By Kimberly Alexander, M.S.
“Law is reason, free from passion.” – Aristotle
During recent weeks, much of media’s attention has been placed on the Supreme Court proceedings and its possible judicial, political, ethical and moral consequences and implications. I found myself engrossed with the media’s coverage, following multiple news outlets bent on subliminally forwarding one position over the other. Hiding in office corners and taking restroom breaks for far too long glued to watching live streaming coverage on my phone, I grew angrier and angrier!
Spoiler Alert** This post is not about my specific political views. I have been fortunate enough to surround myself with individuals that hold perspectives, both similar and different to my own and about a variety of issues with the proceedings that I may or may not be particularly concerned with.
Instead what the question has been for me is, separate from what you believe, how to not make yourself DISTURBED when others do not believe what you DEMAND they MUST?
Morals are a tricky thing. While I think morals are arbitrary and even arbitrarily defined in some respects, I hold on to mine strongly and I’m guilty of judging others for not subscribing to my own morals, as well as, I have been judged poorly for not holding a moral that others think I should. So, what I’d like to describe as “passionate rhetoric” around political or divisive issues is not too different from anger and contemptuousness… so I’ve heard, occasionally.
So why must people believe what you believe? For me, I think they “must” in order to relieve the anxiety I feel about maintaining a relationship with someone that I feel connected to. How could I possible identify with someone who holds dissimilar viewpoints to my own, let alone it be someone I admire. All this reasoning may be fair justifications about “why they must” but doesn’t make it rational. As Ellis says, “Functionality defines a rational belief.”
You see, I can’t control other’s beliefs… even with the most passionate rhetoric, people will choose to believe what they want to believe whether they choose to maintain their position or subscribe to your belief. And the more and more I kick and scream about why my beliefs make sense, the more “passionate” or rather “angry” I become. So, ultimately, it boils down to a few options…
- I accept other’s difference in opinions and maintain my friendships because there are a variety of things we DO AND DO NOT have in common.
- I push forth my agenda, likely lose relationships, and become even more disturbed in the process.
- I bow out of the relationship because I DEMAND that I maintain relationships with only people who think the way I think… Party of 1.
After acknowledging how my demands may periodically rear their rigid heads in everyday conversation, I think I’m going to go with option A. Ultimately, this is not to say that there isn’t always room for a good debate, but maybe regarding politics and other divisive issues in life, the line between passion and contemptuousness is not boldly defined as Aristotle suggested, that being, “Law is reason, free from passion.” Instead, I would argue… “Law is reason, free from DEMANDS!” Can you think of a situation(s) where it may be beneficial for you to free yourself from your own demands?