Thinking In The Age Of Anger
One of the most significant advantages of globalisation is that it allows you to adopt any country as your own. You can embrace any religion that aligns with your values. You can study any school of philosophy that helps cultivate inner awareness and form a better worldview. In fact, one can be anywhere and become anybody, regardless of who they were before. This fluidity was the greatest gift of globalisation and helped civilisation progress faster than ever before.
However, over time, this same fluidity has extended into areas where it has not been beneficial for mankind. When everything is fluid, where do we stop? What is the lowest point to which we are willing to sink? When we say everyone has the right to live on their own terms, we failed to define those terms. In some cases, those undefined terms turned out to be far worse than anticipated. The shift from personal liberty to unchecked liberalism in every facet of life led to extreme debauchery. The world learned the hard way that we cannot afford to be fluid in every domain.
As a reaction, the very forces that once promoted fluidity began imposing rigidity to curb the excesses. Yet the problem remained the same: when we start applying guardrails, where do we stop? In trying to prevent the worst outcomes of excessive fluidity, we have reached a point where we cannot tolerate opposing opinions. We cannot even accept anyone who is not from our country, community, or tribe. From globalisation, the world is now moving steadily toward tribalism.
The glue strengthening these tribes is political ideology. It is difficult to tell whether political ideologies emerged from tribalism or tribalism emerged from political ideologies. In such an environment, who even needs gasoline to fuel the fire? All it takes is a radical opinion. Any remaining semblance of restraint exists only because of mutual dependencyāthe last vestiges of globalisation.
This raises an important question: do we really need to hate others in order to follow an ideology? Isnāt critical thinking enough to separate the good from the bad? One could argue that if the other person lacks critical thinking and operates purely from heightened emotions, the exercise becomes futile. I agree. But then, can we not build a tribe of people who can tolerate contrarian opinions? Of course, this also requires us to introspect and accept that we, too, could be wrong.
Herein lies the primary challenge we must overcome: our inability to tolerate being wrong. We want to be right at any cost. This happens when emotions govern our decisions instead of our decisions governing our emotions. How often have we questioned ourselves: Am I even thinking in the right direction? Or am I simply following the herd?
In an era of incendiary ideologies and heightened emotional states, we need to cultivate the skills of discourseābetter debating abilities and better platforms to engage with one anotherās viewpoints. Stop punishing people for being proven wrong. The more embarrassment attached to being wrong, the less likely people are to accept it. Not only do you alienate them, but you also push them permanently toward the very ideologies you oppose.
The first rule of critical thinking is accepting that you can be wrong. The next step is testing whether you are. If you are absolutely certain that what you feel is right, then you are already wrong.
I believe absolute freedom of speech is essential. The only rule is simple: donāt hurt people. That alone covers almost all the ways freedom of speech can cause harm. We are all angry at times, but anger does not mean you are right. It only means you are emotionalāand heightened emotion increases the likelihood of being wrong, which in turn fuels the cycle of anger.
āThe more you know, the more you realise how little you knowā is a profound idea that can only be truly understood by those who have lived a life in pursuit of knowledge. Those with the least knowledge often hold the most opinions.
We need to ask ourselves frequently: What do we want? Why do we want it? Why do we think we donāt have it? How should we get it? If we can answer these questions without the intent to hurt others, while honestly examining our own biases and fallacies, then perhapsācollectivelyāwe still have a chance at this paradise we call civilisation.