“You’re reading a book by him???”
I have friends who don’t tolerate books by people they disagree with. They won’t read them and if they do, they will sharply criticize every aspect. They won’t admit there is anything of value.
This is true of my conservative friends and my liberal friends.
Somehow I am the odd one who likes books I often disagree with. I like books that challenge me and make me think in new ways. I don’t end up agreeing with everything, but I do end up learning something.
I may not think that a Jungian or Marxist or Capitalist framework is the way to view the world as a whole. But when I read books of such persuasions, I am intrigued. Even if I don’t buy it all, I see something that could help as I try to make my way through the world. And I believe it is good for me to nurture empathy for others who have had different experiences.
I try to remember that I don’t know everything, and that the world is big and complex and full of wonder.
Recently I mentioned to a friend a book written by someone whose political ideas she thought were completely wrong. How could I think something like that was a good book? Even though the book itself had nothing to do with politics, she wouldn’t even consider it.
I suggested that liberals can write good books and bad books. Conservatives can also write good books and bad books. I think she understood what I was saying, but I suspect she was still pretty skeptical.
The book I was talking about was interesting, creative, well-written, well-organized, intelligent, and honest. It gave windows of insight into certain aspects of the world I was not previously familiar with. That, I think, is a good book.
Maybe part of the reason I enjoy reading books I disagree with is that I like learning. I find the world endlessly fascinating—whether it be science or history or human nature or an individual’s story. Even if it’s only learning how other people think in ways that I disagree with, it’s still stimulating. I love being a lifelong learner.
It just makes life more interesting.
—
Image by GrumpyBeere from Pixabay
What you said about books also applies to quotations. Some people will have nothing to do with a quotation of someone if they disagree with that person even if they agree with the quotation itself. I was having a facebook discussion with my cousin’s wife yesterday evening. We had been going back and forth on who I should vote for in the upcoming election. Even though we agree on not voting for 1 particular candidate, I haven’t felt comfortable voting for a candidate she endorses. The conversation continued over several days and unlike many Facebook conversations about politics we were able to rationally discuss our differences without the hint of animosity. When we were finished she sent me a comment to that end. Which I replied to and am sharing with you in it’s entirety as it underlines your point about being able to learn from those we potentially disagree with. Even the quote itself underscores your position.
“I totally feel the same way. I enjoyed our conversation. I think it’s important to find common ground. Ronald Reagan once said that the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is your friend and ally not a 20% traitor. I would probably go farther and say that someone who agrees with you 20 % of time is still not necessarily an enemy. It’s much more on how do you handle the disagreement and does your relationship give you both the flexibility to make whatever % you disagree on not the focus of the friendship. Like for example, I have an inkling that your may have not been too keen on me using a Reagan quote. But I shared it A)because I thought it applied to the point I was trying to make and B) because I feel the strength of our bond as cousinlaws (tm pending), parents of children with HFA, and Wordle Madness participants would make up for any slight you may have felt for a quote from who some consider a divisive conservative and you would instead accept the quote at face value as if I didn’t even mention the source.”
That is great, Dave. Having a civil and constructive conversation about a disagreement in politics is a rare experience these days that should be celebrated.
To your point, I’ve just been reading a book on the resurrection. The author goes out of his way to show that atheistic scholars affirm various aspects (not all certainly) of the historical record regarding Jesus. The author does this because (and he is right) that wherever your opponents agree with you, that is something to be noted positively. And he can do this because he has read widely and deeply the works of people he disagrees with.