Yesterday a friend of mine accidentally knocked the knife off of some guy's plate in the dining hall. After apologizing somewhat profusely, the victim didn't respond with any kind of acknowledgement and proceeded to lax-bro away to his seat. My friend felt bad (a little bit in excess), and said something that caused me to think, "I know it's kind of naive but I didn't expect people here to be like that." I'm going to be honest, I scoffed a little bit at this statement but I don't think it's a statement that should just be brushed off as a naïve musing.
I often wonder whether idyllic environments are ever possible, with everyone being a somewhat perfect combination of nice, interesting and intelligent. There will always be those people who you don't really get along with, but in a utopian setting, as long as you are cordial and polite you will never clash and everything will be fine. I am such a pessimist that even constructing this ideal scenario I feel like a liar. Is it better to be a pessimist and assume no such world can exist or optimistic about the human condition? Which person is happier: one who assumes flaws in everyone or one who assumes pure intent?
I once knew someone who was always happy and always assumed the best in people and went out of his way to be friendly to them. He believed himself to have a lot of friends, and seemed completely socially content, but I couldn't ever help but think that the majority of his happiness was out of ignorance. His persona as a "nice happy person" prevented people from sharing their negativity out of guilt or the desire not to corrupt. Even if people around him had bad qualities, they would choose to conceal them. Any form of happiness without complete knowledge of a situation (or the human condition in this case) is unreal. How can one really know if Rome is the most beautiful city if you haven't really been there and have only see pictures? It's the same concept. A caricature that captures the most beautiful angles does not provide an accurate picture of reality. Yet, if the ignorant subject is unaware of his ignorance, doesn't this make his happiness pure?
I believe that a state of ignorance is probably ideal when it comes to judging people. It's probably better to think the best and positively interact with the environment. However, I don't think it's possible to reverse your opinions once you become informed (thus pessimistic) about the negativity contained within a portion of society. People who disappoint you soon chip away at your protective ignorance, and just by chance, if you have enough negative interactions you begin to see human nature from a different perspective. The ulterior motives, the catty thoughts and judgmental glances are thrust to the foreground of your perception; complete positivity becomes a blurry background that you can acknowledge, but never really return to.
Before I met the "nice happy person" (mentioned briefly above), I believed it was my duty to cure people of their ignorance and reveal the concealed cruelty that people had potential for. Now, I try to keep their image of the world as pure as I can, accepting when they ignore the malice or rudeness in others. I realize that innocence provides a valuable peace of mind for many; I frequently long for a time when I was such an optimist about the world. I don't want to be responsible for taking away from others what I've wanted so badly to return to myself.
I often wonder whether idyllic environments are ever possible, with everyone being a somewhat perfect combination of nice, interesting and intelligent. There will always be those people who you don't really get along with, but in a utopian setting, as long as you are cordial and polite you will never clash and everything will be fine. I am such a pessimist that even constructing this ideal scenario I feel like a liar. Is it better to be a pessimist and assume no such world can exist or optimistic about the human condition? Which person is happier: one who assumes flaws in everyone or one who assumes pure intent?
I once knew someone who was always happy and always assumed the best in people and went out of his way to be friendly to them. He believed himself to have a lot of friends, and seemed completely socially content, but I couldn't ever help but think that the majority of his happiness was out of ignorance. His persona as a "nice happy person" prevented people from sharing their negativity out of guilt or the desire not to corrupt. Even if people around him had bad qualities, they would choose to conceal them. Any form of happiness without complete knowledge of a situation (or the human condition in this case) is unreal. How can one really know if Rome is the most beautiful city if you haven't really been there and have only see pictures? It's the same concept. A caricature that captures the most beautiful angles does not provide an accurate picture of reality. Yet, if the ignorant subject is unaware of his ignorance, doesn't this make his happiness pure?
I believe that a state of ignorance is probably ideal when it comes to judging people. It's probably better to think the best and positively interact with the environment. However, I don't think it's possible to reverse your opinions once you become informed (thus pessimistic) about the negativity contained within a portion of society. People who disappoint you soon chip away at your protective ignorance, and just by chance, if you have enough negative interactions you begin to see human nature from a different perspective. The ulterior motives, the catty thoughts and judgmental glances are thrust to the foreground of your perception; complete positivity becomes a blurry background that you can acknowledge, but never really return to.
Before I met the "nice happy person" (mentioned briefly above), I believed it was my duty to cure people of their ignorance and reveal the concealed cruelty that people had potential for. Now, I try to keep their image of the world as pure as I can, accepting when they ignore the malice or rudeness in others. I realize that innocence provides a valuable peace of mind for many; I frequently long for a time when I was such an optimist about the world. I don't want to be responsible for taking away from others what I've wanted so badly to return to myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment