The AskPhilosophers logo.

Value

I just turned 60 and my left-of-center value system has in some ways become more conservative. At the same time, I have become more intolerant of right-wing views to the point where I find myself feeling uncomfortable with the thought of socializing with neoconservatives and tea-party types. I would not want to invite such types to my home, yet being a liberal, question my capacity for tolerance. I am contemplating asking new 'friends' just what their views are and making a decision. This has a narcissistic flavor, but I don't need token neo-cons for entertainment value (as they would keep pet liberals) or as reminders of what the dark side looks like. I guess the GW Bush legacy has opened my eyes. I am repelled. Is this chauvinism/tribalism consistent with living an authentic life I understand to be directed by evolutionary forces that propel me to seek out maximum stimulation in order to realize my potential? Suggested readings would be appreciated. Many thanks.
Accepted:
August 19, 2010

Comments

Allen Stairs
August 19, 2010 (changed August 19, 2010) Permalink

I'd like to start with the last bit. You say that you understand living an authentic life as "directed by evolutionary forces that propel me to seek out maximum stimulation in order to realize my potential." I'd suggest some skepticism about that. If you mean by "evolution" what biologists mean, then there are no such forces; evolution isn't goal directed. And in any case, it's not obvious that "maximum stimulation" is the best way for for anyone to realize their potential. On the contrary, it's at least as likely that most of us suffer from too much stimulation as from too little.

Down in the foothills, let's start with an example. I don't get along with racist bigots who lard their conversation with vile remarks. I've had all the "stimulation" from such people that my potential calls for. Being authentic doesn't call for inviting them to my dinner parties. On the contrary, doing that would be downright inauthentic. I'd be pretending a friendship that doesn't exist. Tolerance doesn't call for it either. Being tolerant doesn't mean putting up with hateful things.

That said, I can imagine a point in trying to talk to people I deeply disagree with. Sometimes when we do that, we find that we've been overlooking something worth worrying about, even if we still end up disagreeing about details and means. And it's a little harder for each side to demonize the other when people make an honest stab at mutual understanding. But whatever value this sort of exercise might have, it doesn't extend to dictating the people I spend my intimate time with.

As for asking people their views before even considering them as friends, that does seem off, whether or not "narcissistic" is the right word. I've come to have real affection and respect for people I would have dismissed if I'd used that sort of test before having anything to do with them.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/3460?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org