Would Life Be Better without Disagreements?

It might seem as if life would be better without disagreements because then we would have no wars and conflicts, but it is far from the case. Without disagreements, our lives would be unilateral, one-sided and humanity would be unable to develop.

In his article, “The Freedom,” Kabbalist Yehuda Ashlag (Baal HaSulam) writes about how humanity advances through disagreements:

“We must be watchful to not bring the views of people so close that disagreement and criticism might be terminated from among the wise and scholarly, for the love of the body naturally brings with it proximity of views. And should criticism and disagreement vanish, all progress in concepts and ideas will cease, too, and the source of knowledge in the world will dry out.”

However, the need for disagreements does not necessitate war. We can settle disputes with other methods, without engaging in physical conflicts.

We end up in wars because we have yet to develop to a level where we can resolve our disputes and disagreements maturely. The way we currently resort to wars makes us look like little children.

Disagreements can serve to develop us positively if we reach decisions on them through civil discourse.

Criticism of the other’s perspective is a key aspect of a disagreement, and it is crucial for humanity’s development, as Baal HaSulam writes about in the same article. Without criticism, we would not be able to develop.

“The more contradictions there are between opinions and the more criticism there is, the more the knowledge and wisdom increase and matters become more suitable for examination and clarification.”

It is difficult for us to accept criticism because our egoistic makeup, which makes us want to view ourselves as superior to others, does not want to be criticized. But we would be very unwise to resist criticism. When we understand that the more criticism, opinions and disagreements there are, the more we can discover who, where, how and why nature formed us in such a contradictory form to itself, then the more we can reveal the truth about ourselves and our lives. In other words, through disagreements and criticism, we should aspire to truth, and we learn the truth by navigating through the intricate web of contradictory states and views.

However, since our egos cannot stand criticism, we often fail to use it constructively. We can see many examples of one side applying pressure to others until they cave in, and if they continue disagreeing, then they erupt in war. That is largely how our world unfolds. Our egos prevail over many opportunities to discuss and grow.

Criticism is constructive and positive when it leads to a mutual discussion, and ultimately, an agreement. On the contrary, when it leads to detachment, even to the point of war and destruction, then of course, it is harmful and destructive.

We see that at the end of wars, we in any case reach conclusions that we need to sit and discuss matters. War gives a certain kind of awareness of the evils of our egoistic nature, but it is nonetheless undesirable to reach such lengths of destruction and suffering in order to finally settle matters in a civilized manner. We thus need disagreements and criticism in order to progress, and we should not have to reach wars and destruction in order to awaken ourselves to progress through our own discussions and scrutinies.

If we lived in a world filled with goodness and love, we would still need criticism? Of course we would. There would be discussions and a certain common denominator reached at a level of a mutual love for one another, which would continually advance humanity among a massive number of opinions and contradictions. It is written about such a state that “love will cover all transgressions.”