Once again: A New Perspective

 

“You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius

Remember my professor that prefers being passive to choosing a side? Well, I guess I misunderstood him. Or at least have a new perspective on the idea. My professor loves this quote by Marcus Aurelius. I probably should've looked up this quote sooner, because this is the rest of it:

        "There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone.”

This is insightful, not passive, like I first supposed. Today I thought of a new way it can be interpreted.

Lately I've felt way out of my depth-- but I still BS it. Especially concerning dating and marriage. I pretend that I know what I am talking about -- because to a certain extent, I do. I have been on dates before and I really know that I don't like most of them. Any dating theory or philosophy beyond that though is out of my depth. Every time I've shared my thoughts on the subject (vehemently, per usual) it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think it's because I don't know what the heck I am talking about.

To a certain extent, none of us do. I don't quite know what it means to love someone. Eventually I'll have to at least figure it out enough to find someone to marry...even it I still don't understand it all the way.

Maybe Aurelius is saying that it's ok to not have an opinion about it. Instead of automatically sharing my negative feelings towards future relationships, I can own the option of having no opinion on the matter. We're all at liberty to make mistakes, but why share a small cynical perspective that ruins the chance of a bigger one?

I think I'll try harder --not to be passive-- but to allow space to continuously develop more understanding opinions, only through reserving the option of not having one.

Abby Deal and George Bailey

 I've already written 2 blog posts about Abby Deal. She's remarkable, but her story still irks me.

Watching It's a Wonderful Life this Christmas season helped me realize that George Bailey's story wasn't all too different from Abbys. The story makes me mad -- though I can't decide if it should.

The villain in It's a Wonderful Life is of course Mr. Potter. (Though I don't suppose any millennial or Gen Z reading this would understand, apparently no one watches this movie anymore...losers) But after thinking about it I really consider the villain to actually be George's brother Harry. He is a punk. And what's worse, George allows him --nay, encourages him to be a punk. (In that he does everything for himself.) Though, at the beginning of the movie Mr. Bailey the elder says "you were born older" to George when he suggests Harry take over the Building and Loan business. Maybe this is why George allows Harry to go off and do whatever. It fills me with so much sadness for George. How does he still love Harry? How is he not resentful? He's truly a remarkable guy. I think he probably had to resent his situation at least a little bit.

I know I wrote that "living the law of sacrifice is the greatest life mission," but stories like this sometimes make me doubt it. I shouldn't have to sacrifice everything I love and hold dear to live out my life mission. (I realize this sounds so...self-lovey. Bare with me here) I echo what I wrote before -- living your life mission should be about what you love and hold dear. With George, perhaps he realized that traveling and building and college wasn't exactly what he should love...because these are temporal things-- things that don't actually matter. What matters is helping other people, family.

I'm not sure. Part of me thinks George is playing martyr when he doesn't need to... though that can't be true. There was no one else that could really do what he did, which is kind of the point of the movie. But it's a tricky balance. Watching movies like this makes me think wow, I really could live the law of sacrifice a lot better. But should they? Do I need to sacrifice all of my wants and desires and talents like George did? No, I really don't think I do. I don't think it's right to drive yourself into the ground for others when you don't need to...especially when you drive yourself unnecessarily into the ground for others and then have the audacity to complain about it and then make others feel guilty about it. In George's case, it really was no one's fault. He could've blamed it on a lot of people, but he didn't because he knew it wasn't right.

People should really help out others more often. When spouses or parents slave away for their children, the children should help, the spouse should offer equal support. But...there should not be shame in doing what we want to do if it is good and the way is provided. If George's father did not die, he should've travelled. If Abby Deal really loved that first rich guy that proposed to her, she should've married him and had a happy wonderful life singing. Some people actually have lives like this, and there should be no shame in doing what we want to do if it is good, or even if it appears selfish because there is little to no sacrifice required.

There. I've said my piece. Peace? Piece. I probably shouldn't publish things that I think through as I type. Oh well.

And what I actually just discovered as I read through this again is that under my logic Harry cannot actually be the villain. If there is no shame in living a life that requires little sacrifice if the way is provided, then there is no shame in the way Harry lived his life. That feels uncomfy. It's probably true though.