"A fool with a heart and no sense is just as unhappy as a fool with sense and no heart." -Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky is a novel about a young man, Prince Myshkin, who has spent most of his life in a Swiss sanatorium.  After receiving a fortune from an inheritance, he rejoins the affluent St. Petersburg society.  The young Myshkin is a saint-like figure who is extremely kind and trusting.  This clashes with the selfish and manipulative world of St. Petersburg's high society.  His innocent nature clashes with the cruel world he has entered.  Eventually, the kind and trusting prince is scorned by others and falls victim to scandal and deceit.  In the end, Prince Myshkin cannot continue living the St. Petersburg society and returns to the Swiss sanatorium, which bears the conclusion that "in a world obsessed with money, power, and sexual conquest, a sanatorium is the only place for a saint" (Barnes & Noble Inc., 2004).

Dostoevsky wrote this book in the late 1860s but, nearly 150 years later, the question still stands; can a unwaveringly kind and trusting man survive in today's society?  I'm sure we all know people (or even consider ourselves) kind and trusting people, but is it a universal kindness?  Is it an unfaltering trust?  No doubt everyone considers kindness and trust two of the highest values of a moral person.  But how many of us can say that we apply these values to everyone that we meet?  Is it even reasonable or logical to apply these values to everyone?  Our Christian teachings say that we should and surely Jesus, the person we are supposed to model our lives after, demonstrated kindness and trust to all humans.  But Jesus lived nearly 2000 years ago and the New Testament was written shortly after.  Is it possible to live like a saint in today's society?  Prince Myshkin was labeled as "innocent" because he had spent most of his years in a sanatorium, spending most of his time with children.  He had no life experiences in the "real" world.  But lets not confuse his innocence with goodness.  Prince Myshkin demonstrated pure goodness throughout the novel, even after he had been scorned and cheated.  However, his altruistic personality led him to disaster.  Would someone in today's society, with the same qualities as Prince Myshkin, share his fate?

Its easy to be kind of someone.  I would say that, for the most part, people are kind, even to strangers.  Being friendly to people undoubtedly makes life easier for everyone.  No one wants to have an unprovoked hostile relationship with someone else.  Showing courtesy to others is an important part of just getting through the day.  Its the tough situations, when it is hard to remain kind, that define if you are a wholeheartedly kind person.  When you're having a terrible day and the youngster behind the counter butchers your fast food order, are you kind to him?  When your teammate makes a bone-head play and loses the championship for you, are you kind to her?  Or still harder, when your sworn enemy starts a devious rumor that ruins your reputation, are you kind to him?  I believe that none of us can say that we've been kind to everyone we've ever met.  I'm sure all of us can say that at one time or another we've wanted to be like Poe's Fortunato and wall someone up for wronging us.  But this goes against our teachings.  The phrases "Turn the other cheek," and "Love thy enemy," have been preached to us since childhood.  But this seems unrealistic in today's society.  I'm not saying there are no kind people out there because there are many.  But to demonstrate a universal and pure kindness toward everyone is a monumental task.  You might say that if you are kind to everyone, why would anyone want to slight you?  Let's face it, we don't live in a perfect world.  Even if you have saint-like kindness, someone is going to disrespect you and when that happens how will you react?  If you continually show kindness to someone who continually disrespects you, others will see you not as a saint, but as naive and ignorant.  "Kill them with kindness" sounds good in theory but when you see it practiced you have to wonder whether or not the kind person even realizes he is being disrespected.  Even the phrase "Kill them with kindness" has negative and unkind connotations.  You're still trying to "kill" someone (and yes I know it doesn't literally mean kill but the intentions are still antagonistic).  I'm sure there is a happy medium where you can be kind to most people and maybe ignore those who have wronged you.  But we are taught to show forgiveness and be kind to all.  This is the gap between ideal and realistic.  Being universally kind may not lead to disaster, as it did for Prince Myshkin, but it may get you labeled a fool by others.  Still, I believe its best to be labeled a fool, than be labeled as evil.

Trust is a much more complex and difficult subject.  Trust comes easier for some than others.  This usually comes from past experiences.  If one's trust has been broken often than that person is less likely to trust others.  Trust can be easily earned but it can also be easily lost.  Many factors can contribute to one losing trust in another. Quantity: many small breaches in trust can result in that trust being lost.  Quality: one large breach can have the same result.  Strength of relationship: the better you know someone, the better judgement you have on whether or not to trust him.  But is it possible to retain unwavering trust in everyone?  Would that even be safe?  Prince Myshkin put complete trust in everyone and that trust burned him on more than one occasion.  Should we all be so naive? Or is it better to be that naive?  Ideally, we would be able to trust everyone and expect them not to break that trust but sometimes it seems we're living in some spy movie where the mantra is Trust No One.  There are many different levels of trust so I'll just focus on one.  I have been blessed with a wonderful family so I do not have any problems in trust with so lets focus on an equally intimate trust: the trust in a significant other.  It takes a lot of trust to maintain a romantic relationship.  You trust that person to be open, honest, and faithful, and the breaking of that trust can cause immense pain and sadness.  As I have stated, its easy to trust when you have never been burned but what happens after someone you love betrays that trust.  For some that means the end of the relationship, no exceptions.  For others, they may remain with that person but are not able to fully trust him anymore.  And yet, for others, they will continue to blindly trust that person no matter what.  The latter was Prince Myshkin.  He continued to trust in the one he loved (although he was caught between two loves) even after she had slighted him.  However, this ultimately led him to ruin.  We are taught to forgive those who have wronged us but it doesn't necessarily mean we should trust them.  The simple answer to this is to trust someone until they prove they cannot be trusted.  But where is that line drawn?  What if you love someone unconditionally?  How many times should you forgive someone?  To continually forgive someone of breaking trust has the same affect as being continually kind to someone who has disrespected you.  Other will believe that you are a fool.  Should you endure the pain that infidelity and deceit causes just because you love someone?  For your own health, you probably shouldn't.  It would be easier to forget about that person and go on with your life.  But, as most things in life, that's easier said than done.  Truth is, there is no line to be drawn.  There may be a happy medium but it is undefinable and varies with each situation.  One would be unhappy to live a life where you unconditionally trust everyone and continuously get burned.  But one would be equally unhappy trusting no one and living a life of isolation. 

"A fool with a heart and no sense is just as unhappy as a fool with sense and no heart."  I believe it would be impractical to live as Prince Myshkin did.  Myshkin was an ideal human being but is anything ideal this day and age?  It may be a cynical point of view but it is, I believe, a realistic one.  It may be possible to go through life being kind to everyone.  I will admit that.  Whether or not people view you as a fool and take advantage of you is a fault of theirs, not yours.  But trusting in everyone, unconditionally, would ultimately be disastrous.  You may be able to forgive, but you should be careful who you trust.  Trusting the wrong person could send you straight to the sanatorium.  There is a way live an honest, moral life without being naive.  The trick is finding that undefinable happy medium.  But finding that medium may take time, experience, and patience.  I can only hope that someday I find that line.

"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility." -Eleanor Roosevelt

I'm sure everyone has heard the phrase, "Everything happens for a reason."  In most cases, the thing that happened was bad and the ultimate reason it happened is, in the end, good.  The phrase usually refers to some divine interaction that causes one thing so that something else can become of it.  But look at the phrase from a cause-and-effect point of view.  It is very true that everything does happen for a reason and that reason is a cause.  Everything has a cause and without some action there can be no reaction.  Even without some divine intervention, things would still happen and life would still move forward.  Whenever I hear that phrase I don't think that God has intervened in someone's life for a purpose.  Instead, I think what events took place, or what was the cause of the thing that "happened".  And, most often, the cause is a simple choice that a human being made. 

Say you were out one night getting take out from your favorite Chinese food restaurant and a drunk driver, who was on a binge after his wife had just left him, ran a red light and hit your car.  You were badly injured and had to spend weeks in a hospital.  It would seem to be a tragedy and you would be furious that this seemingly avoidable incident took place.  But while you were in the hospital you became acquainted with a very beautiful nurse and a year later you ended up marrying this nurse.  At your wedding day, you might be explaining how you met and someone might say, "See! Everything happens for a reason!"  But does this mean that the whole occurrence was a part of a divine plan?  Was the accident supposed to happen so that you would meet the girl you were to marry?  Its possible, I won't deny that.  However, if you look at it in another light, it was simply a series of many choices that led the parties involved to that outcome.  What if, on the night of the accident, you decided to just stay in and make a sandwich? What if the drunk driver decided he was too intoxicated to drive and call a cab?  Going back further, what if the drunk driver treated his wife better so that she didn't leave him?  What if your future wife decided to choose business as her college major instead of nursing? 

I understand that in life there is infinite "what ifs" but all of those amount to infinite human choices.  Again, I am not saying it is not possible that this is all a part of God's plan and that there is a divine web in which all humans are connected.  My only problem with that scenario is that, as it is widely believed, humans have the power of free will.  This means that we have the power of choice.  So all of the choices that led to you getting hit by that drunk driver were ultimately made by human beings. If that were not the case than free will would amount to nothing.  It is the power of choice that ultimately interests me.  Our lives' are just a long string of choices and these choices are the cause of everything.  Any action can be traced back to a choice that was made by a human being.  Tacos or burgers?  A sedan or minivan?  Monogamous or infidelity?  Provoke or pacify?  Everything can be traced back to one choice or a string of choices.  There is a number of reasons why we choose one thing over another.  Psychologists have proposed many theories and the battle over nature vs. nurture is still raging on today.  No one can dispute the affect that environmental influences have on people but no one can deny inherited dispositions either.  Is it just someone's personality that drives the choices they make or are outside forces so strong that they can influence most decisions made throughout the day?  Odds are that both factors play a vital role in human decision making throughout the day but that doesn't satisfy my need to know why.  I'm sure if you broke down every single decision made in a day you would be able to pinpoint the reason for most decisions.  But there are still some actions, some choices that humans make, that leave you scratching your head.  These are the decisions that perplex me the most.  I am aware that this seems like a stupid thing to ponder over and that it may very well be an unanswerable question but, as I said before, every decision has a consequence.  Every action a reaction.  Everything that happens has a cause. 

As expressed in the quote by Eleanor Roosevelt, these words are not my philosophy.  This post is not an atheist one and it is not anti-religion.  In fact, there is no real point to this post.  I suppose I just want to express the importance of the choices that we all make.  These choices drive not only your own life, but the lives of everyone.  Life is a series of choices strung together.  No matter how insignificant these choices may seem they do still have a consequence.  Any choice could impact an infinite number of lives.  And, as Eleanor Roosevelt puts it, "the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility".

F1RST!

"Not much of what he said was original.  What made him unique was the fact that he had no sense of detachment at all.  He was like a fanatical football fan who runs onto the field and tackles a player.  He saw life as the Big Game, and the whole of mankind was divided into two teams-[Bob's] Boys and The Others.  The stakes were fantastic and every play was vital- and although he watched with obsessive interest, he was very much a fan, shouting unheard advice in a crowd of unheard advisers and knowing all the while that nobody was paying any attention to him because he was not running the team and never would be.  And like all fans he was frustrated by the knowledge that the best he could do, even in a pinch, would be to run onto the field and cause some kind of illegal trouble, then be hauled off by guards while the crowds laughed." -Hunter S. Thompson.

I don't really know why I started this blog.  I know that my thoughts and ideas are not origininal nor are they very interesting.  But sometimes I feel that if don't have an outlet for these absurd thoughts that run through my head I'm going to end up on a soapbox with a bullhorn like some reality deprived religious fanatic.  This is more of a therapeutic tool for me than anything else.  I can't really talk to my friends about the things I post on here because they will surely believe that I've lost my mind.  If my family does read this than I think that they will demand I change my name and move to Siberia.  I'm really not sure if anyone will read this at all and I feel a bit selfish to expect anyone to.  I'm sure all of you listen to people rant and carry on about things that you have absolutely no interest in every day. So why would you want to spend your precious free time reading a blog by some ordinary bloke?  I honestly don't know.  If you enjoy the things I have to say, excellent. If you don't, bummer.  This blog will cover many, seemingly random, topics so don't expect any rhyme or reason in my posts.  But I'm going to keep this introduction to my blog short. I still don't really know how this whole blogging thing works soooo... Until next time.