Pride, if it is ever justified, should be reserved exclusively for one’s achievements, not accidents of birth and other circumstances beyond one’s control. As a wit once pointed out, if one is proud of the colour of one’s skin or mother-tongue or ethnicity, one might as well be proud of having a liver or a spleen. The rational animal obviously has a long way to go yet. It is always sad when apparently sane folks keep identifying themselves with stupid labels, repeating slogans such as ‘Proud to be this, that or the other’ (insert any national, ethnic, geographical or racial identity here).
It is sad because the society has obviously brainwashed this type of person into thinking that being born to a certain set of parents or in a particular location or with five fingers on each limb are things to be exhilarated about– none of which is the individual’s accomplishment by any stretch of the imagination. What is even more unfortunate (and which probably comes earlier in temporal order) is that he or she has failed to develop in their personality even one thing that they can genuinely feel good about. Which leaves them no option except having to seek validation for their sorry existence from outside. And what better way to get that validation than by (consciously or subconsciously) sharing and appealing to petty biases and bigotries of those who similarly have no accomplishments to their credit.
The rational animal can do much better than this, surely. But this is hardly the only example of irrationality on the part of human beings. Man is not averse to disabling certain circuits in his brain when it suits him. The temptation of putting oneself in the comfortable position of not having to think for oneself (at any rate being spared the laborious task of having to think things through) is something very few men are able to resist. In the political and the religious realms one familiar form this takes is an individual choosing to make a leader or a scholar his moral compass; that is, his infallible moral guide. That way, the individual never has to apply his own mind; all he needs to do instead is observe which side of the issue his guide stands on, follow that suit and keep justifying it mindlessly.
This human weakness is well known and it does not take long for intelligent observers to spot it. The only party who remains blissfully oblivious to what is going on is the hero-worshipper himself. Being instantly detected, this sort of thing often gets criticised too (and justifiably so), usually by those who find themselves incapable of granting the pedestal accorded to the ‘hero’ by the hero-worshipper. Ironically, many of these critics themselves are guilty of a very similar failing, although they remain unaware of the trap they have fallen into, much like the hero-worshippers whom these folks never tire of criticising on account of their intellectual laziness.
Human beings, by definition, are neither angels nor devils; they lie somewhere in between the two poles. Declaring that a given individual is the very embodiment of good or evil, and regulating one’s own conduct accordingly is an extremely unwise policy. For there is no end to the sheer ridiculousness it will inevitably lead to. What an unfortunate waste of the immense potential, considering the rather elaborate thinking apparatus that man has been provided. And consequently, what a sad waste of life!
Not content to downgrade somebody else’s ‘hero’ to human levels, which would be logical and sensible; they declare him the devil incarnate. Having done that, they too take that individual as their moral compass, only in reverse. That is, on any issue under the sun, their rule of thumb is to consider the exact opposite of what this ‘villain’ stands for to be true or justified. Failing to realize that nobody outside fairy tales and action-hero flicks can possibly be wrong on everything all the time, they are guilty of the same intellectual failing they accuse the hero-worshipper of. This type of individual fails to see that he is as much the villain’s prisoner as the hero-worshipper is the hero’s; the only difference being that where the latter feels obliged to defend everything his hero says or does, the former feels obligated to oppose everything his villain stands for.
Human psychology being what it is, responding to challenges is a tricky matter. In any conflict, deciding upon a proportionate and judicious response is a rational problem, which passion and feelings ought to have nothing to do with. On the other hand, once the course of action is decided, one needs all the passion at one’s disposal (and more) to act upon it, for it often requires a great deal of courage and perseverance. More often than not however, passion intrudes into the domain it has no business intruding. Which means that human beings typically overreact and overcorrect. That is, to any real or perceived inequity, they typically respond not by fair and just conduct on their part but by actions based on an opposite bias. An extreme position is therefore countered by one on the other extreme of the spectrum. It is difficult enough, even at the best of times, for such an individual to realise that he or she is being guilty of overcorrection, let alone to resist the temptation. The challenge becomes harder in proportion to the strength of the reasons to hate the guts of the villain.
Human beings, by definition, are neither angels nor devils; they lie somewhere in between the two poles. Declaring that a given individual is the very embodiment of good or evil, and regulating one’s own conduct accordingly is an extremely unwise policy. For there is no end to the sheer ridiculousness it will inevitably lead to. What an unfortunate waste of the immense potential, considering the rather elaborate thinking apparatus that man has been provided. And consequently, what a sad waste of life!
