IT’S good to be consistent, but we
need also to be aware
of its limits and dangers. This significant ingredient of great
virtues like fidelity, loyalty, perseverance has to be understood
well, and regarded as something alive and dynamic, not dead and
frozen.
The other day, my sister texted me an amusing anecdote of
our one-year-old grandnephew who is staying with her. The active
little boy likes to go around the house barefooted. And my sister
thought it was time he learns to wear slippers. The kid was not quite
happy with this development, judging from his face, but obviously he
followed what was told him.
Then one day, my sister invited the boy to pray with her
in front of the image of the Holy Family—her way of teaching the boy
how to pray as early as possible. That was when the tyke, after
looking closely at the image, told my sister in his childish mutter
that the baby Jesus has no slippers, as if saying that there is some
inconsistency here. My sister then was at a loss as to what to say.
She, in jest, asked me what to do in this situation. So I
also jokingly told her that she better dig up her notes in Logic and
answer the boy properly. It would be good, I told her with mock
severity, that at his tender age of one, he starts to use his little
coconut correctly, and be familiar with the different fallacies that
we all can fall into.
But seriously now, I think that this kind of anecdote is
also played out in today’s adult world often, except that this time,
the implications are disturbing and worrying. Many people nowadays
understand consistency as being rigid and monolithic in ways and
expressions, rather than being faithful to the spirit.
We usually brand this kind of people as “conservative” as
opposed to the “liberals,” “rightist” as opposed to the “leftists,”
“strict” as opposed to the “lax.” These labels, of course, have a
point to say, but should not be taken too seriously since they often
miss the crux of whatever issue is discussed.
Just the same, this kind of people tends to fail to
distinguish between what is essential and what is incidental, or
between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. They are at a
loss as to what should remain permanent, never changing, and what can
and should change. And even in those elements that should not change,
they fail to realize that these have to be in a dynamic state, not
inert.
What seems to be most important to them is that they are
convinced they possess what they consider to be the truth, but holding
it in an exclusive manner, not inclusive. Everyone else has to agree
with them, or else they would be regarded to be in error. Obviously,
there will be people who are right or wrong in a given issue, but this
difference is not reason for one to be uncharitable.
Anyway, what usually happens with people who give
primordial place to consistency without bothering to ground their
consistency properly, i.e., with God who is full of charity,
understanding, and mercy, end up living in their own world, stuck in a
certain age and culture, unable to flow with the times.
They lack the power of open-mindedness, adaptability,
creativity and versatility. They fail to consider the different
circumstances and conditions accompanying the same event. Their speech
and behavior are often repetitive and predictable, with traces of
obsession and bitterness.
If they want to be funny, if only for a change, the humor
is often laced with sarcasm and irony. If they want to appear nice,
they can just put on an appearance of civility and all kinds of
formalism.
We have to learn to distinguish between good consistency
and bad consistency. The former is more a matter of intention,
motivation, zeal and drive, all springing from one’s love for God and
others, It can avail of a great variety of concrete expressions and
manifestations, depending on the circumstances.
The latter is stuck more in a particular mode of action,
quite restrictive and exclusive in its expressions and manifestations.
Its intention and motivation would depend largely on one’s own idea,
and not God’s, of what is good and evil, what is right and wrong. It
highly subjective, rather than objective.
It’s in this bad kind of consistency that many
non-sequiturs can arise. The conclusions and consequences it makes are
often derived from false premises, or from relative and inadequate
premises that are considered absolute and universal in scope.
of its limits and dangers. This significant ingredient of great
virtues like fidelity, loyalty, perseverance has to be understood
well, and regarded as something alive and dynamic, not dead and
frozen.
The other day, my sister texted me an amusing anecdote of
our one-year-old grandnephew who is staying with her. The active
little boy likes to go around the house barefooted. And my sister
thought it was time he learns to wear slippers. The kid was not quite
happy with this development, judging from his face, but obviously he
followed what was told him.
Then one day, my sister invited the boy to pray with her
in front of the image of the Holy Family—her way of teaching the boy
how to pray as early as possible. That was when the tyke, after
looking closely at the image, told my sister in his childish mutter
that the baby Jesus has no slippers, as if saying that there is some
inconsistency here. My sister then was at a loss as to what to say.
She, in jest, asked me what to do in this situation. So I
also jokingly told her that she better dig up her notes in Logic and
answer the boy properly. It would be good, I told her with mock
severity, that at his tender age of one, he starts to use his little
coconut correctly, and be familiar with the different fallacies that
we all can fall into.
But seriously now, I think that this kind of anecdote is
also played out in today’s adult world often, except that this time,
the implications are disturbing and worrying. Many people nowadays
understand consistency as being rigid and monolithic in ways and
expressions, rather than being faithful to the spirit.
We usually brand this kind of people as “conservative” as
opposed to the “liberals,” “rightist” as opposed to the “leftists,”
“strict” as opposed to the “lax.” These labels, of course, have a
point to say, but should not be taken too seriously since they often
miss the crux of whatever issue is discussed.
Just the same, this kind of people tends to fail to
distinguish between what is essential and what is incidental, or
between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. They are at a
loss as to what should remain permanent, never changing, and what can
and should change. And even in those elements that should not change,
they fail to realize that these have to be in a dynamic state, not
inert.
What seems to be most important to them is that they are
convinced they possess what they consider to be the truth, but holding
it in an exclusive manner, not inclusive. Everyone else has to agree
with them, or else they would be regarded to be in error. Obviously,
there will be people who are right or wrong in a given issue, but this
difference is not reason for one to be uncharitable.
Anyway, what usually happens with people who give
primordial place to consistency without bothering to ground their
consistency properly, i.e., with God who is full of charity,
understanding, and mercy, end up living in their own world, stuck in a
certain age and culture, unable to flow with the times.
They lack the power of open-mindedness, adaptability,
creativity and versatility. They fail to consider the different
circumstances and conditions accompanying the same event. Their speech
and behavior are often repetitive and predictable, with traces of
obsession and bitterness.
If they want to be funny, if only for a change, the humor
is often laced with sarcasm and irony. If they want to appear nice,
they can just put on an appearance of civility and all kinds of
formalism.
We have to learn to distinguish between good consistency
and bad consistency. The former is more a matter of intention,
motivation, zeal and drive, all springing from one’s love for God and
others, It can avail of a great variety of concrete expressions and
manifestations, depending on the circumstances.
The latter is stuck more in a particular mode of action,
quite restrictive and exclusive in its expressions and manifestations.
Its intention and motivation would depend largely on one’s own idea,
and not God’s, of what is good and evil, what is right and wrong. It
highly subjective, rather than objective.
It’s in this bad kind of consistency that many
non-sequiturs can arise. The conclusions and consequences it makes are
often derived from false premises, or from relative and inadequate
premises that are considered absolute and universal in scope.
No comments:
Post a Comment