Contrast

I’ve been writing little pieces of this idea for a long time and have mentioned it several times in previous posts. It’s certainly not a new idea by any means and it’s been written about before by many, many people and I’ve read many of these works myself. But there’s something about trying to formulate an idea for yourself that makes everything mean so much more… So here it is. It all makes sense in my head so I hope it can be bloggified in a way that isn’t totally confusing. I just don’t feel like putting a ton of effort into this. And by that, I mean I don’t want to have to worry about trying to make it so everyone understands what I’m saying because that’s really hard to do and I don’t feel like defending my thoughts. I'm a lazy pretend philosopher when it comes to blogging.

Anyway, so contrast. Here’s what I’m thinking.

Some of the greatest stories of love and forgiveness, of achievement, or simply of being an exceptional human being, come in the light of extreme sorrow, suffering and adversity. Why then are we so opposed to adversity? Why then do we try so hard to get rid of sorrow or depression or hate? We automatically assume that these things are inherently bad. But what if they’re not? What if they are opportunity for something greater? What if they are simply part of the experience? To be acknowledged and felt and accounted for? Not to be whisked away because they're uncomfortable. What if it’s only through this contrast that we are able to feel otherwise? Hate could never exist if there was nothing to love. And I don’t believe you could ever truly love if there was never any risk of losing it, or of hating your beloved, or of suffering to the extent that you love.  They give rise to each other.

Take for example the story of Corrie Ten Boom: survivor of the holocaust after hiding Jews in her house. After experiencing the horror of multiple concentration camps, after losing hope multiple times, after losing her sister, she still persevered. If that wasn’t incredible enough, she talks about her experience with a former Nazi guard that asked her to forgive him for the things he had done to her. And she said that in her mind she couldn’t forgive him and she hated him and there was no way she could ever see him as a human being. And yet, out of her hate and out of her faith and with God, she was able to do it. How remarkable is that? Yet, if she had never experienced what she had, this could have never happened. If she had not hated, she could have never forgiven. One cannot exist without the other. Here, Corrie was given an opportunity through her hate and through her experience to rise above and feel and give one of the greatest gifts we could ever ask for.

I mean, this kind of dialectic is found everywhere… In our understanding of good and evil, of right and wrong, of true and false. These kind of dichotomies are a world view that we have adopted. And they aren’t necessarily true or a good way of classifying the world because we need the wrong to know what the right is or the evil to know what the good is… Or think of colors. You could never know what white is, if there was no black.

But here’s where the problem with this idea come for me. If we cannot have joy without suffering, should we ever try to get rid of suffering? Think of social work policy for example. I think everyone agrees that preventing child abuse is a good thing. I certainly do! But what does that mean for this idea of contrast? If suffering is an opportunity, then should we ever try to take that away from someone else? Or should we just say, “hey yeah I know you’re being abused and it sucks but this is a great opportunity for you!”…. yeah, that’s not working for me. And what does it mean for other, bigger conflicts? When people are ravaged by war, or poverty, or whatever, should we stop it? Or is that the opportunity to do good? By stopping it?

My worry is that, especially in social policy, we try too hard to reach a stasis, or place where suffering and bad things can’t happen to people and everyone has the services they need and don’t have to worry or go through really bad things. It makes logical sense that we would want to do that but I don’t believe that’s even feasible or a good thing. But, implicitly, that’s what programs are aimed at. What does stasis mean? It means there is no contrast… That there is no possibility to feel happy because there is no possibility to feel bad. Are we then taking away the opportunity to live a richer life?

This is obviously over-simplified and generalized and I’m sure I’m missing something… I’m just not sure what that something is yet or how to find it… And I'm simultaneously picking apart everything I wrote because it's not a sound argument and has plenty of holes and places to be filled in. But, on a less serious note, today I made two pieces of toast. The first one I left in the toaster too long and it burned really badly but since I hate wasting food I tried to convince myself it wouldn’t be that bad. But it WAS that bad. It was disgusting. So I had to make another piece and let me tell you... that second piece was the most delicious piece of toast I’ve ever tasted…

Welcome to my brain, internet. Haha.