Member-only story
Why We Defend Our Perspectives
It’s about more than being right — it’s about survival.
The history of philosophy often feels like an endless cycle of people trying to figure out how we can achieve certainty only to conclude that it is impossible.
Unfortunately, the consensus appears to be that humans — though conscious, sentient beings — don’t have all the information.
Yet, we argue, debate, and disagree with one another as if we held the objective truth of reality; defending ourselves from the needless antagonism of lesser, inferior opposition who appear set to simply destroy truth.
Well, at least our version of the truth.
If the inherent nature of our perspective is that it is limited, finite, and incomplete then why do we resort to defending such inchoate comprehension?
Being honest about our inherent subjectivity and phenomenological existentialism ought to lead us to collaborate with one another — you’d think we would be constantly embarking on the journey to learn as much as possible.
Such is not the case.
The issue, I believe, has less to do with being right and more to do with our fear of the unknown.
Different Perspectives Threaten Our Identity
Our common approach to disagreements — where we defend positions, argue, and compete against the apparent antagonist who sees the world differently — isn’t too far removed from barbaric tribalism disguised as intellectualism.
We have our position.
We encounter someone with a different position.
Which threatens our position.
And since our position is enmeshed with our self-image, they become an enemy.
Who must be eliminated.
Or else we might lose our identity.
Succumbing to a different perspective is akin to having the castle walls breached; as if seeing the world differently is the same as being occupied by a foreign…
