This morning on Facebook I declared that--in spite of my temperament-- I would like to be one of the peacemakers in life. Clearly, I am a war-like and easily agitated creature, but I admire those who manage to unite others, and project peace upon the world.
That thought was good enough for a while, but then I thought, 'isn't a fight often called for?' How often does the urge to peace-make equate to tepid pacifism in the face of oppression, or turn out to be a mere haughty pose struck for the sake of self-deification?
There are so many good reasons to take up arms, both literally and metaphorically. There are so many reasons to be offended. It's in my nature to fight. As constructive as I'd like to be in my best moments, the urge to start fires is never too far away. How does a person reconcile these impulses?
Have I established a false dichotomy? Is it actually possible to both create and destroy, and to remain internally consistent while doing so? Must we be consistent?
That thought was good enough for a while, but then I thought, 'isn't a fight often called for?' How often does the urge to peace-make equate to tepid pacifism in the face of oppression, or turn out to be a mere haughty pose struck for the sake of self-deification?
There are so many good reasons to take up arms, both literally and metaphorically. There are so many reasons to be offended. It's in my nature to fight. As constructive as I'd like to be in my best moments, the urge to start fires is never too far away. How does a person reconcile these impulses?
Have I established a false dichotomy? Is it actually possible to both create and destroy, and to remain internally consistent while doing so? Must we be consistent?
No comments:
Post a Comment