By
juxtaposing strong against good deeds and politeness, this question
reveals how easy it is to mistakenly conflate strength and selfishness.
Strong devoid of good deeds and politeness isn't strong but selfish.
True strength and selfishness are oil and water. Imbued with integrity,
true strength encompasses good deeds and politeness. OTOH, selfishness
not only excludes good deeds and politeness but includes qualities that
flourish in the absence of true strength, qualities such as bluster,
malice aforethought, pettiness, self-indulgence, viciousness, to name a
few.
History reveals that the selfish attain positions of power, i.e., appear strong, far more often than those with true strength. Many public decisions require a show of strength, something the pseudo-strong (selfish+ambitious) can easily mimic. This is as true today as it was in ancient times. Just a glance at the news headlines on any day is all it takes to be assured of this fact. Our current age is marked by exponential technological advances but the human animal at the heart of this zeitgeist is remarkably unchanged from the one familiar to the sages of the past. That's how we come to our time where often those in positions of power tend to lack good deeds and politeness. And this may be why good deeds and politeness are easily perceived to be weaknesses.
Why such a disconnect between what should be and what is? Maybe a famous religious quote helps unravel this puzzle? Often attributed to Anaïs Nin, it goes, 'We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are'. Though true strength is rare, we aspire to it because we instinctively understand its peerless value. Yet how to accurately identify true strength? Since it's a rare quality, many of us have little personal experience of it so we use surrogate markers to identify it. We derive these surrogate markers of true strength by extrapolating from how we are and from the conventional wisdom around us. If our surrogate markers for true strength are flawed, and history teaches that this is so, our decision on who we identify as possessing true strength will turn out to be flawed as well. Why do our surrogate markers for true strength tend to be flawed? Because by and large our societies suffer from a wisdom deficit. This makes it not only possible but relatively easy for selfishness married to overweening ambition to attain a position of strength.
This is how we arrive at a world where many of those in positions of power, i.e., those who appear strong, are more often the selfish rather than the truly strong. And this is why public display of strength often excludes good deeds and politeness. Because it isn't true strength on display but rather pseudo-strength and we aren't wise enough to know the difference beforehand. And really, there's nothing new about this. History shows it's been true since time immemorial. Not only that, this wisdom deficit fuels a vicious cycle where often those who aspire to or are in leadership positions misguidedly continue to choose as their guides flawed surrogate markers for true strength, the ones that exclude good deeds and politeness.
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-world-for-the-strong-only-good-deeds-and-politeness-are-seen-as-weakness/answer/Tirumalai-Kamala
History reveals that the selfish attain positions of power, i.e., appear strong, far more often than those with true strength. Many public decisions require a show of strength, something the pseudo-strong (selfish+ambitious) can easily mimic. This is as true today as it was in ancient times. Just a glance at the news headlines on any day is all it takes to be assured of this fact. Our current age is marked by exponential technological advances but the human animal at the heart of this zeitgeist is remarkably unchanged from the one familiar to the sages of the past. That's how we come to our time where often those in positions of power tend to lack good deeds and politeness. And this may be why good deeds and politeness are easily perceived to be weaknesses.
Why such a disconnect between what should be and what is? Maybe a famous religious quote helps unravel this puzzle? Often attributed to Anaïs Nin, it goes, 'We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are'. Though true strength is rare, we aspire to it because we instinctively understand its peerless value. Yet how to accurately identify true strength? Since it's a rare quality, many of us have little personal experience of it so we use surrogate markers to identify it. We derive these surrogate markers of true strength by extrapolating from how we are and from the conventional wisdom around us. If our surrogate markers for true strength are flawed, and history teaches that this is so, our decision on who we identify as possessing true strength will turn out to be flawed as well. Why do our surrogate markers for true strength tend to be flawed? Because by and large our societies suffer from a wisdom deficit. This makes it not only possible but relatively easy for selfishness married to overweening ambition to attain a position of strength.
This is how we arrive at a world where many of those in positions of power, i.e., those who appear strong, are more often the selfish rather than the truly strong. And this is why public display of strength often excludes good deeds and politeness. Because it isn't true strength on display but rather pseudo-strength and we aren't wise enough to know the difference beforehand. And really, there's nothing new about this. History shows it's been true since time immemorial. Not only that, this wisdom deficit fuels a vicious cycle where often those who aspire to or are in leadership positions misguidedly continue to choose as their guides flawed surrogate markers for true strength, the ones that exclude good deeds and politeness.
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-world-for-the-strong-only-good-deeds-and-politeness-are-seen-as-weakness/answer/Tirumalai-Kamala
No comments:
Post a Comment