Why is an influential person looked up to in awe? Why are the persuasion and ‘diplomatic’ skills not easily recognized by the collective brain as weapons of mass destruction? As sophistry- which is where it all began. (Trivia: The Sophists were in fact subjectivists, but they knew that this was our greatest weakness as thinkers as well- we can just as easily see the other side of the story and be convinced, until we are persuasively shown yet another.)
This rage about being the champion of causes, or an activist has been sweeping. Everybody wants to be seen as having causes that are close to their heart, because important cliques of the society, for lack of a better word, seem to tie this factor to an individual’s goals, and, taking it up a notch- their identity.
I am of the opinion, and I would love to hear yours (else destroying the entire purpose of this post by dissonance), that if we were to all be of the same opinion, we’d rather not be communities at all. Perhaps this is what gave rise to the sort of social structures that we have amongst ourselves today. We have groups, associations, club, and other concepts of restricted entry. We have freedom that comes with fine print. We have all these goals to achieve, that we aren’t unanimously agreeing upon, because it isn’t possible to unanimously agree upon things that are on such a large-scale, as we can only view their impact on our individual eye-level. No more, no less. We are building a maze all about us to a plan that will take us right over the cliff. Why? Because communities are not united by goals, truths, or justice. In the short-run, sure. In the long-run, it will be each of our stories, and the rest of ours’ understanding (or is it willingness to?) of it.