I'm not sure why every discussion about what we want to do has to involve existential decisions. Maybe, if every society valued how every individual on Earth felt, we would all relate, all understand, all follow this path. But it isn't that easy. Maybe if we lived in a Star Trek universe we wouldn't need to worry (money no longer exists and humanity simply works to better itself for all) but we don't. We still consider those geniuses who haven't become obviously useful yet; "weird", "crazy" "mentally unstable" or maybe they're the next innovator. Either way, the world works in predictable ways and it doesn't always appreciate a visionary. That's not to say we don't owe a lot of today's successes to them, we do, but we quickly move on to the next big thing. (It's become a slogan.) For me, I'm just moving forward, wherever that is.
'Should' is made out to be redundant and 'must' is made out to be superior, where everyone needs to be. But why can't I just be what I want to be? If we're trying so hard to become what we want, find our "calling", why can't I go about it my way? What significant difference will it make to display my prowace for putting water on fires? Or even discussing the idea of freedom? Maybe I'm missing the point, but am I not also allowed to interpret this in my own way? Simply narrowing things down, as I see this doing, seems counter-intuitive and destructive to an individual, personal approach. It sounds like an obligation.
What am I obliged to do? Currently, the popular one is "contributing to society" and that's an easy one, but it's not universal and it's not applicable to all. Your situation and desires dictate your possibilities, but you should always stride for success, whatever that is for you. I like that some people find words of encouragement or fantasies about success enjoyable and uplifting, but I'd rather hear what I'm doing wrong so that I can improve and grow. It's important to remember what's important, regardless of if it's an obligation or a choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment