Paradise Lost brings up this debate. Some would rather rule over chaos than serve under order, and others the opposite. And for a while I wondered which I preferred. Then I thought of a scenario that puts this into perspective.
When I used to compete in lifting meets, I definitely preferred others to be weaker than me. I'd rather be 1st place with a low combined weight total than 6th place with a much higher total. Didn't matter if I squatted 315 pounds in the 181 pound weight class, as long as no one else exceeded me. Squatting 700 pounds and being 3rd place just wasn't as good of a prize in my eyes.
And I thought the same initially with regards to intellect. If I was the smartest in the room, it didn't matter if everyone else WAY below me or just slightly below me. As long as I was at the top and recognized as the best.
But years later my perspective has changed a bit. I realized if I was the smartest person ever on earth, the quality of our daily appliances we take for granted would probably be dramatically lower. Is it worth a lower quality of life for everyone else just to satisfy my own ego? Can I handle having a lower ranking on the totem pole of recognition if it means a better life for everybody in general?
And it made me realize that it probably is better for me to accept a lower status of governance than to possess total authority over things of inferior quality. Letting go of a little bit of control can make things go a long way. And ruling over a bunch of idiots doesn't sound like such a good prize anymore. Better for us to try to build up those underneath us and accept the benefits of them overtaking us.
But of course, if those underneath don't want to build themselves up, they are probably better off learning to accept their place.
No comments:
Post a Comment