San Mateo, CA USA
20090702
No one is perfect. But people seem to be judged based on what seems to be one-sided recognition of either one's improprieties or virtues. As I scroll through the blogs and news stories in my feed reader, I see people either completely condemning others for their faults or idolizing them for their proprieties:
- the Dalai Lama associated with Nazis and is a potential despot and therefore lacks all credibility;
- the Dalai Lama brings messages of peace and hope and should be put on a pedestal as a perfect example of wisdom and compassion;
- Mother Theresa brought health care to thousands in need and should be put on a pedestal as an example of selflessness;
- Mother Theresa inflated her numbers to make herself look better and flew first class on interviews, so none of her achievements should count.
I like to think the truth lies somewhere between these extremes, that we all have our vices as well as our virtues and that too much or too little of either is not a good thing. I have found at least one person who agrees. In a recent blog entry, writer Isabel Chalumeau opines that rather than being completely blackballed for fleeing his statutory rape sentence or having his crime completely forgiven because of his cinematographic genius, Roman Polansky's work as a filmmaker should continue to be respected while he is still held responsible for his crime. Sounds reasonable to me, but it seems like most people seem to fall on the extremes with regard to their opinions of him.
In my current bathroom read, The Book of Vices: A Collection of Classic Immoral Tales, editor Robert Hutchinson argues that vice and virtue are both important, and that Aristotle had stressed the importance of moderation, not too much of one or the other. But in this day and age, we are pressured to at least seem perfect, and he points out that the world has only seemingly become too virtuous, when, in fact, we have become the opposite. Humans "have a singular talent for elevating their basest impulses into lofty virtues; and the most craven acts of self-interest are almost always cloaked in the silken robes of noble intentions." We do nice things not out of kindness, but because we are forced to do them. I would add that we also attempt to justify our misdeeds by turning them into acts of selflessness or by reasoning that we were forced into them by others.
The majority of us are spared the burden of having our whole being judged on the sum of our good deeds or our misdeeds, but many of us are. I wonder ... at what point do one's transgressions make one irredeemable, and at what point do one's good deeds make one untouchable? And why do so many in the spotlight seem to fall into both categories? Is it really all about sensationalism and ratings?
I hate to even think what it would be like if my life were on display, everyone pointing out my virtues and my vices. I was told once that each of us gets out of bed in the morning with the intention of doing the best we can, but it doesn't alway work out that way. Some people do things that just piss me off! I, on the other hand, am completely innocent! LOL
ReplyDeleteI don't feel that any of us is qualified to judge another person--though we all enjoy making pronouncements about those we know and those who are known to all. Vice and virtue may only be subjective terms, but either way, moderation in all things seems to be the key--or the "middle path" as my Buddhist teachings emphasize.
ReplyDeleteGREAT writing, by the way!
I doubt I'd make it as a public figure, MAWB. In some ways, (relative) anonymity is, indeed, golden.
ReplyDeleteModeration seems to be a common thread in many philosophies, Timoteo. It seems to be easy to forget, though.
More food for thought -- here is a comment from one of my social networking contacts, Cassandra Ross, about this post (this is reposted here with her permission)...
I suppose that is what we do, make judgements, rightly or wrongly. Sometime it maybe because we understand where the person we are judging comes from, what their angle is. I don't think we try to claim an identity, we are who we are. When writing a blog we often have something in mind, or like me I wake in the morning and do a spur of the moment writing. It would be hard to judge my personality from that. One may get an idea of my virtues and failings but it wouldn't be a true picture.
Then in the case of Mother Theresa, maybe she felt travelling first class was her one last chance to rest before she was thrown into the limelight and hype of the next venue. We can't deny the fact she did much good. Could we have lived that life? I know I couldn't, so I can't judge her. If we dig a little deeper there is often a reasonable answer for a person's actions, apart from people such Pol Pot!
Ah yes the word, "perfect", how boring if we were. In the case of Roman Polanski, what he did to that young girl was terrible, but I wouldn't put less value on his work which has given us so much pleasure.
Yes, the Dali Lama has come under attack for his association with the Nazis. but as with many English people who associated with them, it was often a means to an end. Perhaps that's what people in high places do, use an organisation to get to their main objective when there seems no other way of doing so.
A thoughtful post from Cassandra, and thanks for taking the time to include it. If anyone is to be judged, it should be the in way we would evaluate a writer or a film director: On the body of their work as a whole...thus, I think Mother Teresa's life work MIGHT just overshadow her flying first class, (duh!) and anyone who would decry her for that would seem to be nitpicking for the sake of a personal agenda. It's always important to look at who is throwing the stones before placing any credibility in what they say.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts Rei to which I'd like to add some of my own.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's unreasonable to have certain expectations of noble intent from our religious leaders and they should expect to be held accountable for their actions just like the rest of us.
As for Roman Polanski, his cinematic oeuvre has absolutely nothing to do with his being a "good" or a "bad" human being. Many artists were/are absolute arseholes. We value Picasso's work, for example, because he was a genius, not because he was a misogynist. Likewise, Polanski is simply a gifted man prone to the same human vulgarities as the rest of us and should be judged accordingly.
Religious figures, on the other hand, should by virtue of their vocation be above reproach. Anything less makes them hypocrites. Whether we like it, or not, our actions and how they are perceived by others define us.
For example, if I were a member of the Communist Party or someone who had a criminal record (even a minor drug offense), I'd be unable to work as a Government employee or even as an academic on the campus where I'm currently employed. By extension then, someone of high profile who supposedly leads by example such as the Dalai Lama should be equally blameless... if not more so.
The fact that Mother Teresa travelled first class... rarely spent a night in the Calcutta slum she called "home"... used religious and untrained staff rather than spend the significant money she was gifted on doctors makes no difference to me whatsoever. I have no "agenda" other than believing in credit where credit is due. What galls me is the travesty and hypocrisy invested in her name and stature by a public relations campaign which would leave Ruder Finn, Inc. in the dust.
To err is human. However to deign to tell others how to live their lives from a religious position while, in fact, denying your own culpability is, in my opinion, worthy of criticism.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on Cassandra's remarks, Timoteo!
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks to Maliceinwonderland for re-posting her comment from the social networking site here after I asked her permission. It is a well-written and well-thought argument for a different perspective from mine for anyone who happens by this page.
I think you would find Tucson to your liking!
ReplyDeleteIn a story book, everybody knows, it's said: "Jesus told his disciples one day that: if you have never sin; be the first to cast a stone". I know that I am a very imperfect person, I deal with it. All I need is that other people accept me like that because I will not change, I could try but I am a sinner, it is said.
ReplyDeleteSo there is no use to judge ourself or to judge others except if someone wants to hurt ourself or the other.
This is very basic but thats what I beleive. Please, excuse me, english is not my primary language.
I specialy want to thanks you, Rei, for joining my blog.
Hugs
Forgot to tell, I liked this post
ReplyDeleteI'll be back to read you when I have a chance.
Merci, Gelisa, de ta réponse sensée. Il me semble que les personnes soient très vite de lancer des pierres.
ReplyDeleteSi tu préfère écrire en Français, je le comprends assez bien.
Bisous.
I won't be doing much traveling in the short-term, so I'll take your word on Tucson for now, Timoteo.
ReplyDelete