Should you defend your opinions publicly or privately?

Computers became an integral part of the home interior after the information revolution of the late 20th century. Over the past 10-15 years, the Internet has become so cheap and pervasive that it has ended up in our pockets. The news comes online, events are covered from different angles, “and everyone can choose a concept close to them.

The most active members of society try to promote the “only true” views, which causes numerous conflicts. Far from making fateful decisions, people quarrel based on political and economic disputes.
Friendships are being broken, and families are collapsing.

Against this background, the question arises: Is it necessary to defend your noble beliefs publicly, or is it better to remain silent? To get closer to the answer, consider two opposite positions. We are talking about quietism—the inactive or “accepting” state of a person—and dialectics, which was praised by thinkers of the past, who believed that only meaningful debates bring both sides closer to the truth.

Quietism: to get away from everything and live

Quietism does not mean abandoning personal beliefs but implies ceasing an active search for truth. It’s a serene acceptance of the world as it is right now. V I S I T A F R I C A N . C O M. Time will pass, and the situation will change, regardless of your efforts. Walking the fine line between apathy and calm, people concentrate on life and the current moment, allowing everyone around them to go their way.

Such an indifferent observation is similar to monastic renunciation, which is unsurprising. Quietism has its roots in the Christian tradition. Representatives of this trend argue that going to church or reading prayers is unnecessary when communicating with God. It is enough just to believe and conduct an internal dialogue, and the Almighty will hear.

The concept is quite applicable in secular life. Skeptics from Ancient Greece aspired to a state of ataraxia. According to Democritus, equanimity and peace of mind are manifestations of wisdom. A person shrugs his shoulders or waves his hand — is it wise to waste energy and risk his reputation to convince someone of something? You probably won’t want to relinquish an already-established belief system.

At best, you will pretend that you are listening with interest. Still, you will forget about the dialogue immediately after it ends, or you will draw unexpected conclusions for the interlocutor. This is how most debates about politics end. The parties are not looking for the truth because they already have it (at least in their mind).

Therefore, the debate turns into a contest with a winner and a loser. No one will accept the second role voluntarily. In everyday life, adopting the position of quietism means a lack of initiative in discussing sensitive topics. Let it seem to others that you don’t have an opinion. In return, you get mental well-being, the status of a non-conflict person with whom you can easily find common ground.

Epictetus: rational debate and the meaning of philosophy

For most philosophers and any public figure, quietism is a form of surrender. No one will know about a person’s brilliant ideas if they are silent. For this reason, Pope Innocent XI declared quietism a heresy in 1687. To spread religion, a believer must interact with the world and others; otherwise, lost souls will not be saved. The same thing happens with political or philosophical views.

Silence does not create a vacuum; an empty place will necessarily be occupied by someone’s voices, perhaps inhumane and even inhuman concepts. History knows enough similar examples. People are social beings, so it’s natural for us to discuss exciting topics, ask questions, and look for answers.

French philosopher and politician Francois de la Rochefoucauld said: “Trying to become wise alone is the ultimate stupidity.” Finding out how good, deep, and new your ideas are is impossible without sharing them with others. Beliefs need to be regularly checked against competing opinions.

Epictetus called rational debate the main tool of the philosopher, who, like a blacksmith, can make something meaningful, helpful, and magnificent out of formless material. This is also the case with human beliefs. They are born out of the heat of debate due to multiple clashes of contradictions. By refusing to participate in the process, we indirectly help a particular opinion to displace the truth.

The search for potential existence

You don’t have to accept one of the proposed concepts completely. Perhaps there are topics that it is better not to raise at one time or another, given the level of radicalism of the views of the people around them. However, finding a soft approach to develop a rational dialogue is always possible. This is impossible for some people — it’s worth accepting and never forgetting. On the other hand, you should also work on yourself.

When offering a position, exclude any slogans from the speech, even if they seem impressive and meaningful. For an interlocutor with opposing views, slogans will likely trigger a trigger or a funny meme. The result will be even more violent opposition and aggravation of the conflict. When touching on controversial topics, do not try to impose ideas; turn off the mentoring tone.

Focus on the potential. The world is imperfect, and no one can argue with this, but everyone sees different causes of problems. Therefore, it is better to go from the other side of reality, which does not yet exist. You will find more contact points there besides the current events and surnames. The more confidential and informed the conversation becomes, the closer you will get to the question of the truth of today.