Have You Considered That Having Multiple Perspectives is Exactly What We Need?
By: J. E. Taylor
Tags: Compassion, Spirituality, Censorship, Covid 19, Philosophy

One of the challenges I’m trying to work on right now is on being more compassionate and loving to someone who disagrees with me, or who condescends or dismisses what I have to say without consideration. In the past, my tendency was to respond with defensiveness, anger, sarcasm, dismissiveness, or return fire with some condescension of my own.

But, of course, that gets us precisely nowhere.

It widens the gap between us and leads to more anger, tension, condescension, etc.

Ego-defensiveness begets more ego-defensiveness.

So I’ve been trying to develop the instinct to hear what the other person is saying, and to show understanding and appreciation for their perspective. It doesn’t mean embracing what they’re saying wholeheartedly, of course, but at a minimum, trying to understand where they’re coming from.

Needless to say, this can be a challenge, especially when someone is being a straight up asshole towards you and everything you believe. But all the deeper the spiritual practice then, if you’re able to look past it and overcome it.

The key, I think — and this is the challenge for most of us — is acknowledging the potential inadequacy of our own perspective.

Consider that maybe, just maybe, we are given different perspectives for a reason. The problems of the world are huge and it is nothing short of hubris to think that each of us possesses all the answers. We don’t. And others bring immense value to us when they bring their unique take on things.

I may disagree with a radical socialist, for example, on what policies are best for a just, civil, and thriving society. But I regard it as a good thing that someone thinks of the needs of the poor and unfortunate. We differ in what we think should be done about it, but we have in common the deep desire to see society work to the benefit of all, not just some. Our different perspectives lead to a discussion about the things that most need discussing. The radical socialist thus forces me to consider problems which I might not consider on my own, and causes me to examine my own position from a more critical perspective.

These are good things. Things all of us should be doing, all the time.

This is also why we should not suppress ideas we disagree with.

This instinct to silence, rather than consider, comes from a place of fear, not love. Ultimately, it results in an echo chamber where we only hear what we already believe, and we are never forced to consider the foundations of our ideas, no matter how shaky they might be. Thus, we are made weaker: less understanding, less attentive, less capable of difficult reasoning, less capable of critically examining new ideas, or raising difficult questions, or even explaining what we believe or why we believe it.

Carry this to its logical extension and you get a total Orwellian state, where no is meant to think, no dissenting voice can find an expression, Truth is whatever the state says it is, and any attempt to defy it is silenced, brainwashed away, or its proponents eradicated outright. And maybe you think that’s swell since you agree 100% with the state today. But what happens on the day you do not?

Consider the value you get from other perspectives. They help you to understand where others are coming from. They bring things to your attention, like nuance and context that you’ve probably overlooked. They bring any errors in your reasoning into the light of day so that you may correct them.

Other perspectives are not a threat to us. They strengthen us.

Take COVID, for example. It seems everyone believes their own perspective on this disease is the absolute, incontrovertible, gospel truth. And anyone who dares question their position has to be insulted, labelled, dismissed, discredited, fired, suppressed, censored, etc. How did this religious level of certainty about virology and epidemiology arise in the general public in only ten months?

The answer, of course, is that people tend to watch and read things that confirm their own bias.

So how would the conversation be different if we actually considered differing viewpoints and attempted to answer them, calmly, and with a view to thankfulness and love that anyone cared about humanity enough to raise those issues in the first place?

Might we be further along in not only dealing with the disease, but also preserving what is good about the rest of society, if we had multiple perspectives on the problem?

Try this. Next time someone treats you like you’re an idiot for believing what you believe, put the anger and the defensiveness aside for a moment, and see how you can respond with love and focus on why they believe what they believe. See if you can summon gratitude for them raising the issues they’re raising, even if it’s simply gratitude for strengthening your own understanding. See if you can transform in that moment, from being an enemy combatant into a fellow traveler, or a teacher, or perhaps even into a student. See if you can take the exchange from a battle to a conversation.

This is, I believe, a skill we have lost and desperately need.