Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Raj Batra's avatar

I am a fervent believer that in the absence of wars, INDIVIDUALS bring about change in free societies.

I think you’re stating the same in another way.

The question really is when one’s actions are noble, as those of historical noncompliant reformists (Jesus, Gandhi, King, Mandela and many many more) that were revered in their own time, versus those who would be revered in later generations (Bose and Malcolm X, for example). Our history and society have labeled well intentioned actions by individuals to be meritorious versus not on the basis of their guiding convictions, but rather the means that they have accepted to promote their cause.

In that, I believe we’ve been led astray. Leaders of nations who have resorted to war to enact convictions that result in a communal or National advantage are very often the leaders we admire and respect most (take Lincoln, or Churchill, for examples).

An individual reformist whose battle for relevance towards promoting an internalized conviction, which is INTENDED for advancing humanity has value. There’s great courage in that conviction, especially if the odds against the individual are so great that they’re at risk for losing themselves in that quest.

The point is that intentions matter. Intrinsic values matter. Standing up to a system, indeed, revolting against a system that is unjust and hypocritical is an act of goodness. The means to achieve those changes are what’s arbitrary, especially when one is thrust into a state of rapid internal evolution. I wonder whether that’s why leaders with deeply-held convictions are so prone to depression (Lincoln).

Whether acts are Noble or Innoble, ultimately, is a tale of time and consequences, irrespective of their guiding origins.

Expand full comment

No posts