Tuesday, September 25, 2007
On philosophy and a return to it
There's a prevailing school of thought that seeks to give each individual's beliefs and convictions merit. Such a school of thought was especially appealing to a mind such as mine.
Consider a case like that of the famous Robin Hood. He who robs from the rich and gives to the poor, was lauded by the populace as a hero. If by a certain twist of fate, that book had been written by John, Robin Hood would for certain be portrayed as a villainous and heinous knave, and most certainly, an associate of chaos.
The same could be said of Guy Fawkes. His actions leave much room for debate.
For certain, every person has, and for every action, there exists justifications and reasons. It is only natural, for a billion different people in a thousand different environments to grow up with varying systems of beliefs. As much as the environment is a product of mankind, mankind is likewise, a product of its environment.
The biggest quandary lies in the choice between which and what to stand for. Neutrality or conviction, belies the fundamental struggle men often find themselves faced with.
Conforming with the environment or staunch belief in principles, remain a constant point of contention in the heart of society.
Whilst neutrality (by neutrality, I reference a state of neutrality towards all ideological and moral arguments) ensures a good rapport with the crowd, it entails a weak will. A strong belief in one's principles on the other hand, riles the feathers of the crowds begging to differ from those values.
When all's said and done, when men find themselves standing at the end road, they need some assurance of the worth of the journey. A man of neutrality would have reached the destination by the whims and fancies of those in power, whereas the man of principle reaches a destination via his efforts and struggles.
Simply put, the man of neutrality might find himself in better fortune than the man of principle, but who is better of spiritually? When it comes to the end road, material wealth is but one measure of success. Spiritual, ideological, philosophical and emotional achievements constitute a whole slew of gauges one has to measure up to.
Pray choose your path.
----------amidst that emotional outburst, I find some semblance of the life I would like to lead. Principles and values might all be subjective measures, relative to the environment, but a man is entitled to change his environment too. They are but what defines you, principles that shape the character, solid as a rock and with a foundation secure, that we can embark on any undertaking.
I acknowledge that my definition of neutrality is weak and poor. It hardly suffices to convey the type of non-commitment that I seek to chronicle, but I try my best within the limits and confines of language. Neutrality not in being non-involved in violence, but a neutrality that seeks to put you in favour of the victorious
I used to think a man is required to shape and change the world in his lifetime, regardless of the ends and means. Of late, a realization that a billion individuals cannot expect to change the world a billion times over. It would be simply chaotic at the very least.
Instead, might the true worth of a person lie in not destroying, but leaving the world without causing it harm?
Plausible? I believe so.
This might just be the beginning of a return to a more desirable mental state of mind for my sake.
Gavin
pondered @ 21:31
