Through life’s journey, we have the opportunity to meet many interesting people. One is appalled by how some go about trying to defend their defenseless acts. Some people spend their time just denying what was witnessed, while others try to deflect the vision from their corner of their world to others. The most amazing is the one who attacks because they disagree, and instead of using respectful dialogue, they use defamation, and outlandish demands that are not only fool hearted, but also beyond reason. What should one think of an individual who would stoop to such depths as those who have developed this practice? How should society as a whole feel about this exercise in harassment, and what should society do to such perpetrators?
“The function of education is teaching us to think intensively and critically. But education that stops at that point may prove a great menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason but deprived of morality.” — Martin Luther King. This saying comes to mind as I think about members of the professorship field. One can be well educated, while losing all morality, or sense of fair play. To this date, one such professor has stood out in this area, and has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he can no longer be a substantive asset to students, or his profession.
“The price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that someday they might force their beliefs on us.” — Mario Cuomo. Mario Cuomo stated exactly the words one should find not only significant, but also true in nature, and substance. As one ventures to pass on a wealth of knowledge, it is easy to fall into a trap of forcing one’s beliefs and prejudices on the heads of so many others.
Ducharme’s Axiom “If you view your problem closely enough you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.” This axiom is a truism that many should not take lightly as they look around, and find fault with those who are not of the same mindset as themselves. The true problem is the inability to recognize a substantive ability of others to have a cognitive and intellectual ideal, which may be contrary to one’s own beliefs.
While I have offered great wisdom by historical figures, one can be self assured that the ideal of a mirror being the true reflection of one’s inner core is as appropriate as any stated within the lines of this writing. I find it a fallacy for some to use the excuse of freedom of speech to go against all accepted morals and ethics, and attack substantially the character of one that would not subscribe to another’s ideals. On which plain of life have we as a society decided to plant our vegetation for future generations? Shall our great advancement in the historical anthems of life be that of destroying one’s own individuality? Will our great admission to history be that of the destruction of one’s ability to voice concern and difference?
While agreement is sweet to one’s ears, complete difference is the foundation of growth, and true understanding. One does not need to be a student of doctorates to understand the significance of the passion one has within their being towards life’s endeavors. The analogs of this generation depends on the ability of the students of philosophical differences to accept, and embrace difference, and to act upon the individuality of people within the confines of society, and not that of one’s power over a part of today’s society.
Whether the ideal is political, religious, or analytical, the ability to bend, and learn are the foundation blocks for greatness. Without a solid foundation, society weeps to a burdensome ending, with an outcome less than favorable for all.
