Two conflicting theories have been battling in my mind for a while. On one hand, I believe that true friends bring out the best in each other - that is, they help each other have happiness and high confidence, the genuine kinds that are not shattered easily by day-to-day circumstances, mean words, or minor setbacks. I have felt this kind of happiness and confidence, and felt that it was my friends who led me to this state. This state allows people to have humility, to laugh at themselves and each other, and to share their hearts openly, because they have nothing to hide - from the world or from themselves. The circumstances that bring about such confidence in people is subjective - but sometimes it's brought on by hard-earned accomplishments that ones' friends can encourage and help one to achieve. What constitutes an accomplishment is also completely subjective - it depends on ones' strengths, weaknesses, desires, and values.
On the other hand is my belief that people should be accepted as they are, and that I do not have the capacity or ability to judge anyone. It is this belief that makes me avoid and outright shirk jury duty, interview requests at my company, and any other situation where I would have to evaluate people in any capacity. How can I possibly evaluate someone's guilt or innocence, or someone's capacity to do a job, when I have only just met them? I find it antithetical to all my beliefs. The less I know someone, the less qualified I feel to evaluate them, and the more I know someone, the more I realize that evaluating them is futile - people are evolving, complex, and enigmatic. There are commonalities among all people, but I am at a loss as to what specifically those commonalities are.
Is it possible to love someone for who they are, while still encouraging them to change for the better? Because, happiness arises from changes within oneself more so than in changes without. Does love mean accepting a friend's misery? I want to believe that it does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment