against agreement

reading something you agree with feels good. it supports the way you already think, confirms what you already believe, and sends you away feeling a little more certain about yourself. there's nothing wrong with that.

but after a while, it's just boring.

it's boring because there are no new ideas, nothing that makes you think, nothing to push against, nothing to defend.

about two years ago, i started reading philosophy. what i realised quite quickly was that just reading it wasn't enough. you have to work with it.

working has a different meaning here, though. i associate this kind of work with sitting somewhere quiet: a park, a café, a place where you're surrounded by people but still have time for yourself.

i made it a hobby, something i looked forward to. not only because i knew i'd learn something, but because the habit of getting there requires intention. you don't randomly end up sitting in a café with a book, a notebook and enough time to think.

i'd sit down and write the sentences that provoked me. not the ones i agreed with, but the ones that made me uncomfortable. writing forces me to have an opinion.

the first book that did this to me was ecce homo by nietzsche. he wrote it in 1888, shortly before the mental collapse that ended his intellectual life. the statements were extreme, especially towards religion and the church. he treated christian morality as something made for the weak, the sick and those who'd already surrendered to their circumstances.

i wasn't particularly religious, but i'd never thought to question belief so harshly either. suddenly, someone was questioning it loudly and confidently.

was i convinced? not really.
but i was fascinated.

then came in praise of folly by erasmus of rotterdam. he wrote it in 1509 for his friend thomas more, and dedicated it to him.
i love that detail. writing an entire satire for a friend feels like such a beautiful gesture. not a birthday card, not a quick message, but a book that has lasted for more than five hundred years.
i read it during a period after surgery, when i had to slow down. it could've been a frustrating time. instead, it became one of the most enjoyable periods i've had.

erasmus made me laugh out loud in a café. his observations were precise, absurd and somehow full of life.
what stayed with me wasn't the idea that we should stop taking things seriously, but that seriousness doesn't have to be the only way to move through life.

that book strengthened something that had probably always been in me. even in difficult situations, i tend to look for the long-term positive.

slowly but surely, i made my way through camus, sartre, maupassant, zola, flaubert, dostoevsky and others. all of these books, written by different people from different times, helped me question not only others, but also myself.

reading is basically just the foundation for good conversations - i'm a big fan of them.

one of them happened on a long drive from southern germany to berlin during my military service. my comrade was only two years older, but one of the most well-read people i'd met.

he had every option open to him and still chose to become an officer. not for status or money, but because he saw it as a responsibility.

we talked for hours in the car and then continued long into the night. there were moments during my two years when i questioned whether the military had been the right path for me. but that night, listening to someone explain his decision with complete calm, i felt proud to have been part of it.

not because i thought everyone should make the same choice, but because i understood more clearly why someone could.

that's what a different perspective gives you. not necessarily a new answer. sometimes just a more honest question.

being in hong kong has pushed this further.

shortly after arriving, i joined a german football team. i'd stopped playing competitively when i started my military service, even though it had been a huge part of my life before. joining was partly about the sport, but mostly about meeting people.

after one match, i decided to join the group for drinks in soho. i'm not particularly interested in drinking every weekend, but that evening led to a conversation i still think about.

i spoke for a long time with someone from canada who'd been living here for years. he was professionally very successful, but what struck me more was how relaxed and balanced he was. ambitious at work, playing football on weekends, sitting in a bar with his teammates, completely at ease with himself.

people are never only one thing.

what i love about hong kong is exactly that. many people i meet here have a reason to be here, a reason that made them want to explore or experience something different.

asking how someone ended up here is always an easy way into a real conversation. what was it like growing up in hong kong? why did you decide to stay? what made you leave home?
the conversations that come from these simple questions are never the same and i think that's what reading against agreement prepares you for: staying curious when you're confronted with something unfamiliar.

the people who think exactly like you will make you feel good.

the ones who don't will make you think.