The Need For Confrontation

There is nothing Biblically wrong with going so far as to enjoy confrontation, as long as a person does not hope for someone to be irrational or unjust so that they can be justified in anger towards them and lash out.  Anger, verbal harshness, and even hatred itself are never inherently irrational or otherwise sinful, but to wish for someone to err just to have the opportunity to enjoy confrontation with them (within the limitations of justice) is to wish for stupidity and evil to be present, and thus is itself irrational and wicked.  Even if they do not actually want for some people to err so that they have someone to legitimately oppose, people could fall into other errors.

Confrontation could intoxicate or terrify people based on their personalities and worldviews, or it might be something that neither excites nor worries a given individual.  Even for rationalists, urges might arise that need to be monitored and controlled, as perfect rationality in grasping logical truths and structuring priorities does not mean that someone will not have the involuntary desire for controversy to exist without need, or that he or she will not flee from controversial interactions even where they are utterly necessary.  A non-emotionalistic kind of intolerance is always the intrinsically rational response to stupidity and sin in all of their forms, but this does not entail hoping for someone to intellectually or morally fail in order to pounce on them, nor does it entail always forgoing confrontation out of timidness or a misguided kind of love.

Literally everything is or could be controversial; everything from the most fundamental and basic (but still extraordinarily deep) truths to their most precise ramifications to every possible experience and deed could offend, frighten, or disappoint someone.  Regardless of the actual nature of the truth or thing in question, subjectivity is all non-rationalists tend to look to.  The world is full of non-rationalists, and their errors on top of errors, their layers of hypocrisy, and their ruthless egoistic devotion to personal preferences make confrontation necessary.  There would be no need to ever confront anyone if all people made no assumptions and embraced the truth.  The unity and personal and societal peace would be unparalleled.

There never has been, as far as all historical evidence suggests, even a single rationalistic society, and there is certainly example after example in the modern world of people who gleefully stir up confrontation where there was no need for it, or who shirk from telling others their faults or even from just resolutely speaking in favor of truth as a whole, no matter how they will be perceived, disliked, or feared because of it.  Wanting someone to choose irrationality to gloat over them (though non-rationalists are inferior to rationalists and deserve to be treated as such) and tolerating stupidity are inverse errors here.  There is no shortage of either in a culture that tries to financially and emotionally profit from outrage or tolerance without regard for anything beyond preferences, assumptions, and cultural norms.

The worst possible error is the denial of the fact that logical axioms are inherently true, and many people will ignore or reject this truth.  There could not possibly be something irrational or unjust about harboring anger or hatred towards them.  Confronting those who succumb to this most extreme kind of folly and the rest of the irrationalism it connects with is indeed a necessity to fully live for the all-encompassing nature of logical truths.  Neglecting or opposing axioms and what hinges on them is at the heart of the numerous errors of non-rationalists, and yet although taking delight in their inferiority or exploiting every opportunity to refute them publicly is no sin, there are certainly ways to approach confrontation and controversy with irrational beliefs or motives.