In this social climate, emotional division has, overwhelmingly, corrupted the purity of reaching for a constructive, rational discussion, and ultimately an approximation of various products of thought, between opposing parts. The consensus, in this day and age, has turned into a singular notion. If you do not share my same emotions, values, opinions, and ideological dictum, you are, through the arithmetic process of one plus one, my enemy.
It becomes self-evident that thinking outside the parameters of what people usually confine themselves to with the leather straps of emotions is inherently wrong and oppressive. You are a product of a system that profits on my suffering, and if there is even a slight hint of an opposing viewpoint, we no longer have a case of civil disagreement, but a clash of good vs evil— Certainly, I am not the evil part in this one sided equation!
The process accelerates until it reaches epitome: group identification. These groups, whether political or social, tend to huddle behind the comfort of being shielded by their emotions. This is what is actually called as “group identity”, where an emotional niche is established, and what lies outside of the premise of this self -acclaimed “safe zone” is a totalitarian force that attempts to suppress and disrupt the flow of peace and harmony.
Having a free opinionated mindset is not defined by difference, diversity of rationale or autonomy, but by singularity and oneness of sentiments. We have to be one after all, don’t we?!
So, a question that predicates on attempts to set the light of knowledge on the monsters of irrationality that hide under the bed of willful blindness arises. Why have sentiments conquered the ability to rationalize and contemplate in the mold of critical and objective thinking?
Articulated ideas are, in a basic term, an exterior extension of our psyche, or, more specifically, of what is generated from within through experiences and encounters with the world. Through the processes of diluting and filtering, we nit-pick the fragments of thought, as if we are on a mushroom hunting quest. After everything is ordered and organized, off- they-go into the global pot of reality and potential.
Of course, arbitrariness is prevalent in the scene, and not all of what is produced can be considered, by any means of the word, coherent, rational or politically correct! Nonetheless, it is a thought that journeys forth some internal pieces of you. Thus, the separation of the self from the idea that was created from the self becomes near impossible.
“I think, thus I exist.” Existence relies on revealing your ideas to the world, or even to yourself, as well as acting them out. After all, how can one draw a distinction between the part and the whole when they are indistinguishable from each other? As a result, when we present ourselves through the medium of our opinions, ideas, and thoughts, we personify them as real, integral parts of us, and in the case of someone telling their side of a narrative that does not fit the description of our disposition, we internalize that as a personal assault and an atrocious and vile attack of what we represent and embody.
In a sense, the idea and the holder of the idea are two inseparable components that come in a single package, and you, as the recipient of this, supposedly once in a life time offer, have to accept them as a whole.
This type of reasoning can become a valid one, indeed. Yet, acceptance is not a one sided transaction. It is a two- way process.
As long as the pretense is to accept others without the ability to demonstrate a set of opposing beliefs and perspectives, it should be applicable to all parties involved without any form of favoritism, biases or discrimination.
This is a state of total harmony, one might contend. A place that humans sought wholeheartedly since the fall and descent of the first human into this world. But, this reasoning falls short in accounting for one critical and missing side of the picture: contention.
Capabilities diverse immensely from one individual to another, which is the direct result of IQ and experience accumulated through repetition and trial and error through the passage of time. The capability of formulating thoughts and experiencing emotions is in no difference; after all, it is a subjective criterion.
Since this is the case, what other people experience does not necessarily equate to the scope of my experience!
The rift between two contrasting concepts, if conducted in a civil manner that seeks to open channels for an actual conversation and attempts to reach a middle ground where points of view from both sides have their fair share of acknowledgement, mutual respect and tolerance, is one of the formidable forces that advanced humanity into this present state of evolution.
Even the most acute form of contention managed to create change for the best, or worst for that matter. It embodies the soul of freedom, where ideas clash with the powers of honesty, articulation and rationale, not with the fragility and sensitivity of people or sentiments.
The validity of a point of view can be exposed only by being paralleled to a contrastive point that challenges the basis of its foundation and the weaker sides that would render it as “invalid”,
Hiding under an umbrella of emotions does not give the sentimentally possessed a free way out without the consequence of being completely absorbed by the monster of emotions they have created with their own hands. Emotional safety becomes, with the progress of time. A tool that confines the range of freedom that guarantees the actual, safe transition of thought. It is how fundamentalists and radicals justify the cruelty of the world when their ideological irrationalities clash with reason. It is how the weak cling to their weakness and divert the attention from exploring the faults within to the “unfair” treatment of the world. It is how we mesomorph into a willfully blind creature that is slave to the shackles of his reasoning. It is how we stop existing and how we start living in an induced coma under the spell if imagination.