by 
Since the information revolution of the late 20th century, computers have become an integral part of the home. In the last 10-15 years, the Internet has become so cheap and pervasive that it is in our pockets.
News comes online, events are covered from different angles, everyone can choose a concept close to his or her heart. The most active members of society try to promote the “only right” views, which is the cause of many conflicts.
People far from making crucial decisions quarrel over political and economic disputes. Friendships are broken, families are destroyed.
We have become a bit of philosophers, political scientists and experts in all fields. Against this background, the question arises: Is it necessary to defend one's noble beliefs publicly or is it better to keep silent?
To get closer to the answer, let us consider two opposing positions. These are quietism - the inactive or “accepting” human condition - and dialectics, which was extolled by thinkers of the past, who believed that only meaningful debate would bring both sides closer to the truth.
Quietism: taking your mind off everything and just living life
Quietism does not mean giving up personal beliefs, but it does mean stopping the active search for truth. It is a serene acceptance of the world as it is right now.
Time will pass, things will change, regardless of your efforts. Being on the fine line between apathy and serenity, one concentrates on life and the present moment, letting everyone around them go their own way.
Such unconcerned observation is similar to monastic renunciation, which is not surprising. The roots of quietism are in the Christian tradition. Representatives of this current argued that it is not necessary to go to church or read prayers to connect with God. It is enough just to believe, to conduct an internal dialog, and the Almighty will hear.
The concept is quite applicable in secular life. Skeptics from ancient Greece aspired to a state of ataraxia. According to Democritus, equanimity and peace of mind are manifestations of wisdom. A person shrugs his shoulders or waves his hand - is it reasonable to waste energy, risk your reputation for the sake of changing someone's mind?
Surely you don't want to give up your already formed belief system. At best, you will pretend to listen with interest, but you will forget about the dialog immediately after it ends or draw conclusions that are unexpected for your interlocutor.
This is how most political disputes end. The parties do not seek the truth because they already have it (at least in their minds). So the debate becomes a contest with a winner and a loser. No one will accept the second role willingly.
In everyday life, adopting the position of quietism means not taking the initiative in discussing hot topics. Let those around you think you don't have an opinion. In return, you get mental well-being, the status of a non-conflicted person with whom you can easily find common ground.
Epictetus: rational debate and the meaning of philosophy
For most philosophers and any public figure, quietism is a form of surrender. No one will recognize a person's brilliant ideas if they remain silent.
For this reason, Pope Innocent XI declared quietism a heresy in 1687. For religion to spread, the believer must interact with the world and those around him or else lost souls cannot be saved.
The same is true with political or philosophical views. Silence does not create a vacuum, the empty space is bound to be occupied by someone else's voices, perhaps inhumane and even inhuman concepts. History knows enough such examples.
Humans are social beings, so it is natural for us to discuss topics of concern, ask questions, and seek answers.
The French philosopher and politician François de Larochefoucauld said: “To try to become wise alone is the ultimate folly. It is impossible to know how good, deep and new your ideas are without sharing them with others. Beliefs need regular testing against competing opinions.
Epictetus called rational debate the philosopher's main tool, which, like a blacksmith, can make something meaningful, useful, and magnificent out of formless material.
So it is with human beliefs. They are born out of the heat of debate through multiple clashes of contradictions. By refusing to participate in the process, we indirectly help individual opinion supplant truth.
The search for potential being
You don't necessarily have to fully embrace one of these concepts. There are probably some topics that are better not to bring up at any given moment, given the level of radicalism of the people around you.
However, it is always possible to find a soft approach aimed at developing a rational dialog. With some people, this is impossible - it is worth simply accepting and never forgetting.
On the other hand, you should also work on yourself. When proposing a position, exclude any slogans from the speech, even if they seem impressive and meaningful. For the interlocutor with opposing views, they are likely to be a trigger or a funny meme. The result will be even more vehement opposition and escalation of the conflict.
Touching on controversial topics, don't try to impose ideas, turn off the mentoring tone. Concentrate on what is potentially possible.
The world is not perfect, and no one will argue with this, but everyone sees different causes of problems. That's why it's better to come in on the flip side of the yet-to-be-existent reality.
There, detached from the current moment of events and names, you will find more points of contact. The more trusting and informed the conversation becomes, the closer to the question of the truth of today you will get.
by 