Author: admin

Respect, rebellion & renovation

Coming into life, we generally have to reach the point of understanding and relating ourselves to what’s gone before: finding our place, those things that interest or concern us, the aptitudes or talents we have to contribute, and a sense of purpose to integrating ourselves with the structures of society.

That relationship between individuals, society and those mediating our understanding of it can be a fascinating reality to contemplate as much as a daunting one (see Notes One). Arguably, life itself is largely based around our relationships and the meanings we assign to all the aspects of that bigger picture – life being what we make of it, how we respond to all that we encounter and the choices we have (Notes Two).

Ideas we hold in our minds around what’s important or acceptable seem to really define the lives we’re going to lead. And much of education can be seen as imparting essential information and training individuals to think in a certain way. It’s a process that hopefully prepares people for life, giving them a sense of their own worth and all the ways they’re valued within society.

Of course, that’s highly idealistic. In reality, it seems questionable at this point how well modern education is serving individuals or society. Yet, regardless of how well it’s currently working out, the ideas we’re offering young people still inform their understanding and appreciation of all the systems we’ve been upholding.

In the past, it seems there was once an attitude of respect toward elders as young people listened obediently to the authority or insight of those who’d experienced life and grasped which qualities best enable individuals to operate wisely within their world. There was this trust, this listening to the accumulated wisdom of those inclined and prepared to impart it to following generations.

Which apparently then shifted more toward rebellion as people began rejecting, challenging or disregarding that input and the parameters of society itself. It’s an approach to life that’s persisting into the present day, possibly in part through the very expectation of those now parenting that ‘it’s the way things go’. Anticipating rebellion seems a little strange however, as a side note.

Personally, it seems right that society was called into question rather than blindly accepted. It may well be that the ideals placed at its foundation have become contorted over time, creating realities quite far from the original intent. But then, what’s the best way of dealing with that? Is there a way of questioning, re-evaluating, shoring up social principles without tearing apart our social institutions and relationships? (Notes Three)

The problem may also be that adults themselves – those in positions of authority, with an expectation of how such functions should be respected – are as much the ‘victims’ of society’s failings as they might be viewed responsible for them. We can only think with the ideas we’ve been handed, and it’s surely very hard to dismantle a system that your own psychological, intellectual or economic security is built around.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Writings on Education
Note 1: The social metaphor of education
Note 1: Common knowledge
Note 2: How we feel about society
Note 2: Relating to one another
Note 3: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 3: Dealing with imperfection

Ways to share this:

Value in being informed

Staying informed about things comes across as this important foundation for modern society: the sense of needing to keep abreast of current affairs, know what’s going on, and be able to evaluate it rightly which then informs our choices and actions as citizens, consumers, or simply adults within all the communities and systems shaping our lives.

It presumably arose alongside democracy and free markets? That if we’re to be placed in the position of exercising our own judgement in those arenas, then we need both to be adequately informed and have the capacity to judge wisely. If you’re going to give individuals freedom, they must be well educated and communicated with if they’re to fulfil those roles responsibly (see Notes One).

In the West, there’s this sense in which “power” was effectively placed in everybody’s hands – we were made the unit of decision-making. And that’s clearly a huge responsibility; especially when you view it in conjunction with the loosening and speeding up of all the systems we’re now living within (Notes Two)

Within all that there’s then this function of imparting information. Whether that’s social, economic, political, cultural, personal, commercial, or whatever else, there are all these individuals, organisations and entities clamouring for our attention (Notes Three). Given the advent of the internet, that’s much different from when people would return from a day’s work and tune in to a brief radio broadcast for the salient points.

Of course, back then there was maybe more trust in those in power and those reporting things. Having the more multifaceted insight offered by modern media can surely do wonders in terms of holding people accountable and challenging the courses we’re taking. But it’s undeniably also making things more overwhelming.

At times it’s almost like we’re riding the tail of this vast dragon of opinion, argument and reaction. Each event sparking off a turbulent chain of responses. Sometimes the voices speaking there might seek to soothe, reassure, engender calmness and reason; other times they might enflame, striking powerless fear or anger into our hearts; or maybe they’re making light, offering up sheer novelty for our amusement. It’s quite a volatile, unpredictable reality – never knowing what’ll be thrown at us each day.

In that light, at what point does the value of being informed get outweighed by the strain of being overwhelmed? How easily are we able to stand as responsible citizens or consumers if our minds and emotions are being torn to shreds by incessant updates? When do we start losing the capacity to judge or willingness to engage with voices seeking to undermine, convince or coerce as much as inform us about our choices?

Given how much media influences our democratic decisions, alongside the influence of advertising and culture over consumer or social behaviour, it’s far too important to play games with. Politics, social cohesion, mutual interest or respect, and the vast economic realities engulfing the world affect us all; not giving people what they need to navigate that responsibly seems risky.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Right to question and decide
Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 2: The conversation of society
Note 2: Modern media and complex realities
Note 3: Media within democratic society
Note 3: What’s a reasonable response?
Note 3: Fear or coercion as motivators

As a counterpoint to this, Plato & “The Republic” explored ideas of what makes a healthy society from the perspective of a somewhat distant past.

Ways to share this:

Obligations and contributions

Words tend to carry history. Whether linguistically or culturally, they bring with them the context in which they arose plus the accumulated sense of how they’ve been applied over time and ways they’ve worked themselves into society now. Sometimes that might be helpful, adding richness to our lives, or it might be a little confusing as layers of meaning blur the realities of what’s actually going on.

The fact language can be applied in different ways, maybe deliberately calling to mind age-old notions or drawing misleading comparisons with present-day ideas, is one of many fascinating aspects of communication (see Notes One). Seeing beyond the terminology to the reality of what we’re agreeing to, creating, sustaining with our actions seems one of life’s quirky little challenges.

One example being the world of money. Looking to the roots of words such as “contribution” or “obligation”, we find ideas around ‘bestowing with, bringing together, adding’ and ‘binding by oath’ overlaid with connotations of “liege” and the relationship between feudal superiors and their vassals (those holding land in return for that allegiance).

Meanings that trace back through Latin, French, Germanic, English and Celtic times, and branch out into many other complex and beautiful notions around human coexistence and cooperation. “Bestow” bringing with it a history of ‘conferring or presenting an honour, gift or right’ or placing something in (hopefully) the right hands. “Tribute” carrying thoughts of either gratitude and respect or dependence.

All these words, having arisen through complex experiences, paint some interesting pictures around the ideas or principles underpinning Western society. We have these fairly ancient social arrangements working their way through the intricacies of the Middle Ages then emerging into the light of more modern-day civilisations.

It’s bringing in ideas of lords and masters; the protection afforded through community and other allegiances; and the often precarious realities that led to such ‘transactional relationships’ being seen as truly valuable. There’s this whole world of history that’s grown into the more abstract reinterpretations of modern life. Some aspects may be similar, but the nature of the relationships and risks is also a little different.

Within all that, where do we stand? Do we owe a debt of gratitude to the past and all the ways it’s passed over wealth, knowledge, mastery into our hands? Does history bind us to accept the paths it’s taken and modern forms its ideas created? Is it ungrateful if we seek improvements to how values of freedom, equality or respect are manifested in our times? Or is society still, as ever, a living thing we serve to sustain and perfect? (Notes Two)

It brings to mind the thoughts of the late Wayne Dyer, who once spoke of government as society’s servant – asking why it then turned around and began speaking as the master, making greater demands to fulfil its own agendas. It may not be a perfect analogy, but does raise that essential question around the nature of all these relationships of power and money that govern our lives.

Notes and References:

“Four Pathways to Success” (Audio) by Dr Wayne W. Dyer, (Hay House), 2004.

Note 1: Language and values
Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 2: Right to question and decide
Note 2: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 2: What holds it all together

Ways to share this:

What holds it all together

Society is conceivably a construct simply held together by infrastructure and convention. We could view that as an illusion, a contract or a burden, but maybe those are just ideas we have towards it. However, society’s clearly also a reality: it asks things of us, offers things in return, and, in many ways, our attitudes and behaviours can either uphold or hinder its progress and stability.

In terms of what serves to hold that together we could talk of laws, cultural conventions or economic obligations (see Notes One). All those ‘systems’ that effectively delineate acceptable or punishable behaviour, seeking to guide us through reward or punishment along those paths deemed valuable or essential.

As social creatures we’re evidently inclined to seek acceptance and belonging, so meeting the standards set by the group we want to be part of must be a strong motivating factor in curtailing individual behaviour. But then I suppose that raises the question of whether we view “society” as the group to belong to more than, say, some other sub-community that exists in person, in theory, or online (Notes Two).

Realistically, society seems essentially to be a belief: an idea we have to believe in and see the value of maintaining through our actions. Beyond notions of obligation, we presumably need to understand what societal participation offers us and how exactly ‘all that we do’ feeds into that bigger picture. If that’s not personally compelling then I’d imagine people might seek belonging elsewhere and stop caring greatly about it.

What I suppose I’m trying to say is that if we don’t believe in, understand, and intentionally uphold society then maybe we’re losing what’s holding it together? That might happen for many reasons: education; upbringing; socio-economic background; social or interpersonal experiences; lack of appreciation of or agreement with the values of a given society; disillusionment of countless kinds. All ways we might stop thinking it worthwhile.

And if people don’t understand or agree with society, for whatever reason, then presumably they stop acting in the ways that effectively sustain it. All those little ways we might break with “expectations” – whether it’s subtle social conventions and niceties, or a seemingly casual disregard for bylaws and road rules – then serving to chip away at social cohesion.

It seems true that if we see others not upholding certain standards we might conclude not to bother either. Or, we might judge them as antisocial for not caring; in turn, creating interpersonal tensions. As social creatures, with ideas of conventions and their meanings often woven into us from an early age, seeing poor behaviour pass unpunished while ‘good’ behaviour goes unnoticed surely causes problems?

Afterall, if society’s essentially an idea upheld by intentional actions then seeing that invisible ‘reality’ of convention breaking up is presumably going to be quite disconcerting? As the authority of tradition and the relative homogeneity of communities are being delightfully shaken up by the freedoms of modern living, it almost seems inevitable that social cohesion will need shoring up.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 1: “The Spirit of Community”
Note 1: What is acceptable?
Note 2: Using internet to construct community
Note 2: Responsibility in shaping this reality

Looking deeper into how our behaviours are or might be shaped was also the focus of Fear or coercion as motivators.

Ways to share this:

Playing with fire?

Culture clearly goes back thousands of years, with all the ways civilisations have reflected upon and sought to shape their ways of life. It’s a fascinating thought: that stories have accompanied humans all along their path to the present day. How much that process has informed and altered society or individuals is presumably unfathomable to fully comprehend.

And I’ve talked of culture a few times here, musing over its functions within human society and for the individual discovery of meaning or purpose in life (see Notes One). The idea of this as a ‘tending’ of what’s required seems interesting to me, as if cultural forms are as seeds we plant or flames we fan to life in order to sustain what’s needed, productive or helpful.

In that light though, where’s this leading? How can we be sure that the ideas we’re entertaining are wise, the right way to go about resolving things or fostering the attitudes necessary for modern society? Can we trust that our current embodiment of this ancient practice is running along the same lines rather than accidentally enhancing what it’s hoping to eradicate?

We might argue that we’re simply reflecting realities: representing the trends or concerns of our times so others can consider them, make sense of life and form a reasonable response for the good of themselves and others. Maybe that’s true, maybe the thoughts we have in response to culture is where the important conversation needs to happen (Notes Two).

Because presumably ideas can act as seeds or flames, growing over time into something that will often change the course of events? Those words spoken or images seen that might lodge in your psyche, developing over the years into patterns or attitudes that affect how you are. If everything we’re taking in has that quality to it, then what exactly are we leaving ourselves open to these days?

If cultural life can help generate thoughts, attitudes, and values that might help us in how we live or teach us valuable lessons around the perils of paths we may not wish to take, then it must be serving an extremely valuable social function. Rather than seek to experience everything for ourselves, we could learn through the insights offered up to us by others – living vicariously through those other ways of being.

But then, how much can we truly trust modern culture to be offering us that? Are we right to simply go along with what’s offered, taking it all in and mulling it over? If the intentions behind a large proportion of such offerings are essentially commercial, is that a problem? How we might best discern what’s truly worthwhile and respond wisely to the rest of it isn’t so easy to figure out (Notes Three).

Might it not be that we’re effectively playing risky games? Depending on your metaphorical preference, we could end up with a nice warm fire and perfectly tended landscape, or something more closely resembling chaos. Not being sure of which seems troubling.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Culture, art & human activity
Note 1: Revisiting the question of culture
Note 1: Meaning in culture
Note 2: Culture selling us meaning
Note 2: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 2: Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth
Note 2: Cultural shifts & taking a backseat
Note 3: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 3: Plato & “The Republic”

Ways to share this:

Market forces or social necessities

The West clearly embraced the idea of the marketplace, of letting those forces shape much of what’s happening within our societies. And maybe that’s fine, maybe it’s the perfect way to structure human communities and will naturally lead to widespread improvements, bettered standards and high-quality choices. But are there points where it crosses lines and causes little more than problems?

Obviously marketplaces are complicated, with countless actors and trends constantly flitting about to the next new thing. The ins and outs of all that are honestly a little beyond me. But, as an interested observer, its outcomes and general directions often seem questionable (see Note One). What is it we’re creating here? How are we using the world’s resources to meet our very human needs? Where’s it all leading?

Then, to focus in more specifically on the crossing of lines, where’s it leaving us as individuals existing within society? Making everything – culture, relationships, access to services and information – subject to market forces and the tendency toward higher tech solutions seems to risk stripping away essential human and social functions from what’s commonly available (Notes Two).

As I’ve said, I’m generally out of my depth when it comes to economic theory. But surely things need to make sense from a human perspective? Whereas pretty much anyone could access a local shop, bank or office to interact person to person, make themselves understood, and get their needs met to some degree, running ‘all that’ through systems accessible only via technology just isn’t the same.

The idea of everyone having to maintain, afford and keep pace with ever-evolving standards in computing must be an obstacle to participating freely with social or economic life. In terms of mental inclination, time commitment or various other pressures in life, expecting everyone to understand and operate wisely within these systems is quite an incredible challenge (Notes Three).

Are we really going to exclude people from participating fully in shared realities simply because we’ve let market forces dictate the speed, cost and complexity of the systems we’re filtering these functions through? Does that not make people intellectually, financially dependent on the whims of industry? Effectively creating this threshold for societal participation with a burden on all individuals to meet it?

We might argue we’ll educate and support people to gain access, and this is simply the ‘cost’ of pushing society ahead through the medium of technology. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s creating another whole industry of facilitation, commentary, and support services. But surely it also creates a degree of dependency, on reliable information as much as on electricity itself?

Markets may work well in motivating innovation and progress, but they also create burdens of cost and active engagement on our part. When it comes to essential functions, is inclusivity and stability also not important for social cohesion? Otherwise it begins to seem this survival of the fittest mentality where we risk becoming OK with leaving others by the wayside, buried by all the entry costs being insisted upon.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 2: Culture, art & human activity
Note 2: Can we overcome purely economic thinking?
Note 2: Learning to be human
Note 3: The web and the wider world
Note 3: Using internet to construct community
Note 3: Testing times

Ways to share this:

Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe

It can seem in life that we’re always looking for someone to turn to, to defer to as the more informed expert in whatever it is we’re grappling with. In many ways it’s as if we’ve unhooked society from all that once defined, constrained or regulated it and now we’re just doing as we see fit. Which I guess is the freedom of the Western world? Freedom to do as we please.

And it’s interesting in the sense that then we arguably need to be extremely well-informed about the complex nature of all the systems we’ve set in place (see Notes One). If we, as individuals, are to be able to correctly judge the right course of action in any given field then we really need to know how it all fits together and where potential problems might arise. Ploughing ahead blindly doesn’t seem the wisest option.

But then we end up in a situation where we need to maintain a great deal of knowledge, including monitoring the constant debates and re-evaluations of that collective body of understanding. All while society itself is proceeding at this astonishing pace, facilitated and driven by technology. This never-ending flow of opinions, trends, novelties, decisions, events, and so forth.

Maybe that’s simply the cost of freedom? That we’re responsible for all our decisions. But as Huxley disconcertingly observed in “Brave New World Revisited”, echoing the words of Dostoevsky, “in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet” – effectively wishing to relinquish that burden.

In many ways, Western society is built on this notion of individual freedom and responsibility. Within the marketplaces of society, culture, technology, lifestyle, or economy it’s generally down to us to understand enough to make the best decisions. Decisions for ourselves, of course, but also ones that reshape the global realities surrounding us.

Within that, the incredible significance of education, information, media, journalism and general awareness stands out in fairly stark contrast to the novelty, carelessness, and calculation that’s going on in those fields (Notes Two). While industries stretch the definition of what’s worthwhile and essential to human existence, we seem to be pulling at some fairly indispensable threads in terms of social cohesion.

Of course, many of these institutions are struggling to redefine their position within society and adapt to new realities. Beneath the many attempts to capitalise on opportunities and capture markets, I do believe there are many genuine people concerned about the place these essential functions need to maintain for a healthy society.

While that’s playing itself out, where do we stand? Clearly society as much as its individuals face considerable risks as our infrastructures respond to the challenges of technology. Clearly many parties, for whatever reason, are intent on distracting or influencing us for other ends. Clearly finding reliable information and being sure of what we’re doing isn’t as easy as we might’ve thought.

Who to trust within it all, where to place our hope for the future, is something we each answer for ourselves.

Notes and References:

“Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley, (Random House, London), 2004 (originally 1958).

Note 1: Power in what we believe
Note 1: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves
Note 1: Concerns over how we’re living
Note 2: Desensitised to all we’re told?
Note 2: Why listen to media that exists to profit?
Note 2: Technology & the lack of constraint
Note 2: Able to see what matters?

For a more beautiful take on a similar theme, Emerson’s views were explored within The idea of self reliance.

Ways to share this:

What’s neutral?

Is there truly such a thing as neutrality? An even, objective middle-ground where nothing really carries weight and we can judge cleanly? Or, in reality, does everything, in some way, carry with it a sense of evaluation, intention and causality?

We might claim things to be neutral – knowledge, facts, technology, even opinions – but it’s all a little questionable perhaps. If we were to view those things as tools, then as soon as we pick them up and seek to use them for our own purposes do they conceivably lose any neutrality they once had?

As with anything, the nature of reality can quickly become pretty complex. All our words, conventions, ideas, scientific and technological solutions essentially carry with them a way of looking at the world and a sense of what’s justifiable in navigating that relationship from the human perspective. Within that, all we have stands on the shoulders of what’s gone before, growing out of paths we’ve taken (see Notes One).

Yet, these days, so much is simply placed in our hands: knowledge, power, and a reach far more easily attained than previously (Notes Two). It’s fairly straightforward now to engage with those complex realities, using modern tools to our own ends with consequences we may or may not intend throughout our wider social, societal, economic environments.

In that light, while the tools might theoretically be neutral our application of them can carry immense, possibly irreversible, generally invisible weight. As in Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth, there’s arguably this sense that our ability to think rightly about reality and what matters most within it is quite an important and underrated factor in life.

I mean, as soon as we take hold of anything we’re generally assigning it meaning and applying it with the intention of achieving certain aims. Those aims and meanings may be true, partially true, or completely mistaken. Time may well judge the results harshly, regardless of what we thought we were doing or hoped to achieve.

From another perspective, there’s also the way we might speak of something in neutral terms when it may need the colouring of judgement, evaluation, praise or condemnation. To convey something neutrally, rationally, objectively when in reality it merits a strong positive or negative slant is surely an incomplete representation of reality? Some things are simply “wrong”, and to not present them as such seems highly dangerous.

It’s interesting as, in both senses, once we ‘pick something up’ it seems we might need to assign it the weight it deserves in order to apply it rightly from the human perspective. It’s this sense of how everything – facts, opinions, words, actions – sits within a bigger picture of complex ideas, people and agendas we somehow need to navigate (Notes Three).

And, within that picture, neutrality may well be this ideal state of balance that doesn’t actually exist. Could it be that everything needs this overlay of understanding, interpretation or context in order for us to respond wisely to all we’re encountering?

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 1: What if it all means something?
Note 2: The potential of technology
Note 2: Value in visible impacts
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: Strange arrogance of thought
Note 3: What we bring to life

Ways to share this:

Strange arrogance of thought

It’s strange to think how thought can just sweep in and cause so many problems. It’s almost too easy to spin together some convincing narrative around any sequence of events, casually brushing things aside to move in a new direction without giving much thought to what that might mean.

Thought can fairly easily downplay some things and prioritise others without much concern for consequence. But in life’s realities, such expressions of logic often risk being at least a little careless as we ‘pick up’ complexities, string them together as we see fit, then pronounce our judgements. Surely reality doesn’t quite work that way?

Obviously, it’s how we’re generally taught to operate within the world of ideas: dispassionately fighting our corner, wielding reason as a weapon we somehow feel causes no harm (see Note One). And in a way it’s true that in the abstract world of thought we ‘can’ act that way: within the realm of pure concepts we could argue nothing’s to be taken personally.

But in real life nothing’s entirely impersonal. Opinions on government, history, injustice, prejudice, or inequality might ‘just’ be words, but they’re weighty. As are many others. Words carry with them our personal, social, emotional, intellectual past, present or future. Anyone with direct or indirect experience of any situation rightly bears their response to it, their hopes or wounds (Notes Two).

We might happily wade into weighty discussions, waving words around more-or-less intelligently or considerately, but it’s likely someone’s going to get hurt. And while we might insist there’s only one solution, it’s also likely almost any such attempt may entail some very human realities getting swept away without due recognition.

Which approaches the question of how thought meets reality (Notes Three). We see what’s going on around us and, naturally, form ideas of how life and society fit together: what it means, what’s good or bad, what’s considered acceptable in the short or medium term in order to realise ideals we or others have about longer-term social and global outcomes.

But, in reality, ideas chart their path through our lives. Whole generations or groups might effectively be being asked to sacrifice any hopes they may’ve had for advancement, respect, or equal recognition so others might reap benefits and pave ways toward a future they’re hoping to create. Is it OK to ‘fold’ people’s lives like that into some other form of ‘progress’?

And while we might get impatient at ideas we see as ‘obvious’ not gaining traction with those around us, reality often moves much slower than the mind: logic might be able to deconstruct patterns of behaviour and conclude we should act otherwise, but that thinking still has to work its way gradually, insistently into human nature before it’s one day considered ‘normal’.

That said though, surely thought is what’s needed? As intelligent beings it’s arguably our responsibility to understand the life that sustains us in natural, social or economic forms, then operate as wisely and considerately as we can within it all.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Pick a side, any side
Note 2: Living as an open wound
Note 2: We’re all vulnerable
Note 3: Dealing with imperfection
Note 3: What if it all means something?
Note 3: David Bohm, thoughts on life
Note 3: Plato & “The Republic”

Navigating flawed realities or ideas was also the subject of Dystopia as a powerful ideal, How things change & Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?

Ways to share this:

“The Measure of a Man”

When it comes to being human, how exactly we go about it is a strangely difficult question: what we’re doing here, how to act, what’s best for social or personal welfare, are everyday concerns that really don’t seem to have simple answers (see Notes One).

It’s been written or spoken of countless times, as people have sought core principles, values or ideas to help things run more harmoniously. One such offering, succinct and deeply insightful, being “The Measure of a Man” by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Gently leaving aside the issue of using “man” as a term for discussing humanity as an inclusive whole, this text draws together some powerful and challenging imagery around what it is to be human: “The question “What is man?” is one of the most important questions confronting any generation. The whole political, social, and economic structure of a society is largely determined by its answer to this pressing question.”

That we can be viewed as purely physical beings, with needs and drives on that level, yet also as so much more than that is interesting to contemplate: “There is something within man that cannot be explained in terms of dollars and cents… that cannot be reduced to chemical and biological terms, for man is more than a tiny vagary of whirling electrons.”

The sense of what sets us apart from nature, while we undoubtedly stand within it, is curious to pinpoint: “Man has rational capacity… And so, somehow man is in nature, and yet he is above nature.” “He is not guided merely by instinct. He has the ability to choose between alternatives, so he can choose the good or the evil, the high or the low.”

Those kinds of thoughts, seeking to focus in on what exactly it means to be human, are surely valuable at a time when we’re frequently referred to in quite different terms (Notes Two). The idea of affirming our worth rather than speaking of people in somewhat careless, calculating, dismissive ways seems to me much more suited to the dignity, responsibility, and respect due to human existence.

Moving on to explore life’s “length, breadth, and height” – being your best; caring for others’ experiences; and relating yourself in some way to what might be the meaning of life – carves out this fairly comprehensive picture of the scope our lives may have and all the ways we contribute to our human and natural environments (Notes Three).

Attaining a view of life that sees how things interrelate seems so important given how many systems underpinning modern society now appear to be struggling: “there is still something to remind us that we are interdependent, that we are all involved in a single process, that we are all somehow caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. Therefore whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

Ultimately, we all have to make our own choices. But this idea that we’re capable of holding ourselves to higher standards might be an incredibly valuable perspective on life.

Notes and References:

“The Measure of a Man” by Martin Luther King, Jr., (Fortress Press, USA), 1988.

Note 1: What is acceptable?
Note 1: Zimbardo & the problem of evil
Note 1: Plato & “The Republic”
Note 2: What we bring to life
Note 2: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 3: What if it all means something?
Note 3: The human spirit

Ways to share this: