Superpowers
A writing prompt, which is an idea created to help us when we are bereft completely of anything to say (writer's block, some call it), will usually seem to me to be so ridiculous that it isn't worth pursuing in a straightforward manner. Instead, I find myself twisting it all out of shape over one portion of it. So instead of repeating the prompt that got me started, as I have the last few times, I will simply put forth the piece I am twisting over.
It's been suggested that a Superpower (like those that Superman has, not the political term for the largest and most powerful of nations) might have a power like this--The power to make any two people agree with one another.
It's been suggested that a Superpower (like those that Superman has, not the political term for the largest and most powerful of nations) might have a power like this--The power to make any two people agree with one another.
What do you make of this one? A Superpower, really? Making any two people agree with one another--does that not imply that we should all agree on everything? I admit it might be helpful if we all agreed on one or two fundamental things, but I am not sure just what those things should be. I don't think we want to expand those things too broadly, however. Doesn't disagreement usually prompt some sort of incremental step forward after it has been resolved? I mean, if Galileo had been made to agree with everyone who thought the world was flat, would we be aware the Earth is round?
Somebody has to disagree, or at least doubt, what everyone else thinks in order for our knowledge to progress. We have to understand the existing theory before we can disagree with it. In order to understand people and their ideas we have to get close to them. But we don't necessarily have to agree with someone to get close to them. We can get close and still disagree. Courtesy and diplomacy are required if you intend to maintain a relationship, even friendship with the person or persons with whom you will eventually disagree.
It seems to me that the ability to stay close while disagreeing is the missing ingredient in the body politic, at least publicly. I'd accept that they have a civil relationship personally, while they publicly call each other names. Hard to maintain if you insist on disagreeing with everyone publicly.
Somebody has to disagree, or at least doubt, what everyone else thinks in order for our knowledge to progress. We have to understand the existing theory before we can disagree with it. In order to understand people and their ideas we have to get close to them. But we don't necessarily have to agree with someone to get close to them. We can get close and still disagree. Courtesy and diplomacy are required if you intend to maintain a relationship, even friendship with the person or persons with whom you will eventually disagree.
It seems to me that the ability to stay close while disagreeing is the missing ingredient in the body politic, at least publicly. I'd accept that they have a civil relationship personally, while they publicly call each other names. Hard to maintain if you insist on disagreeing with everyone publicly.
No comments:
Post a Comment