LIVING PARADOXES, PART I. . .

At our healthiest we human beings are, as many theists and philosophers have noted, living paradoxes. There are also those who believe that at our core we are one of two extremes: we are inherently weak or we are inherently powerful [at times this is framed as we are inherently evil or we are inherently good]. These ‘both-and’ folks and ‘either-or’ folks have been with us since history has been recorded – more likely they existed prior to recorded history.

Each of these ‘sides’ easily musters arguments for their positions. For example, those who propose that we humans are inherently weak (e.g. weak-willed) remind us that we are easily influenced to do what we are told to do, even if it is harmful to one’s self. We weak-willed folk have followed our leaders into wars which have brought mostly destruction; we have come to believe any amount of nonsense if it was presented to us with sufficient vigor and repetition and it if was supported by the strong willed authority figures in our lives – ‘priests and kings and presidents’ have spoken harshly to us (generating fear) and have spoken softly to us (generating ‘loyalty’) and we, like the proverbial lemmings, have lined up and followed. We are like half-awake children who are easily swayed by the harsh voice or by the sweet voice of authority (we are seduced by simplicity and shun complexity). The person who is strong-willed enough to withstand these voices of authority are often shunned by their peers, if not persecuted (some, centuries later these folks are held up as icons of strength or virtue or goodness).

The assumption that we are inherently weak has supported innumerable Inquisitors, dictators, ‘priests,’ and elected officials as they strove to build their strong-willed systems. Weak-willed folk need strong-willed leaders to guide them and to make decisions for them; we give up our freedom in order to be ‘safe and secure’ (which, we too often find are illusions). We weak-willed folk come to ‘buy’ that in behaving this way we are being ‘loyal’ and we are being morally ‘dutiful.’ We did not have to be responsible nor response-able; these burdens were taken on by the strong-willed.

In many ways our history as human beings has been written in blood and continuous violence (physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual – to say nothing of the ‘violence we have done to ourselves). The strong-willed have, and continue to use force to bend the weak-willed to their will. The strong-willed need the weak-willed: Pasha alone did not exterminate the Armenians; Hitler alone did not exterminate the Jews; Stalin alone did not exterminate the political dissidents; our elected officials alone did not exterminate the natives residing in this country. All of these strong-willed folk had thousands of weak-willed folk doing the ‘dirty work’ – these weak-willed folk killed for them, they tortured for them, they blindly (is this the word?) followed and could claim not to be responsible (they were, after all, only following orders).

The strong-willed have shown us, over and over again, how ruthless they are willing to be in order to keep the weak-willed in line: ruthless warfare (rooted in fear of the other), murder of the weak-willed who attempt to stand-up for their rights; sufferings of many types in order to maintain control. All of this had led certain theists and philosophers to conclude that ‘man is a wolf to his fellow man’ – to use Hobbes’ phrase). Strong-willed folk have helped nurture the other side of the paradox: we humans, by nature, are strong-willed, vicious and destructive and that we can only be restrained by becoming fearful of a more powerful strong-willed person.

YET. . .in the great scheme of things it does appear as if these strong-willed folks are in the minority; many more of us seek to find a ‘middle way’ between the two extremes (consider Aristotle’s ‘Golden Mean’). Yet, we still carry a fear: Will we be ‘revealed’ for what we really are once we learn to let go of our inhibitions (think of Reinhold Niebuhr’s ‘Moral Man and Immoral Society’) – will we become the ‘mob’? As human beings we have had numerous opportunities to behave in strong-willed immoral ways and yet in the great scope of history few have chosen this path. Even folks who might have ‘gotten away with it’ have not chosen evil over good. So. . .perhaps our more traditional ‘either-or’ way is not what is at play; perhaps the ‘both-and’ way provides us with some answers.