one
#1 of Drunk Work Scribblings from Fall 2019
(originally written October 30, 2019)
Everyone has their own version of "however" when it comes to an ideology attacking one's own comfort zone. "Sure, telling someone she looks beautiful when she is in fact morbidly obese could be hiding her from something she needs to hear; however, instead of hurting her feelings, I'm making her feel good about herself. Saying something nice makes me a good person."
Would a good person be willing to be brutally honest if it meant helping another person realize something she couldn't (or more likely doesn't) see for herself?
Does being a good person mean being brutally honest?
Is there a correlation between being "good" and being "brutal"?
Perhaps, more accurately, it's "brutal" to be "good".
Everyone wants to fit into some sort of social circle--a regular and reoccurring set of peers. We're social creatures, after all. It's almost like...we're willing to lie to others in order to perpetuate the idea that we fit in. The more desperate someone is to sustain membership to a group, the bigger the lie he or she is willing to divulge. Being brutally honest, in fact, sounds more like putting one's own self-esteem and personal ideologies before others. Is this selfish? Is the "goodness" of being "brutally" honest dependent on the end goal of such honesty?
Does the end goal always matter when it's about telling the truth for the sake of being honest to another person?
Is groupthink the ultimate acceptance of a perpetual "however"?
Perhaps it boils down to one's own ability to be happy and capable of standing alone and defending oneself, regardless of the consequences of being honest--not for the sake of inspiring others to follow suit, but simply for wanting to maintain one's own integrity and moral compass. After all, the only person that someone can trust 100% of the time is him- or herself. Some might see this as cynical (and perhaps it is) and refuse to accept such a lonely ideology. Heh, I would wager those that dislike such a lonely ideology are deep down the ones that would be willing to tell a white lie in order to maintain membership in such superficial social circles.
To give up one's own voice for the sake of a comfort zone is a nod towards the idea that there are no absolutes, because to acknowledge an absolute would mean that someone is wrong, and telling another person he or she is wrong could be "brutal" depending on the matter.
I'm going in circles, it feels.
Circles.
Such simple shapes.
No corners.
No angles.
A singular line with no definitive beginning or end.
Circles are also versatile shapes in a three-dimensional plane (i.e. cars and shit).
Circles.
Absolute, pure circles.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw a circle, I could buy a lot of useless shit, haha.
Then again, circles are just shapes. Shapes, themselves, provide no context, meaning, or substance until given one.
Circles are given meaning--whom shall hold the right to give circles meaning?
One person?
A group of people?
Several groups of people arriving at some conclusion of its meaning after having bounced ideas across different people that are all trying to stay within their own comfort zones to a given degree?
Whom should give circles their proper meaning?
Whom should give circles a "good" meaning?
Whom should document the meaning of the circles so that the people in the distant future may know the "good" meaning?
If there must be documentation, there must be a review process.
The existence of documentation implies future reading by someone without specific knowledge of something for the purpose of giving someone some foundation of understanding from which to form his or her own "good" meaning.
If there must be a review, does this mean that there may also be "good" version of a "however"?
Every one has their own version of "good", after all. Perhaps discussion is required in order to find compromise.
If "good" may be compromised, does that there is no absolute version of good?
Of course not.
There is always some absolute version of "good"--it just takes a person with absolute knowledge of everything about everything to be able to know.
We're all fucked, essentially, when it comes to finding the perfect "good".
This is where pragmatism comes in.
To be pragmatic is to avoid any purist interpretation that will inevitably be flawed.
Remember, the only true purist is one with absolute knowledge of everything about everything such that the person may perfectly judge a topic.
Anybody that claims to be a purist (or fundamentalist, for that matter) is admitting to being "brutally" honest of their lack of "good" knowledge.
So, perhaps "however" may be a "good" thing with respect to pragmatism.
Pragmatism is good.
Purism is bad.
Everyone is stupid.
Go fuck yourselves.