I have this constant tumbling of thoughts in my head; finding a title to tie them all together is something I can do only after I've sorted out my thoughts. I actually spend a lot of time being confused. Not about things I've learned, I have all of that, well, most of that, figured out. I spend my time in my head thinking about other things, things you don't learn in a classroom.
For example, how do you justify yourself in disliking someone? What are the criteria? I think most people decide this on a gut feeling, it all depends on the situation and what mood they're in at the time. This doesn't work for me, and what I find most amazing about this is that everyone who uses this method is ok with it. My problem with it is a person's worth is then relegated to another person's emotions. Does this make any sense at all? What about the person's integrity? A person's thoughts and abilities? Any of these other things that we use to define a person's worth? When we make a decision on whether we like someone or not, it's a judgement on the person, it seperates people we consider good from those we don't consider good; from those we consider lesser. And if this isn't how you think the judgment works, then I wonder how much you compartmentalize your thoughts, how much you're giving in to the hive mind. If you don't like someone, but everyone else thinks they're great, don't you suspend your own doubt and tolerate the person? Even act like you like the person? And how does this mesh with the criteria we actually place on people? Kindness? Brilliance? Humor? I think a quite normal argument would be, "Well, this person has good qualities, but I just don't like him/her" and then we list some emotional reference "that person just makes me feel on edge" or some such. You do this, and start listing disjointed reasons because the truth is you don't know why you dislike someone, you've made an emotional judgment and haven't bothered thinking about it at all. All the while, you're solemnly convinced this person is just not worthy of being liked by you, but you put on an act and tolerate the person, and become fake yourself.
I feel if I'm going to make a judgement call and not like a person, then it should be on something more justifiable than mere gut instinct. In fact, a large portion of my best and truest friends have been people that I quite honestly didn't like at first (there may be something to do with being seduced by the bad things about someone, similar to why good girls like bad boys, but that's a deeper and more philosophical argument I'll save for another day). They say first impressions are often correct. Well, yes and no. Yes they are correct, a person does what a person does, and there's no way to hide that. However, the really determining factor is motivation; why someone does what they do. Ever have a large argument with a loved one and get so angry you finally ask something like, "Why in the world would you do something like that?" and the answer you get back is that they were trying to do something nice for you or someone else, and they just did it the wrong way, or at the wrong time, and it didn't work out? You know how that explanation robs you of your anger? It's the motivation, not the action, that is important. Actions are still important, of course, 'what is' remains in the end 'what is;' however, as far as value-judgements are concerned, it's the motivation that takes precedence.
No comments:
Post a Comment