What a nice weekend. After ringing and the_alchemist's birthday… - Sally's Journal — LiveJournal
|Date:||September 19th, 2005 12:12 pm (UTC)|| |
Yes, but if one was perfectly Good and Honest, then it would be accepted that sometimes you are inferior to people, and sometimes superior, and that this isn't a Bad thing, but just because people are different...
I'm not sure how much I agree with "Good people like to be equal to their friends". If I wish to be a Good Person, and I know someone who is "lesser" than me in some regards (maybe they are homeless, or Bad at Maths, or something else terrible like that :) ) what is my correct response? I could not be friends with them, because they are not equal to me, but that's obviously wrong. I could try and make them better at the thing I think makes them inferior to me, but that might not be possible, or they may genuinely have no need or interest in the thing I think they lack. I could try to think that the things I think are "lesser" are actually not important, but that can rebound and leave you doing down your own achievements (and indeed those of others) - and it *is* good to work hard to own a house, or be good at maths. I could try and take a holistic view that we are equal as people, but in certain areas are superior / inferior to each other, which I think is the right answer, but then you're admitting that your friends *are* superior / inferior to you at some stuff...
I wasn't trying to argue that it's wrong to pity people (I don't think it is), just to explain why I think people hate being pitied. 'Pity' is a well-adjusted response to your friends being homeless or bad at maths, and annoyance/anger/sorrow/ickiness is a well-adjusted response to being pitied for being homeless or bad at maths.
The 'good' and 'bad' people bit was just my feeble attempt to speak feanelwa
-language - nothing much should be read into it. And I certainly didn't mean that good people should throw themselves into a fit of worry and angst when their friends aren't equal to them (either in specific things or over all), let alone that the should go to any great lengths to fix matters. I meant that when they fantasize about ideals they prefer things like 'all my friends who want to be are famous and well-respected actors in different and complementary ways' to 'all my friends who want to be are professional actors, but I'm the most famous and well-respected one.'
|Date:||September 19th, 2005 12:46 pm (UTC)|| |
Oh, that makes more sense. Thanks :)
|Date:||September 19th, 2005 10:55 pm (UTC)|| |
Will try phrasing this all again, as having read what I wrote the first time it wasn't at all what I was meaning. Argh! words! who needs them anyway? waste of time if you ask me...
Anyway, what I was trying to say. Yes, you can consider inferiourity/equality/superiority in a particular aspect, but how does that reflect on the relationship of 2 individuals as a whole? No two people are equal on every particular aspect, so what makes them equals?
Surely even if they are inferior to you in a certain respect they could easy turn out to be far superior in another aspect which you may not even have considered and vice versa. So perhaps everyone is equal and unequal at the same time. In that, people are superior/inferior to each other, but as we can never know the complete personality of another individual (or even oneself...) we never have enough information to make a full and valid judgement about this.
Or perhaps I've just had too much to drink at work today and am just waffling...
|Date:||September 19th, 2005 10:56 pm (UTC)|| |
hmmm, still not sure that's what I was meaning to write, sounds more like waffle to me....