Life is never binary
It can never be 0 or 1
When something is not black it does not mean it has to be white
There are different shades of black that are possible.
From Anish Kapoor’s blackest black to Morgan Freeman’s whitest white, the shades that exist could be countless.
If someone is not your friend, he/she does not automatically become your enemy.
There is a fundamental issue with which we approach the language. As George Orwell rightly warned, language is not just a medium to formulate our thought, it could at times direct our thoughts.
When the language we learn teaches us that the opposite of a friend is an enemy, the problem has already taken root. It can only grow and poison further.
I would venture to say that the opposite of “a friend” should be, simply, “not a friend”
Not a friend explains the situation in a more neutral way than an enemy.
When we are capable to accept a variety of options that could be explored and accepted the general level of harmony would increase too.
“Either you are with me or against me” stand is usually the root cause of all troubles.
Even an educated group of people manage to convert the art of debate to a chest-thumping, table-banging outright war of words.
Isn’t it possible to “agree to disagree” without the manic obsession to end with “who is right”
To quote Ayn Rand “Love is not just the absence of lust”
Is it too difficult to comprehend?
You believe in a god, any god and someone does not believe in a god – the two can discuss, if both choose to, and each can try to explain why they have chosen to believe or not believe.
The catch word here is if they choose to discuss.
What happens in real life is usually one person is challenged, provoked and dragged into the discussion.
The starting point is flawed. Right at the start, the expectation of the end of discussion is “one shall prevail”
What is this? Some sort of a territorial war for one pack of hyenas to drive out the other and claim the land?
If the two enter a discussion, absolutely unnecessary to start with in the first place, with an intention to end it by proving who is right, the trouble is ensured.
Let us accept the fact that the two in question could be reasonably old adults, they are not going to forego the years of their conviction over an hour of discussion.
Added to this already explosive mixture is another handful of gunpowder, which is their formative thinking process, muddled by an incorrect use of language, which formed the underlying miasma that the opposite of a believer is a non- believer.
That it is atheist vs a theist.
What if the following options are all acceptable and understandable from the very beginning before a stupid lesson teaches you that opposite of a theist is an atheist and permanently scars your psyche forever.
Suits my convenience.
Depends on the state of my mind/living.
I do not fucking care.
Most of the discussions that I had been a witness to focusses on nailing one to an opinion – “don’t be a fence sitter, say yes or no” – why in God’s name(pun intended) is that?
I have chosen religion as an example.
It is an easy bait and more easily understood in context too.
The two sides that can be presented are endless.
Who/what do you like more
Father or Mother? (What an asinine question)
Cricket or Football?
Romance or Action?
Fiction or non-fiction?
Europe or USA?
Hindi or Tamil?
Musical or horror?
Comedy or tragedy?
Hope you are getting my drift when I say that each of these debate /discussion is doomed at the beginning itself.
The day we learn to accept that there are shades of gray between black and white and all black, white and the shades of gray in between are acceptable and can coexist, nay must coexist, life becomes simple.
Is the opposite of simple, difficult? Start thinking ……………………..