Recently, a very secular well-known, high powered lawyer asked me point blank, “Since you’re a religious person, do you think you have the truth?” I was a bit stunned as I fumbled for an appropriate response. “Truth” is a very complex philosophic and linguistic idea. What I said was, “Actually, yes I do believe my philosophy of life is true….and I suspect you also believe that your philosophy of life is also true.”
Human beings have a deep need to construct a philosophy of life. We can’t live without one. Our philosophy of life impacts how we see the world, others, and ourselves. It determines our values and behaviors. And on some very deep level, each of us believes that our construction of reality is a true and accurate. Not believing that our understanding of reality is true, renders us confused, disoriented, and unstable emotionally and existentially.
The religious person who believes in Divine revelation has constructed a philosophy of life that includes a concept of Deity and Divine will. The atheist has constructed a view of reality that includes neither of these concepts. Our beliefs about life are subjective configurations that evolve over time given our unique temperament, intellect, culture, education, and life experience.
Personally, I believe there exists moral and metaphysical truth in the sense that it is universally true that within a certain mathematical system, 2 plus 2 is always 4. At the same time, I don’t believe that anyone can claim to know all the truth with absolute certainty.
Because each of us believes that our philosophy of life is true, each of us holds onto it with great passion and tenacity. Our convictions are so strong that we often feel that in order to validate our own position we must prove other people’s position wrong and false. Such an attitude precludes the possibility of tolerating and respecting a position that is different than mine.
We see this lack of tolerance in the political culture of today. The leftist and “rightest,” those who love Trump and those who despise him to their core, feel the way they do because each has constructed very different philosophy of life which impacts their political views. But can either side claim that their view of reality is the only valid position? As a high profile reporter on CNN said, “I am only reporting the truth.” Why is it that human beings seem to have such a great need to claim their view of reality is the ultimate truth? Again, in today’s political climate, it’s as if people feel, “As long as you exist with your different philosophy, I can’t live in peace. I must destroy you in order to live.”
Let me spell out what I think are some important takeaways from the preceding conversation:
1. It is crucial to recognize that no one owns the truth. Only when we recognize that everyone’s philosophy of life is subjectively constructed and therefore by definition lacking in total clarity, can we begin to relax and enter into a space of genuine tolerance. When I recognize that you and I are just two human beings trying our best to make sense of reality, then I can open up a space for accepting you, listening to you, and becoming curious about your philosophy of life, how you developed it, and why you believe what you do. Only when I fully accept your uniqueness and difference can I engage with you authentically, without feeling threatened and without needing to attack, disprove, or destroy you.
2. I have come to recognize that it is virtually impossible to change another person’s philosophy of life unless someone is questioning his or her conclusions and exploring new perspectives and ideas. We find this with Jews who as adults reorganized their life philosophies to incorporate spirituality. Someone who strongly holds a position will most likely not be influenced easily by another’s arguments. A better approach would be to become curious as to how and why this person came to the conclusions he came to. You will be amazed at how interesting other people are when you take a curious position as opposed to a defensive and adversarial one. To embody true tolerance would lead us to become the type of people Hillel encouraged us to become: “Be like the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving peace, and bringing them close to Torah.” The only possibility for influencing another person’s philosophy of life is to approach him or her with Hillel’s mindset.
3. Being human requires great humility. We are all trying our best to make sense of reality. Our minds are limited and prone to error. We must learn to hold our positions somewhat lightly and with humility. A crucial expression of humility is to be intellectually honest and open to the possibility that perhaps one has made an error in one’s thinking or has overlooked something important that one has not accounted for in drawing his conclusions
4. A truly tolerant stance believes that every philosophy of life has some “truth” in it. Therefore we must learn how to learn something from every person. As a great sage said, “Who is the wise person? The one who learns from everyone.”
All this being said, I think there are some challenging questions that remain:
Are there any limits to tolerance? Is there a point that tolerance stops? If so, what does this look like in practice? How does one negotiate that limit without dehumanizing the other person? I think we can agree that we are not talking about people whose life philosophy has led them to conclude that it is right to harm or kill others. And how does one deal with such people? How do we negotiate our differences when it comes to getting things done, like on Capitol Hill, in the workplace, and at home?