“Knowledge and truth were for him identical terms. You draw closer to truth by shutting yourself off from mankind. Daily life was a superficial clatter of lies. Every passer-by was a liar. For that reason he never looked at them. Who among all these bad actors, who made up the mob, had a face to arrest his attention? They changed their faces with every moment; not for one single day did they stick to the same part. He had always known this, experience was superfluous. His ambition was to persist stubbornly in the same manner of existence. Not for a mere month, not for a year, but for the whole of his life, he would be true to himself.”
So I already posted about this book right? Well I have a different angle this time!
When you read the above excerpt, what do you think? Do you think that that person sounds courageous? Do you think that they are heroic? Or that they are obsessive, that they are stubborn and unwilling to change?
In the context of the book, that character (Peter Kien) is more a psychiatric case than a hero. But I’ve been thinking about the ideas in the above paragraph a lot of late. When re-framed as the viewpoint of a man who obviously has psychiatric problems, a man who needs to change, they really lose their lustre.
With the US Presidential Election back in the news, I remembered John Kerry being constantly attacked last time around by the right for “flip-flopping”. Their idea was that somebody who changed their mind on key issues should not be president.
It’s a pretty common indictment. The idea of being true to oneself at all costs seems to be too entrenched in us, to the point where it’s really misunderstood. What if your “self” is actually a damaging force? How can you be sure you shouldn’t change, at least some attitudes?
It seems silly to praise people for not changing, to have a societal meme that seems to suggest blindly resisting change and the times is worthy behaviour. I mean, isn’t it just as likely that somebody who does this is stubborn or just prejudiced?
It’s one thing if you are Martin Luther King, and your life is spent pursuing racial equality or something, even though he surely changed too, as we all do. But there are just as many deluded fundamentalists and fascists who “stay true to themselves” as there are freedom fighters who do so.
It strikes me that it takes even more guts for somebody to admit they were wrong about something, than to plough on after the same goals relentlessly. Similarly, the older you get, isn’t it harder to change than to stay the same?
People should change, I think. Obviously not non stop, all day everyday, but doing the right thing often means acting against instinct. I mean, does anybody wake up every day and think “I am perfect”? I doubt it. People give up bad or negative habits constantly, even if it’s something like smoking or overeating. There’s nothing wrong with this, it’s positive change.
Similarly, people should feel free to change their ideas about art or politics or life. You have 80 years or so on this rock, there are millions of perspectives and ideas to adopt, and so it’s always worth challenging the ones you already have. Forget “being true to yourself”, just take each event logically as it comes, you should be putting yourself on trial just as much as everybody else. I mean personally, the more I find perspectives that make my existing ones require more thought, the more I’m learning.
I mean, all that’s pretty lofty, I’m no philosopher and god knows I’m as stubborn sometimes as anyone. But even acknowledging that this is not something to be proud of seems a better starting point than this weird innately conservative distrust of change, or of people who change. It’s better in personal life and in politics.
I mean, come on! Shouldn’t we save the real respect for a politician or person who has the grace to say “I thought this then, but I was wrong”? And isn’t it more natural or “true to ourselves” to change our views than for them to stay the same? Think of the words we use to describe people who don’t change, almost all imply it’s a coercive process.
Similarly, doesn’t anyone who works for liberalism and tolerance risk being wrong more than somebody who promotes “values” or “the family” ad infinitum?
So sure, politicians can curry favour with the electorate by changing their stance on an issue, but it’s probably more important to decide whether you agree with their new stance than whether you are happy with the motivation for their change of mind.
As far as I can see it, the right will always benefit from this “flip-flopping” argument, because the entire problem with wanting politicians (or people) to be utterly consistent is that it’s easy to stay the same if you don’t want any change, and very difficult not to make make mistakes if you do.
