Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

3 months ago 路 2 min. reading time 路 visibility ~100 路

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Let鈥檚 Agree to Disagree

The guy on the left is me, disagreeing with a fellow beBee member :-)
Source: pixabay.com聽

鈥淚f we were to talk only to people with whom we agree 100%, we鈥檇 end up talking to ourselves, be it in real life, or on Twitter.鈥 - Anonymous

Lately, I discovered a new member here on beBee who's posted some very insightful articles (he's still very new, which is why I wait to see if he sticks around before I invest in following him). After a short exchange of ideas with him, I realized that we disagree on a lifestyle matter. Fortunately, it didn't bother me, which is why I continue to check my feed daily for any of his new posts or even comments on these posts. I wonder, though, what would have happened if I let that disagreement in opinion block my communication with that person. A few years back, when I was in a more dogmatic frame of mind (thanks to the academia where I belonged), I would probably have shut him off, even if that would have cost me some diversity in my beBee feed.

Lately, it seems that there are so many issues in the world, polarizing us to strict views on them (after all, you can鈥檛 be for-war a little, like when the skies are clear and your gun is packed, but against-war when there is a war waging but your favorite TV show is on). These days we have as many views as there are people, like a myriad of settings in our minds, manifesting as filters that keep people at bay, to some extent. John Doe is great but when it comes to religion best to keep away from him because there is no way we can find a consensus. As for Jane Doe (presumably Joe's sister), she's great and all but let's not bring up cryptocurrencies around her. If we do, we won't be able to talk about anything else all evening, plus there is no way to mention the merits of X without getting an essay of a response about why Y and Z are better.

The philosophers of old (before philosophy became a profession) used to argue about things too, but they generally didn't distance themselves from the world because of their divergent views. Socrates used to talk to everyone, even the average Joe, who didn't know much about philosophy and still have a fruitful conversation regardless. Plato describes in one of his dialogues on the universality of archetypes how everyone, even a slave boy, has inside him some ideas about geometric shapes (I'm sure he'd have a much more interesting discussion with Lada if she were around, but hey, he'd take what he could get!). He didn't include Geometry experts in the conversation, and through this, he managed to drive home the point he was trying to make.

There is no doubt that there are things we aren鈥檛 going to see eye-to-eye on, no matter how open-minded we are and how eclectic we are with whom we communicate. Yet, it's up to us to avoid letting this intellectual disagreement escalate into hate or worse. We can agree to disagree and hone the art of diplomacy, something more essential than ever in these turbulent times. Cheers!

鈥淒iplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.鈥 - Winston Churchill

group_work in Creative Writers and in 3 more groups

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

3 months ago #11

Lada 馃彙 Prkic

3 months ago #10

#9 I never thought of Statistics as the next best thing since sliced bread. :) But also, I don't understand why people buy sliced bread in a plastic bag. I bake bread or buy preservative-free bread. 

BTW thanks for considering me a Geometry expert. 馃榾

Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

3 months ago #9

Lada 馃彙 Prkic

3 months ago #8

Glad you joined the group. :) We have communicated on this topic several times. My opinion is known - we don't have to agree on everything to be friends, neither in real life nor on social media.

Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

3 months ago #7

Thank you for the share, @Lada 馃彙 Prkic, and for making this group known to me :-)

Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

3 months ago #6

Ren茅e 馃悵 Cormier

3 months ago #5

This is a good complement to your post.

Ren茅e 馃悵 Cormier

3 months ago #4

I agree with you completely. People's opinions and values do not have to be , and should not be identical. We cannot grow as a society if we all think the same way. Furthermore, I believe disrespectful communication is a sign of insecurity and weakness. I also think that those who need to be right all the time are very insecure people. You don't have to share the same values and beliefs as other people, but if you want to win someone over to your way of thinking, you cannot do it in the absence is civilized exchange. 

Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

3 months ago #3

Javier 馃悵 CR

3 months ago #2

I believe that to disagree is human and to disagree with respect is the right thing to do. We can't always agree, of course.

Javier 馃悵 CR

3 months ago #1

I like this :,鈥漣t's up to us to avoid letting this intellectual disagreement escalate into hate or worse.鈥 

More articles from Zacharias 馃悵 Voulgaris

View blog
1 month ago 路 3 min. reading time

Can We Transcend Binary Thinking?

Source: 路 鈥淲hile binary behaviour is s ...

2 months ago 路 2 min. reading time

Censoring Platforms

Source: 路 This article was inspired by ...

2 months ago 路 2 min. reading time

Why beBee Rocks Even Harder Now

Source: bebee.comAbout six months ago I wrote an a ...