Thread: Judge or be judged.

Our human nature makes us want. I want. He wants. She wants. You want. We all want. What do we want? In general, we want to be satisfied. How, then, are we satisfied? That's simple. We are satisfied with things, the great materialism. We are satisifed with luxury, with our reputaiton, with our achievements. How do we get what we want? That's the hard part. Well, there's always working hard at what we want. Although, the hard road could burn us out. We could always take the easier road. The easy road is tempting; however, it has a high risk of disappointment. Which road do we choose? For some, it'll be the hard road. They may get what they want through putting a lot of effort into the specific method, the mean, for getting what they want. But, some will ultimately fail and fall to whatever low life drags them to. For others, it'll be the easier road. They will get what they want through putting minimal effort into the specific method for getting what they want. But, a lot of those who take this easy road will be disappointed because the nature of the means is taboo by what society has determined is or isn't acceptable.

Some people are naturally turned off by the easy road. Some people are naturally turned off by the hard road. Is it in our power to decide who is right and who is wrong by the path they choose? We praise hard workers and forsake those who end up the same way through means forbidden by society. We could praise a person who earned a doctorate in mathematics from MIT; but we could just as easily ignore or, dare say, even decide not to notice the very existence of a person who studies the same material and obtains the same intellectual strength as the doctor without the title or the credentials. Why is that? Is it because the later didn't put himself or herself on the line? Is it because they didn't put themselves in front of the world to be devoured if found a fraud or a fake? I think so. Why else do we have degrees that in one word describe our intellectual status? Why else do we have class rankings in educational institutions or valedictorians and salutatorians? So we can better judge those who we come into contact with.

Judgment: it is almost a curse word. But, our society, as I just pointed out, is based on judgment. We use it and we hate it. How do we get around it? We can't, plain and simple. We cannot get around judgment. It is a part of the corrupted human mind. Why do we judge? That is simple as well. We judge because it helps us achieve what we want. We want to be satisfied. We don't want disappointment. Therefore, we judge others in order to decide how we should deal with them in order to come closer to what it is we want, satisfaction.

Are we stuck here in a society, nay, a world stricken by the effects of judgment without the ability to do something about it? No. The only way to battle judgment is to be loving and humble. The first step is to become fully and completely consumed by the idea that we need each other no matter who it is in order to become entirely and utterly satisfied. And that kind of satisfaction is complete and whole. It is a satisfaction we cannot achieve on our own. We work together with those who take the easy road and those who take the hard road in order to better our world, our countries, our states, our cities, our communities, our groups, our teams, our clubs, and our families. We cannot become victims to what society has deemed acceptable and unacceptable. We must, instead, let love and humbleness guide our actions and allow ourselves to become wholly dependent upon those who live within our world, our countries, etc.

I believe, however, that if this idea were to be set in motion tomorrow there would be devastation all over the world. People would not try to be dependent upon each other because what we want by human nature is instant gratification, satisfaction now. Our human nature tries to make us believe that working together with love and humbleness will get ourselves nowhere because human nature reasons that others will take advantage of the situation and obstruct any possible way for satisfaction to materialize in a wholly dependent society. Therefore, our human nature makes us believe that we should take advantage of the situation before someone else does. That, however, is not loving or humble and therefore an ally of judgment. So, in attempt to eradicate judgment, we create a world where the effects of our human nature is felt at its epitome. We see that because what society has deemed acceptable is no longer in effect, we can do whatever it is that satisfies us because human nature has already showed us that working together is not materializing.

Therefore, eradication of judgment is a cure worse than the disease. Judgment will remain for those who want to become satisfied via selfishness and those who want to work together and who choose to discard judgment will be satisfied by communal love and humbleness; but, they will also be afflicted by those who do not find satisfaction in them. Thus, life isn't fair and we are faced with a choice: judge or be judged.

Not to sound judgemental or anything, but that is the longest thesis paragraph I've ever seen!

All kidding aside, I think you have put together a pretty nice little opinion piece. Your logic is sound and the writing is very good.

it's way too long for a single paragraph!... i didn't even want to read it, since it's such a huge, unrelieved block...

for openers, the opening sentence makes no sense:

Our human nature tells that I want, he wants, she wants, they want, we want, you want.

what is 'tells that' supposed to mean?... 'human nature' can't 'tell' anything... did you leave out a word or two by mistake?... and all those 'want' repeats are more annoying than effective in making anyone want to read on...

the 'hmmm's need to go, too, imo... sorry i couldn't read the thing, due to its eye-bothering unparagraphed nature... these are just two major gaffes that jumped out at me in a quick scan... hope it helps some...

love and hugs, maia

Thanks for the help, mammamaia. I haven't really had time to read over and check for errors. And when I did, it was a quick glance. I've contemplated taking the "Hmmmm's" out as well. This is more like an informal speech, thoughts, if you will. But thoughts do have to be well-presented by keeping some form of grammar intact, hehe. Thanks for reading through it Uriah.

Instead of "valid victorians" did you mean "valedictorians"?

Also, second to last paragraph:

I agree that if this idea were to be set in motion tomorrow, there would be devastation all over the world.

I would eliminate the comma following "tomorrow", and change "I agree" to "I believe" and take ownership of the idea. "I agree" presumes that others know of your idea and are in agreement with you. As well they might be, but a stronger statement places ownership in your hands.

The final paragraph seems confusing to me, not cohesive. I had difficulty following your summation.

It is an interesting thesis and it would seem you've given it some thought. On a personal note: I don't agree that we must be "wholly dependent" on those around us. Self-sufficiency and independent thought and assertive action often foster opportunities for those otherwise inhibited by social mores, standards, and economical imbalances to better their own circumstances by building upon the initiatives of others. Humility and love are admirable things and should be a part of every human being, but societal codependency and "communal" or socialistic idealogies have their destructive effects as well, as history well shows.

Thanks for the corrections, americanwriter. But, I really dont believe that anything good has come out of an independent community, everyone for themselves. We may celebrate Independence Day on July 4th for winning the Revolutionary War, but England is one of our most trusted allies today. Now, I do agree that "independent thought" (our own opinions, tastes, styles, and what have you) is a good thing because it is what makes us dependent upon others.

How? Story: Two men are stranded on a deserted island and neither have any survival training. One is an environmentalist. Naturally, he knows some of the plants and trees on the island. The other is an architect. He knows nothing of plants or trees, but he could use them to build a shelter. The two men are what they are because they love doing what they do -- it's their passion. Now say that both men decide to go their seperate ways. The environmentalist will be better off because he is basically at home; however, he could find himself in a dangerous spot when it gets dark and there's no shelter to protect him from the wildlife. The architect will most likely die in a couple days from eating something poisonous or unexpectedly coming across a snake pit or what have you.

It would be better for the two men to depend upon each other wholly so that neither man would get himself into a dangerous situation. If they depend upon each other partially or if they are almost wholly dependent, then there may arise a situation where one of them may hesitate to save the other in order to stay alive. If they are, however, wholly dependent of each other, then there would be no hesitation between their life and the other's life no matter the situation. I believe that the odds would be in their favor if they are wholly dependent of each other when that situation arises. The question: why can't this mentality be applied to our lives whether or not we live in the city, in the suburbs, or out in the boondocks? We are humans ,after all, who try to survive.

The core message of my thoughts is this: what I described in the first post is what I believe to be the essence of a Utopian society, or a society where we live and work together, despite our differences and what our judgements may be, in order to build a strong and dependent community where the community's benefit is proportional to the individual's benefit. I know that there is no way that a Utopian society will ever exist, but I am an idealist. Therefore, I think it is concept that can materialize. And if it proves an unmaterializing concept, than I think my thoughts would at least bring about a better society than the one we live in.

You're a "glass is half full" kind of person aren't you? Not a judgment, just an observation based on your scenario. But, as an occasional pessimist I should point out that your castaway scene presumes that two people make it to the island, don't drown from lack of ability to swim, get eaten by sharks, die from exposure, dehydration, injuries, jellyfish stings, etc, or that once on the island one doesn't get on the nerves of the other and end up bonking the other on the head with a coconut, thus killing him and subsequently feeding him to the sharks anyway.

Suppose after they're on the island one does get bitten by a deadly snake or eat something he ought not, have a heart attack, or just go insane (in which case please refer to above coconut option) . . . then there would be one. And he, no matter how talented the other guy, must survive on his own and as the saying goes, "necessity is the MOTHER of all invention." If he doesn't know how to build a shelter he will find a natural one, he will teach himself how to build one, or he will sit and sleep in the rain.

Thank God for our abilities to reason, deduce, imagine and innovate! If he doesn't know what he can eat he will eat the wrong thing and die and therefore the problem is solved, or he will watch the animals and learn what they eat and trust his instincts. He knows most fish are edible, and most fruits like coconuts, bananas, papaya, and some berries, and other tropical fruits will sustain him. Bird eggs can sometimes be found, and no doubt even if he wasn't a boy scout he could probably remember that rubbing two sticks together will create friction, add a little oxygen and something highly flammable and he'll get FIRE! He will learn the things he needs to learn to survive whether anyone is there to help him or not and that is the power of one. The sense of survival is strong in some, mediocre in others, and lacking in those who, though having the ability but not the desire to survive in a lonely existence on a tropical island will float themselves out into the ocean current face down and drift into the sunset.


I am a Christian and I believe that a "utopian" society will one day exist for those who believe because that is the promise of God to believers. A utopian place once did exist, it was called the Garden of Eden and we even managed to foul it up. Too many believe that we do not now live and work together sufficiently, or that we cannot put aside our squabbles to help one another, but just this last week here, with all the flooding, with the worldwide disasters, and particularly with Katrina still stinging I can give you evidence to the contrary.

If the two men you describe were wholly dependent on one and if one did succumb to the natural event of death, what then should the other do? Sit on his thumbs until he too passes? We are endowed with the ability and fundamental desire for self-preservation and there too with a capcity for compassion on another struggling to survive as well. We can, if we trust in the natural abilities gifted to us, survive alone, at least for a time, or together, for a longer time.

*Americanwriter now climbs off her soapbox, bows to the audience, and exits stage right.*

americanwriter:

What a lovely conversation we have going ! No, no, please stay on your soapbox

You're a "glass is half full" kind of person aren't you? Not a judgment, just an observation based on your scenario. But, as an occasional pessimist I should point out that your castaway scene presumes that two people make it to the island, don't drown from lack of ability to swim, get eaten by sharks, die from exposure, dehydration, injuries, jellyfish stings, etc, or that once on the island one doesn't get on the nerves of the other and end up bonking the other on the head with a coconut, thus killing him and subsequently feeding him to the sharks anyway.

I'm guessing you are a modernist, just an observation . I understand that in reality, as you generally said, there are many dangers one must survive in order to actually reach the shores of a deserted island and that there can be dangers on the island as well and that the two men can be threats to each other. But, my scenario involved the chance that the two men are not threats to each other and that somehow they survive the dangers of getting to shore. My scenario has to be what it is despite reality to illustrate how I think the two men would survive the dangers on the island given two methods of survival: my theory that they should work together with love and humbleness despite their differences or they can go their seperate ways, which would probably result if they couldn't work together.

Nice curveball you threw me with this:

If the two men you describe were wholly dependent on one and if one did succumb to the natural event of death, what then should the other do? Sit on his thumbs until he too passes?

No, I think the survivor should do go on surviving. You said it:

Thank God for our abilities to reason, deduce, imagine and innovate!