This question has been raised for me and I am wondering about my position on it. The difference between politicking and being political I guess. I definitely have a tendency to seek the agreement of others on issues that I feel emotional about, but now I am wondering if such a tendency is in reality destructive and counter-productive to my mental health. I think emotionally investing in the opinions of others leads to emotional instability, whilst seeking to change someone’s mind without emotional investment is insincere and fraudulent. I am wondering whether one should ever try to change someone’s mind, or simply be the best one can and bring other’s along by example. Thank you.
1 Like
I view all arguments, even ones on different sides of the same issue, as having specious aspects to them. I always look for the most accurate information and the best arguments, which can leave me speaking on both sides of an issue. Also, it pains me to admit it, but I am capable of being just plain wrong. But there was some prominent socialist who decried all the weirdos socialist rallies attracted. He was very much in favor of socialism, he just didn’t like the eccentrics who gravitated towards his cause. So why do I argue? God knows.
Unfortunately, I argue to change minds.
You can only change the minds of those who are willing to have their minds changed. The carrot and the stick can create a willingness at a superficial level, but the freedom of choice of the individual is always preserved.
Once in a while that question shows up where I find myself saying do I want to be the one to change peoples minds or to make myself better. I ofcourse am the one who doesn’t like to change peoples free will or minds, so I always go with understanding myself better.
This topic was automatically closed 95 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.