Truth In Tension

Intro

We live in a world dominated by the too-quick-to-offend and the offended-too-quickly.

Reality, however, is multi-faceted, each face colored by individual experience.

Our capacity to understand this nuance has lagged behind our access to virtually infinite information.

The result is a breakdown in society, with sects colored by worldviews orchestrated by an unconscious engagement machine, mechanically feeding us whatever data fuels focus and engagement.

In the light, this technologically doped filtering is a godsend – we can find products we love, information we need, people we enjoy, and perspectives we harbor; we become coddled in an instant with whatever cranial comfort we desire.

In the dark though, this feed of comfort isolates us in a mental prison colored by the boundaries of our own taste. In such a world, we feel difference as pain and pain lends itself to our darkest emotions – rage, sorrow, hatred, and violence.

The breakdown we see feel in society is borne of our weakened capacity to empathize with the hard reality that we have separate experiences and that by immutable extension, we each harbor a unique worldview. This is an inescapable truth, possibly the “capital-T” truth.

That difference in perspective leads to things as innocuous as our preferred music taste right up to fundamental differences in societal ethics. Our failure to realize this, especially in a moment of heightened emotion, is the chief cause of our failure to understand, empathize, and grow with others. It is the heart of the political divide and the essence of human violence.

However, there is Truth in Tension; the panoply of experience necessitates variety in perspective which necessitates disagreement; hence you will not find truth without tension. There will always be disagreement, even for the things we hold most dear.

Naturally, this leads to two questions: (1) How did we get here? and (2) How do we get out?

How our “safe” society became the dangerous one

Over the past 20 years or so, our society has evolved in splendid ways that, ironically, revere the unique experience of the individual. Questions concerning topics such as feminism, homosexuality, and race have become an essential part of the current zeitgeist; we are more conscious than ever that health includes mental health (it is more of a red flag these days if you haven’t been to a therapist).

These kinds of conversations, once on the fringes if not outright taboo prior to the explosion of the internet, have become commonplace.

On the surface this societal evolution seems like it would be good, yet the world feels more isolated and dangerous than ever; what went wrong?

Quite simply, this reverence for empathy and our desire to protect different experiences overstepped its bounds.

We shifted from a society that welcomed and protected the individual to one that violently oppresses and rejects difference. This is commonly referred to as “cancel culture”¹ and is borne of the delusional perspective that the best way to protect a certain point of view is to eliminate others from existence. This modality of thought does not have a good track record in any culture at any point in history; it is precarious ground upon which to stand.

Yet, we have gone from “let’s hear out this group’s unique and different perspective” to “if someone else has a different point of view, we should eliminate them from society” (i.e. cancel them). A healthy, thriving, cogni-diverse society this does not make. Historically it leads us to violence and crimes that put our species to shame².

Hate has no political party

This “empathy-blindness” is not relegated to one political party. Both the “left” and the “right” have retreated into their camps in a form of cultural trench warfare, each painting themselves the one true people of God while, with an utter lack of Grace, calling for violence against the other.

Intolerance destroys freedom

Perhaps most disconcerting about these extreme groups is that they imprison those within them by ostracizing anyone who does not conform; indeed their power centers are often governed by those that preach the loudest and most strongly reject dissent within the group.

The damages range from the minor rejection of individuals (lunch table rejection) to outright violence³ against them through physical or financial means⁴.

As group power coalesces around a specific dogma, those trapped within it must choose to conform or face retribution; they are also rewarded for enforcing conformity.

In such a group, the autonomy of an individual is quickly stripped leading to a loss of freedom of expression and freedom of self.

This combination of “reject others” and “do violence unto them” is anathema to individual liberty and the core rot in any republic. The poetic irony being that the power seeking to protect the individual’s freedom is the one that can imprison them.

A recipe for freedom

How do we fix this? I believe the answer requires that we each (and hence as a society and culture) subscribe to three things simultaneously:

1. Militant Pluralism

   The active, uncompromising defense of diversity of thought.

   We must fight to protect everyone’s right to express and explore different ideas, while opposing attempts to silence or “cancel” perspectives we disagree with⁵.

2. Critical Rationalism

   The commitment that all ideas, no matter how holy or unsavory, are subject to logical scrutiny and debate.

   We must welcome criticism and test beliefs through evidence and reason and be willing to modify our views when faced with compelling arguments. We cannot afford golden cows⁶, no matter how precious.

3. Human Grace

   A strict adherence to the extension of dignity, good faith, and basic respect to all people regardless of their beliefs.

   We must treat others as people, assume good intentions, and welcome differences in opinion as fundamentally human. We must not lose sight of the fact that the person we disagree with came to their belief for a reason and that even in error, they are a human being capable of evolution and growth.

The best way to handle disagreement in society is not through cancellation or forced conformity, but through creating space for different views, subjecting them to reasoned debate, and doing so while maintaining basic human respect for all participants.

What you can do (how to think)

1. Be ardent and vocal in the defense of freedom of expression for the groups you agree with and disagree with. Cancel culture regardless of its direction is a cancer.

2. Embrace debate about the ideas you hold most dear and seek to falsify them. Falsification is the closest we can come to truth. Remember that you and your debater are seeking truth and must act as allies in this endeavor.

3. Allow forgiveness and grace to those proven wrong; do not allow a singular failure in reason or lapse in behavior to destroy the entire work of an individual. People are wrong all the time, and it is their personal evolution that we must judge them by, not their transgressions alone.

4. Have courage and equanimity in the face of disagreement – remember that there is truth in tension. You will never find full agreement because others have a different life experience. Lead with this mindset and you will find steadier footing in all things to come.

A personal story

A bit about why I’m sharing this post publicly

Near the end of my high school tenure, I became a Boys Nation representative. This was a prestigious invitation with only 98 members selected from around the country to participate in a week long event in Washington DC. I met dozens of senators and representatives, shook hands with President Obama, and made lasting memories with some of the most intelligent and perceptive young men and women I had ever met.

During the final selection process at Boy’s State, I interviewed with a panel of politicians and distinguished military veterans. One question in particular seered into my memory:

“Do you support people who desecrate the American flag as a form of free speech?”

The questioner was a decorated war veteran, someone who put his life into defending that same flag. My mind raced, thinking of answers to appease these heroes. But in a moment, I came to the precious conclusion that the only correct answer was the truth, my Truth.

“I do”

Eyebrows raised in surprise, jaws tensed across the table, and the overhead lights felt brighter. I continued, defiantly (I’d already cast my die):

“And I will continue to, even if it means rejection from this opportunity. Freedom of speech is possibly the most important thing about this country and though I find their choice upsetting, it does not give me the right to strip them of it. The basis of America and democracy itself is founded on the principle that free speech must endure, even if it upsets us, perhaps especially when it upsets us. Everything else we strive to be as a country hinges on it. So yes, I support desecration of the American Flag as a form of free speech”

To my genuine surprise, that same group selected me as one of Washington’s Boys Nation representatives, an honor I cherish to this day.

My purpose in sharing this essay is a reflection of that same belief.

You can and should support people you disagree with because systematic oppression of different perspectives is the principal sin for those of us who claim Freedom as an ethic – that means for ANY American or proponent of Democracy.

This is not an easy burden and even in writing this, I risk my own reputation and future career opportunities. However, it is better to die with a whole heart than to suffer with one broken by cowardice⁷.

Quotes worth pondering

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” - Thomas Jefferson

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” - Benjamin Franklin

“In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith” - J. William Fulbright

“Without debate, without criticism, no republic can survive” - Frederick Douglas

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” - Howard Zinn

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president is morally treasonable to the American public” - Theodore Roosevelt

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

“Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed” - John F. Kennedy

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” - George Washington

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others” - Nelson Mandela

Recommended reading / watching

• Leadership and Self-Deception, The Arbinger Institute (2000)

• The Open Society And Its Enemies, Karl Popper (1945)

• The Origins of Wokeness, Paul Graham (2025)

• Welcome to the Internet, Bo Burnham (2021)

• Anti-Centrism: Where I Stand Politically, JREG (2020)

• The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton (1787)

Notes