When I introduced a friend to an acquaintance, a person I barely knew myself, after the initial small talks their topic of conversation turned to religion. My friend is a very open minded priest - in other words, a person of religion, albeit an unusually enlightened and good humoured one – and with whom I invariably hold interesting and intellectually stimulating conversations.
The new acquaintance, as it transpired, was obviously a person of strong opinions who disliked institutional religions and extreme fundamentalism of any kind. I find while there was nothing in her views that I actually disagreed with, however, it was not so much what she said as how she said it that brought the conversation to a rather brusque end. Her opinions were couched in such judgmental terms that she sounded quite fanatic in her dismissal of religions, which, considering she was chatting to a priest, was not conducive to a fruitful discussion on the subject.
I was rather curious as to how the discussion would develop, however, my friend, faced with such vehemence against the subject, wisely stepped back from the potential verbal minefield and put a brusque end to the conversation. The woman was obviously not open to any sort of argument on the merits of religions and their history, preferring instead to stick to her passionate rejection and condemnation of various right wing lunatics that have obviously coloured her judgment about the wisdom of any sort of religion.
I was sorry that each found the other insufferable to talk with and thus lost the interest to pursue the exchange to a more common ground and may be even topics in which both share similar interests. Instead, they simply gave up speaking to one another and moved on to more congenial company.
Here, I thought, were two educated and articulate people of more or less similar socio-economic-cultural background failing to connect on the most basic level, which is casual conversation, simply because one had a point of view and the other refused to listen because she already formed her own unwavering judgment about the issue.
My friend became indignant when the attempt to bring the discussion on the path of intellectual argument was met with an airtight obduracy that allowed no room for the expansion of ideas beyond a pugnacious response of dislike and disagreement. What began with a meeting of minds very quickly degenerated into an emotional friction.
In theory different perspectives should generate some sort of interesting dialogue, even if neither party accedes to the other person’s opinion on the matter. Moreover, a well argued point of view could enlighten and add to everybody’s understanding of the matter – or, at the very least, make one appreciate and respect other people’s viewpoints.
And yet, if a friendly dialog is made impossible because judgment gets in the way of a good discussion or a healthy debate, even among civil company, then what hope is there for a civil and productive dialog to ensue between those who not only have very different opinions, but don’t even share a common vocabulary in which to express them. Imagine the impact when both sides don’t even bother with asking opinions to begin with but each merely offers opposing judgment masked as truths and which they defend tooth or nail. Or, in this instance, word-by-word until polite conversation is no longer possible. And this is merely in the realms of opinions among thinking individuals. We’re not even venturing into the realm of beliefs.
So, I thought to myself, what is it that makes people so attached to their opinions, their points of view and their beliefs, as if these are the things that define their very existence? And why do people get offended, indignant and even angry if their opinions and beliefs are questioned let alone attacked? Also, what is it about opinions and beliefs that could affect one’s judgment and make one judgmental?
I personally find nothing pleasurable in being judgmental about anything, most of all about other people and their peculiar habits or behaviour. As a matter of fact, the more peculiar, I find the more interesting. As to opinions and beliefs, I am highly suspicious of them, simply because there had been so many instances in the past that I had been proven wrong in my assessment of things both through my own experience or learning about them.
Hence, I have no particular attachment to my opinions and most of the time dispense of them altogether in favour of a less exhausting approach to airing my perspectives, such as for instance, referring to real life experience (which are not opinions as they are not subject to dispute), through studying the works of those more expert in the field or simply by listening to other people.
As to allowing one’s belief to define one’s identity, I find this exercise quite tiresome, especially if one ends up having to defend it. Whenever I could feel a dogma wagging it’s tail or a belief creeping up inside my head, a little voice would remind me with simple questions such as, ‘what if I’m wrong?’ And, ‘is it really your belief or is it a hand-me-down opinion that you’re too lazy to question?’
So what I try to do is, I seek out knowledge so I don’t have to be burdened with too many unquestioned beliefs, and the times that I lack knowledge, I open my ears to listen and open my mouth to ask why. In this way at least I can be assured of an engaging dialog.
(Desi Anwar: first published in Tempo English)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar