Your ultimate goal is to be understood. In the meantime, you wish others to acknowledge that they have not understood, and continue making efforts to understand you better. However, when they think they have understood you and give you the assessment of who you are, you are going to flatly deny it whatever that may be.
Did I say all that last time?
It came to nothing more and nothing less than that.
Hmmm... You may be right.
I am sure that I am, and I also know that you'd rather not admit it because it's selfish.
Why is it selfish?
You are asking for so much efforts on your behalf, which are at the end to be punished, no matter what.
As a member of any community, we have the duty to keep, or at least attempt to keep, relationships in a good condition. That means we have to try to understand each other. At the same time, I'd say anyone who thinks s/he understands another person in totality must do away with that illusion, because it borders on arrogance.
It's getting worse! Why does it bother you so badly if someone thinks and says s/he understands you?
In most cases, they have several types of people in mind and force me into one of them. It becomes awfully inconvenient when that becomes clear to me and we get into a situation where I do not feel like acting along that type. They either do not see my deviation from it, or become convinced that I do not fit any type known to them. In the latter case, I am labeled a monster.
Hey, who can blame them?
Seriously, it's a non-trivial problem, because when people totally give up understanding me, they invariably assume that almost every aspect of me is negative. Whenever their implicit assumptions are revealed, they do not fail to appall me. I feel like almost shouting, "Do you think I would ever do that? Haven't you seen enough evidence that I would never do such a thing?''
Remember, the only occasions that deserve shouting are emergency situations. If you want to stay civilized, that is.
Isn't what I described an emergency?
Well, I'm not sure what your 'such a thing' refers to, but I suppose it's something more important than wearing a pair of socks that does not match with each other.
The point is that it underscores the importance of differentiating the aspects of persons we understand from those we do not, and be conscious about it. Would you agree that it is much less selfish if I do the same for others, namely try my best all the time to understand them better?
It would be, I guess. But you know, the problem is that you are imposing your philosophy onto others.
Hurray! I now rank among the world's biggest religious leaders, like J.C. and...
Calm down, the followers are around.
Anyway, I can't imagine any alternative to living along your own principles.
If everyone has her/his own principles, most likely they would not coincide. That means, we need to compromise.
When personal principles happen to be exactly the same, that is when someone is not thinking and blindly following someone else. It could be sheer laziness, lack of capacity, or even willingness to be bullied.
A corollary of Arrow's impossibility theorem?
You can say that. I am willing to compromise, but within reasonable bounds.
That's what people say when they are not going to compromise at all.
Isn't it true, though, that if you keep on compromising, the end result is being pushed over?
How do we find middle ground then?
Sadly, it is not found through rational and amicable discussions.
I knew it, it's one of your "brutal facts," right?
Yes, and it's a battle of personalities.
Tell me, what do you think would happen if J.C. were engaged in his gig in one village and M.A. doing his in the village nearby? Do you think they would have a civilized debate when their paths cross? Would they resort to a thumb wrestling match, or something violent?
Religious leaders, especially founders, have extremely strong personalities, so it could be pretty gruesome. If they had met, we would not be here to peacefully prattle our time away.
Poor Robert! If the two had had come face to face, neither would he have had the chance to engage in the Manhattan Project, nor would have been born to start with.
In more realistic and mundane settings, too, the one who has the stronger personality tends to prevail. However, if her/his behavior and attitude stir negative emotions in people, s/he could be merely tolerated, or even shunned. Consider a person who believes that everyone is out to get her/him. We would be obliged to interact with her/him, because we are all interdependent in this society, but very few would be willing to go along that way of thinking.
It means that the one with a strong personality, but who positively affects others, gets her/his way in the end. Which, in turn, means that the good triumphs over the evil.
Only if it were so simple...
I simply rephrased what you said!
Throw into the equation some factors like money, social standing, esthetics, and carnal desires.
They are what gives the evil the look of the good, and vice versa.
Only if it were so simple...
What now?
In "La Trilogie marseillaise" by Marcel Pagnol, Fanny is a beautiful woman, aged 18, and in love with another nice-looking 22 year-old, Marius. He is in love with her, too, but he is not giving her what she needs. In this picture is another character, a 50 year-old, Honoré, who does not have the attractiveness of Marius, but is very much willing to provide Fanny with what she needs: financial support and stable affection.
Even a cover for Fanny's unwanted pregnancy... It's a classic case, isn't it? It's more fun to be with the young guy, but the old guy provides security in all aspects.
Pagnol solves the problem by killing Honoré just before Marius shows up in the scene again.
That is not a stretch, because Honoré is a lot older than the other two.
Marius, who has become more mature, and Fanny are reunited, and they are left with a nice sum from Honoré and the child from the unwanted pregnancy whose father is, in fact, Marius.
You have to tell me how this fits with personal philosophy of the good kind squeezing out the bad kind.
The general direction of the world is indeed just as you described, but what is good and what is bad are not so clear in many cases.
I think the good won in Fanny's case, because Honoré gave her what she needed at the right time, and so did Marius.
Suppose Marius suddenly grows up to face off Honoré before Fanny marries him?
And if Marius does not dig out a coffer of gold coins from the harbor sledge...
It becomes a matter of passion versus tranquility, not exactly the good versus the evil. So many stories have been written about it, and still many more are coming out.
I told you already; it's a classic, almost yawn-inviting, dilemma. If we did agree unanimously to which we should give more weight, your corollary says that someone may be bullied into thinking so.
The nature of things is that the good eventually tramps the evil. But because the character of anything in this world is a function of multiple variables, nothing is purely good or evil. Moreover, we are born with various temperaments and tastes that, unless we are forced, we tend to think and perceive differently. That is why we see diversity around us, I think.
In other words, there is more than one that could be labeled good, and so is the case with evil.
We are innately different from one another, and the differences are never erased even when the culture is to make everyone alike.
Although the good is to triumph, nobody's "good" wins hands down.
Rejoice my dear comrade, we are saved from boredom!
Doesn't it mean that it can get pretty boring in heaven?
Posts
