Step outside the realm of the ethical — or at least partly — and you have sufficient room for an even greater human tragedy — whether you choose to call it an ancient Greek tragedy as expounded on later by Nietzsche with a strong Hegelian influence or you choose to believe that these are all simply different archetype examples of what is an inherent division or contradiction in the human psyche — specifically the ethical vs. the unethical, the moral vs. immoral, the narcissistic vs. the anti-narcissistic… Of course, all of this is relative to how conservative vs. liberal our ethics are...and how big or small our self-debated transgression is.
When talking about human behavior, every extreme is possibly -- and everything in between. Regardless, of where the focus and/or range is, the moral imperative — or shall I say the moral dilemma — becomes simply this: to transgress or not to transgress; to be selfish or to restrain ourselves on the grounds that our behavior could either hurt somebody else, particularly someone I care deeply about, and/or in the end, it could hurt me more than the adventure into 'pleasure-with-a-possible-side-effect' is worth…
To finish with a Shakespearean flourish — that is the question.
There is no template answer.
As Kierkegaard would say: either/or.
It’s your life, your decision, your accountability — both to yourself and others. Self-assertiveness, passion, and compassion for others are all important.
Choose with a brave heart.
Don't run away from passion -- but don't let it run away with you either. Otherwise, you may self-destruct and be left trying to pick up the pieces afterwards. Passion and reason need to be dialectically connected to each other, which can be hard to maintain when you are in the throes of passion and/or narcissistic pleasure.
Romantic philosophy criticised enlightenment philosophy for 'philosophizing and living above the neck'. However, unbridled romantic philosophy -- like unbridled narcissism -- can lead us to the brink of self-destruction if we let it take complete control over us. Both our heart and our brain are important. Our heart needs to be dialectically connected to our brain and visa versa. Once again we are talking about the need for 'dialectical/homeostatic balance'.
Thus, live your life assertively, passionately, and compassionately -- both for yourself and others.
With balance.
Extremism can tempt us if we are looking for more excitement, to be provocative -- or the opposite -- to hold ourselves and/or others 'in their proper, righteous place'. But over time extremism -- the polar opposite of entropy, boring routine, and monotony -- is usually a 'false idol'. Both polarities have their respective 'side-effects'.
Who said choices are easy?
Our choices make or break us.
Moment to moment, day to day, they define and describe us.
Be bold -- but don't let your choices take you over the brink.
Just ask John Edwards. (The celebrities get the extra media scrutiny and attention.) However, moral transgressions, in my books, are much worse when a politician -- who we usually hold to higher expectations than the normal, average person -- lays the 'righteous, how could you?' card out on the table against another politician -- like Bill Clinton -- and then hypocritically turns around and commits the same moral transgression himself. Hypocrisy dripping where once, not too long ago, there was this squeeky clean image -- thy name is John Edwards.
If there is taxpayer's money involved, then the politician's career should be over. My guess is that John Edwards career as a politician -- or at least as a potential presidential candidate -- is over. We shall see.
– david gordon bain, Aug. 11th, modified Aug. 13th, 2008.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment