Though change itself is inevitable, it is not a matter of Fate. Yes, there was a time when humankind saw things that way, but we're past that now. We (should) know that while change must (and should) be, we do have a say in which changes and to what degree they take place. It is not often that we can do this on our own, but we're not just hapless victims of whatever it might be that Life throws at us. We might not always be as in charge, as in control, as some of us might like to be, but within given limits, there is still a lot each and every one of us can do.
A lot of it, however, has to do with what we perceive is within our purview. As I never tire of saying, perception -- how we see the world around us ... very (if not, most) often, how we choose to see the world around us -- plays a significant role in what we believe we can or cannot do, what can or cannot achieve, in the world.
There are a number of people who have made this their life's work. They were struck by the discrepancy between what is and what we think things are. A lot of factors play into this. There's no question about that. But, in the end, it is still a matter of what we choose to perceive, what we choose to see, and what we believe we see. What these people have also pointed out, however, is that the great leaps and bounds of so-called "progress" are, upon closer examination, rather small, almost insignificant steps along a very long path. It is not a single road we all travel, and it turns out that there are innumerable ways for us to get off track. Not the least of which is, of course, thinking that we see something that perhaps is not there.
For example, in some recent posts, I talked about the notion of "honor" in relation to former president Bush. Needless to say, I received criticism for being political. When you look back upon what I had to say, however, it wasn't Bush's politics that were at issue. It was simply his actions measured against a notion given by a certain word, namely "honor". While in detail, what honor entails may vary between you and me, its essence is rather sound and solid. "Honor", for example, not has to do with doing what is right, it has to do with doing more than we expect as being the right thing to do. Honor, for example, is not something that obtains in and of itself, rather it is something that is perceived by others. Without others, there is no honor.
We moderns; that is, those of us who have been born post-Enlightenment, have been born into a world in which the individual has a say. Prior to the Renaissance, there is as good as no talk about, no real discussion of the individual, only groups had any meaning. Those of us who were born after Nietzsche (that is, everyone reading this post) have also been made aware that our individual will plays a huge role in what happens to us. This has become so commonplace that many of us have forgotten that this is not an absolute, but rather a relative state of affairs. While we all have such a will, not all of us are able to use it to the same extent. A poor person in a third-world country obviously has a much narrower range of opportunities than those of us who were born in the enlightened, prosperous, industrialized world. Nevertheless, we ascribe to them an independent and unique self and will, and thereby we have eliminated Fate from determining what we can and cannot, what we may and may not do.
Or have we?
No comments:
Post a Comment