don’t generally argue with people. I often ask questions to see if I can understand what drives them to think the way they do. I’m usually disappointed when I find out. Case in point: In frustration, I once said, “[CoC] what you feel. What do you think?” The answer was, “What you think is dictated by what you feel, so I don’t see the difference.” Where does one go from there?
Amen. It’s certainly one of the prime reasons for the knock out fights we have here. A variant of this is “you say you believe this, but I know that’s just code for this and you’re a liar!” Or any multitude of variations on that phrasing.
Take people at their word, don’t 2nd guess, and don’t go looking for “the hidden real meanings” all the time. Unless you like living as a paranoiac like some of my relatives (such as the one for whom it’s “chemtrails, not contrails!”).
To the bar for a beer.
So to be clear, you are saying there is an objective reality that we are unable to see, right? If so, we agree!
There was a test of sorts that my wife remembers from law school (I think it was a courtroom advocacy class, but don’t recall) where the class was shown a 3 minute video of an incident at the start of class. Only at the end of class did the teacher ask them to recall details of what transpired. Nearly everyone had missed something, or gotten something terribly wrong in their recollections, even though they’d all seen the exact same thing. Yes there was an objective truth to what happened, but at a remove of time it was hard to come to an agreement on what that truth really was.
Hey, you are a tough and smart woman, Hypatia. I used to pick fights, or at least people thought I did. Now look how nice I am! ;-) But seriously, it’s hard work, and I generally don’t think you intentionally poke people or allow yourself to be genuinely poked. So it’s up to you.
A further thing the teacher pointed out was that the class only even saw what the camera recorded, not what may have happened off camera before, during, or after the incident. The class had only that narrow window onto a larger chain of events.
Since you’re asking (I don’t think it’s rhetorical, but an excellent question), what we feel can affect what we think. But if we’re awake enough, we can figure out to what degree that’s happening. For example, I may want to punch you in the face, but if I realize I’m being driven by my own emotion, I can choose not to do it . . . or do it anyway. But it’s MY CHOICE.
I have had the experience of trying to express how I am feeling in a situation, and have had people respond with “You’re wrong!” or “Well, how do you think others feel!”. In fact, I just got that in spades on a political forum. In regards to the same conversation, I also got “I think I understand where you are coming from, and here is where I am coming from, and it sounds like we have not communicated well”, from two people. 2:1 ratio is my favor is pretty good.
I can say the latter was a much better experience, and I have a newfound interest in what those persons say. As far as the former is concerned, I have lost all respect for them.
Funny how that works.
Even if people really don’t know their own mind, someone else certainly doesn’t either! We have to take each other at face value, or at least behave as if we do. I know you and I are on the same page on this, skip.
Do you think it’s an objective reality that two planes hit the WTC on 9/11/2001?
True, but I like to think that thoughts are based in fact and can be discussed, and sometimes changed. Feelings are a bit harder to deal with. Would you want to punch me because of something I did, or that you thought I did, or is it just strong personal dislike? There is a difference.
Thanks, Bryan! I have the best response when someone says I’m wrong, or ignorant, or uninformed: I just say “okay.” And move on. It drives them crazy!! In all fairness, I may ask why the person thinks I’m wrong, but I suspect (as you probably did) they were just trying to poke me. No time for that, just move along, please. ;-) One other thing–instead of asking “why,” I’ve tried to develop the habit of saying, could you tell me the reasons you think . . . it feels so much less angry. And sometimes they’ll even answer!
Oh, Richard, you got me. But I also think you know what I mean. We can say the earth is round, I have two hands and two feet. But once we get pass the basics, we’re in for trouble! Are you trying to pick a fight with me, Richard?? Just kidding.
That sounds like Kant. I think Kant is wrong about that.
I actually think the problem in our politics today is too much subjectivism, too much postmodernism, too much cultural relativism, and way too much of this:
I actually think to fix the culture we need to move back towards realism: objective reality exists and we can see it.
I guess we’ll have to disagree, Joseph. And that’s okay. I think our inability to see objective reality is part of human nature and was true long before there were politics. Now some of us may get close to it, or as Richard Easton said, see it through the barest of facts, but after that, it’s not possible.
You’re wrong! j/k
Of course we don’t see all of reality at once; only God is omniscient. We see one tiny slice from a particular perspective.
If I look at a mountain from a distance, I see one side, one perspective, shaded by light, distorted a bit by the atmosphere, pieces blocked by trees or clouds in the way. It might look very different to you, standing at the summit.
Still, the mountain really does exist, and I really can see it.
Ah, yes, we are on the same page, after all. Well said, Joseph, in every way. Perhaps it’s when we put our perceptions into words that we get into trouble?
Sometimes the biggest disagreements don’t come from people’s perceptions of reality or disputes over the facts but from what they want to do as a result of the facts. I keep thinking about James, who said, “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?” What someone’s ultimate desire is will tell you an awful lot about whether you’ll have profitable conversation with them or all-out war.
I think Western Civilization took a wrong turn when Descartes grounded all truth on the self in cogito ergo sum. Descrates thought that he, sitting alone by his fireside, could reason his way into the deepest truths of reality, and all of modern philosophy has followed suit. That approach ran aground and has now degenerated into whatever I feel must be true, or at least “true for me.”
Mankind is a social animal. The correction to our limited perspective comes in sharing our perspectives with one another to gain a fuller understanding of reality. Objectivity in science comes from reproducible experiments; it isn’t valid unless other people can reproduce your work. But the most important things in life can’t be studied in a lab, in the humanities we need a wide range of perspectives, genuine diversity of thought, to correct for the limitations of our own perspective.
Also it is critically important that we respect tradition, which is the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors. A living tradition is organic, it grows over time, so we aren’t slaves to an unchangeable tradition. A tradition that never changes is dead. Still, when your personal “feelings” conflict with tradition, tradition represents the synthesized perspectives of millions vs. your own very limited viewpoint, so 9 times out of 10 the tradition is right and you are wrong.
I believe a large part of our problems is due to the inability or lack of interest in self-reflection. People think they are self-reflecting, but it amounts to their reflecting on what they want, or as you say, Anthea, the outcome they want. There’s a lack of humility and appreciation of the other. Thanks.
I can’t help thinking of Burke, and his caution about making changes that are first carefully considered. It is tragic to see how little regard people have for tradition, because they only value that which is new and different, rather than appreciating the depth and wealth that the past offers us.
It is of course polite to take people at their word but people lie all the time. Especially to themselves. People say all the time that all morality is relative but they always live by some sort of moral code.
My Uncle never stops saying that he never judges and then he judges everybody all the time. What am I supposed to do with my Uncle?
You raise a couple of points, Henry. I’ll reply as best I can. If people lie about their political beliefs, there’s not much we can do. They may not even know they are lying. Political discussion, quite frankly, can be educational and exciting, but if people lie, there’s nothing to do but don’t take the bait. It’s not anyone’s job to tell a person that we think he or she is lying, because we don’t know (unless they said the opposite in a different context). Lying counts when we are truly in relationship with others; if those we trust lie, we have to evaluate the importance of the relationship carefully.
Regarding your uncle, I see this all the time. People are basically unconscious; they pay no attention to whether their speech comports with their values; sometimes they don’t care. If I were in your shoes, I’d probably ignore your uncle’s inconsistency; he probably has no idea he’s doing it. Unless he’s judging you, of course, I’d let it go. I hope that’s helpful.
Just thinking–so far there’s been only a little reaction to my statement that if you get into conflicts, it’s your fault. But it’s possible that those who might disagree with me aren’t reading this OP! What do you think?
We see through a glass darkly, but we can generally see something if we really care to.
I think you may be on to something . . .