I Do Not Understand…

Some of the best debates can be found online nowadays; anything on the Big Conversation, Slavoj Zizek vs Jordan Peterson, Sri Ravishankar vs Dr. Zakir Naik… I love following these. It allows me to gain a deeper understanding of the world and the varied perspectives that inhabit it as they relate to the other denizens.

What confuses me, however, is that these people’s followers do not share this sentiment, no matter how amicable the outcome of these debates ultimately turns out to be. For heaven’s sake, even Zizek and Peterson themselves were surprised at how amicably they handled their conversation! They said they like each other in mid-conversation for being “funny” representatives of what they were ought to represent! But for some reason, this reality flies over their followers’ heads!

Why are we so obsessed with someone needing to overcome the other in order to settle a dispute? Go anywhere online and type the names of all the participants of any of the above debates and you’ll see a video or article of one OWNING or DESTROYING the other, like either made a conscious effort to do so. Why? Do we need to appear superior to others in order to feel validated?

I had this conversation with a minor celebrity here in Malta in the past few days exactly about this, following another local celebrity’s response to having his views on the Heard vs Depp affair shot down by most of the general public. Sure, from what I can gather, they were rather ill-conceived thoughts, but the person I was talking to felt it justified that people attack the person who made these comments and humiliates them publicly. I agree that a person should expect quite some response to any public discourse made; but is it necessary to make them appear less than they are? Have not their actions given them enough humiliation? Should this not be indicated by indicating such rather than shaming them for existing in order to feel validated?

This was also true of Sri Ravishankar and Dr Naik’s debate; actually, the reprisal was given then and there. The guru, who had just published a book in response to the rioting that occurred recently to the debate in a bid for reparations between Hindus and Muslims, was however not a scholar in other Religions, and neither did he ask such for help in a bid to get it published quickly. Consequentially, every other line dedicated to the Muslim religion contained an egregious error that stirred the waters, not to his favor. Dr. Naik did not see this unfavorably, however, as he embraced the guru’s attempt for unity rather than dismiss it as a means to hurt the Muslim community, and praised the guru many times throughout the debate and credited what he did get right. Sadly, not only questioning time was marred by followers of either bringing this up or weaponizing it time and time again amidst some applause irrespective of the organizers’ protests to the contrary. Furthermore, articles upon articles were published claiming Dr. Naik’s undisputed victory over Sri Ravishankar, even if the same Professor in comparative religions openly stated that he was happy that the debate turned out like nothing that was expected and intellectually truthful!

So I must ask, why do we feed upon this claim to superiority? It is not like cooler heads do not exist. It’s not a question of intelligence; smart people actively seek confrontation for some reason.  Why do we insist that it is humanity’s nature?

Is it not within our nature to be better than brutes, as Dante once had it?

How can we expect to move on as a society if we thirst for this sort of behavior and we allow ourselves to indulge in it?

In the words of the same Sri Ravishankar….

“My dear child, wake up,  respect, and all these scriptures are very deep…there is so much more in the knowledge, go deep into it do not scratch on the surface and you have scratched on the surface…; but dismissing something and taking something else simply shows your ignorance. It shows not your knowledge it shows how ignorant you are.”