i can't say why this is important to me at 3am but it is. here is an excerpt from a site analyzing crimes and misdemeanors (the 1989 woody allen movie).
As he struggles with what he has done, Judah begins a dialogue with his childhood image of his father. He goes back to the house in which he grew up and imagines himself intruding upon a family seder in which his father is debating morality with other family members. One “Leninist” atheistic aunt articulates the pragmatic realism that the film appears to teach: “Might makes right.” She says that six million Jews were killed and they got away with it.
Judah enters the debate asking: And if a man commits a crime, if he kills?
His father says that he will be punished, and that even if he is not caught, “That which originates in a black deed will blossom in a foul manner.” Aunt Mae provides the model that the film will follow: “And I say if he can do it and get away with it, and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he’s home free. Remember, history is written by the winners, and if the Nazis had won, future generations would have understood the story of World War II quite differently.”
ok, so i've been reading about crimes and misdemeanors. have i seen it yet? no. has it been on my netflix queue? yes. i get the gist of what happened. but i read that there is a scene at the dinner table where they discuss right and wrong, and so on. anyway, i read that one family member had discussed faith and religion, and that he would pick religious faith over the truth. another family member said that regardless even if you don't believe in heaven and hell, that you should live a good honest life because it makes life fuller. the aunt said that might makes right. basically, you won't feel repercussions for your actions if you don't WANT to.
so, what options are those?
1. the one who picks religion over truth, even if religion is wrong
2. the one who does good for the purpose of being good, no faith required
3. the one who chooses not to feel bad, and is able to do bad freely because of it (may or may not be religious)
i honestly don't know why i'm up this late commenting on this. maybe i should have registered for a humanities class for the spring. BUT. i would like to put it out there i that i would never be in category 1. i am definitely category 2 here. what does this mean? that i try to live as good and honest a life as possible. i'm not looking to usurp anyone and think that that's ok to do without repercussion (like some people i've recently dealt with). i may have done some bad in the past, but it didn't go without guilt or facing some sort of consequence/punishment. and that, i had to welcome with open arms. when you can't/don't have a conscience about something, that's when you've crossed the border into the category i like to call "bad" or "people i wouldn't want to be associated with" or "where the fuck is your integrity at?"
it's probably because i caught a glimpse of amber's study guide for her test in humanities today, and there was a quote on it that she had to know and it was: "god is a luxury i can't afford". i suppose it hasn't really left me today, which is why i am writing about it now.
while i'm on a roll (or not), let's talk about friendship. i keep losing these quotes from the movie i want to use. anyway, here's what i think (at least for today) about friendship: people.. are like puzzles. let's say a jigsaw puzzle. maybe like one of those 100 piece, easy to solve puzzles. ok, i strongly believe that one can't be close friends with a huge amount of people. i've never seen it work like that. i've seen people with many acquaintances, and few close friends. ok, so each person is a jigsaw puzzle. a friend of this person would be in charge of a certain number of pieces, or at least one. so once the pieces have been distributed, there aren't many or any more to give out. (this is where one person has acquired a satisfying amount of close friends) you say you can never have too many? let me say from my personal experience, when i feel like my heart is full, i don't feel like i need to branch out and try to establish a stranger to my life to fill the void of a close friend. that may just be me though. when one of your friends, close or just a friend, does something that causes them to lose their piece(s) of the puzzle, you have room for someone new. i guess that may be rooted in how worthy you feel someone is in holding those pieces. [i'm really wishing i had that quote from the movie because it's directly related to that]. basically, YOU determine who is or isn't worthy of holding the pieces to your jigsaw puzzle, so when someone does something to lose them, they are up for grabs, for someone new to step into your life. BUT. as more time passes, it's harder to keep taking pieces back and giving them to others. kind of like how it's hard to open up for the chance of being hurt when you're older.
some people even go as far as just choosing to not let people in. it saves them from hurt or the chance of it, right? but can one say that is really living? technically, yes. but i guess i just think people should pick and choose when to take these chances. not just give up.
this may or may not make much sense, but as long as you get the point i'm trying to make (whether all statements are valid or not) then i am ok with that. i need to sleep, fo real.
best post yet
ReplyDelete