Understanding - a key to? What our choice is defined of
by Life often presents us with a choice. The choice can be between favorable and unprofitable, “good“ and “bad“, decent and dishonourable … The choice can be between the most different alternatives, and our decision sometimes is defined … And by what, actually, it is defined?
I will give an example from area of self-defense close to me and safety. Let`s assume such situation: you in the eyes have a disorderly conduct. Moreover, the violence in the eyes happens at you, for example, the man beats the woman. Perhaps, even seriously. How “real man“ will arrive, for example? With high probability will rush on protection weak and offended. Also it is not excluded that will save someone`s life. Or will rescue, but itself will remain the disabled person or will go to prison for “attack“ and “excess“.
Reflect: whether it is worth it? Or it is unworthy to think “real man“ of himself when injustice is created? Then think of the relatives. They, certainly, will approve similar manifestation of courage - and visiting the hero in hospital or prison, every time will be delirious with delight?
So can be, it is worth running at the slightest signs of danger, just just in case? I do not call for it, at all not because I consider similar behavior model bad. Just any scheme is good to the place, and “statements of the problem“ do not allow to judge which of two schemes in this case is optimum. Perhaps, in general some the third or even the fifth.
Or example from family life. Most often marriage means fast appearance of children (except cases when the bride is already pregnant - though here the steady scheme is checked). Why? At first sight, to that there are objective reasons. Actually and here the scheme works: the family without children is defective; and why then undersigned; in case of “unplanned“ pregnancy - seemingly for this purpose also she is married … In many cases also the fact that parents want grandsons influences and do not forget about it to remind. Generally, in most cases children appear according to the scheme accepted in society. At the same time the statistics of stains remains unfavourable, and presence of children especially does not influence intention of spouses to leave. Also there is a wish to ask: and whether it was worth breeding thoughtlessly?
And even if the family remains “for the sake of the child“ - whether always it on advantage? Including to the child? By the way, it is one more steady stamp: that in a full family the child better and already for the sake of children should keep an unsuccessful family. It is not obvious at all and depends on a situation in a concrete family. As well as whether it is worth hurrying with children, having married. Everything depends on a concrete situation: people, surrounding conditions, the concrete moment … to
K to what these, able to seem provocative examples? To the fact that stamps (ready decisions, habitual patterns of behavior) save a cogitative resource, relieving us of need to reflect over each choice. And it is, certainly, plus. But these most ready decisions cannot be calculated on each concrete situation. There was this decision in the circumstances successful - well. It did not appear - well, not on the cards.
And responsible anyway are we. Responsible for “the decision made by us“. Which on closer examination is not such ours, but just “standard“. Also it is impossible even to reproach the person that he noncritically apprehended “the public recommendation“, in most cases nobody developed in us ability to critical thinking and independent judgment of reality. And did not learn to think of stamps …, it seems, too purposefully, but life in the society consisting of the people with dependent thinking acting according to the ready schemes which are brought up in the spirit of conformism - life promotes formation of thinking “as at all“. And manifestations of independent thinking very often are inconvenient for people around because easily are contrary with “accepted“ and “socially approved“.
But, I will repeat, responsibility for our acts is conferred on us. The society “pretends“ that our decisions are based on the free choice - that in most cases does not correspond to reality.
Having returned to the first example, suppose, that you ignored a situation, dangerous to you, without having been sure of own forces. Many will condemn you for cowardice. But it is possible, you interfered - and appeared between two fires when couple which suddenly forgot own hostility united against “peacekeeper“ (by the way, absolutely real and widespread situation). Besides, the risk of public condemnation is big: there is nothing to climb in others private life, the falling out of lovers is the renewal of love. And in such situations “savior“ can be put on trial and get severe injuries. From the point of view of “the standard values“, he is a hero, here only from it it is not easier for either the hero, or his relatives (disentangling consequences).
And it can turn out and so that you will pass by, following the installations acquired once “it`s not my business“ and “do not poke the nose into other people`s affairs“. And your non-interference will be fatal, from - for your cowardice and indecision will die or will remain the cripple of people. And already other installations and stamps still acquired “besides consciousness“ will force you to suffer a remorse.
To what all this? That if responsibility for our life is all the same conferred on us - it is necessary also decisions to accept independently. A key to independence is sensibleness: ability to understanding of own motives, motives, requirements. And detailed conversation on sensibleness as to approach it that it gives and what we pay for it in - at us ahead …