I am not sure if this is true for everybody. But I realized that as we transcend from the stage of innocence to that of maturity, there is that phase in between that we become cynical. Probably as we get to experience life and the real world, we get to see the contradictions behind our values and we begin to question the integrity of our convictions. It can even make you feel betrayed and connived on by your mentors in leading you to believe certain things about life, which you may find dubious, if not true. For example, these ironies between good and evil.
1. Why is it much harder to be good, moral and upright than to be evil, immoral and ruthless? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? What’s worse is, these bad people get to do it the easier way out and yet get to reap the rewards. And put it in a Swiss Bank. And get interest. In dollars (or in euros). For the long-term. Cost-averaged!
2. We often tell, or convince ourselves and others, that goodness will always be rewarded if not on earth, in heaven. Why can’t heaven be on earth but hell can? Why can’t our righteousness be compensated while we are still alive? So that we will be motivated to do more even good deeds. And end up in the heavens for certain (not to mention live life in merit)? And not kidnapped, vanished or eliminated.
3. Is it just me, or is it just in the movies, or is it but reality that evil always win over good initially (and for a much longer time). The latter prevailing eventually in the end after one or more (if not all) of the protagonist dies, or after 2 or 3 despicable generations, not to mention after 2 hours in a 2-hour movie. And then (in real life) when the time of retribution comes, they’ll wound up having so much money to pay a good liar or buy justice, or clemency or a dialysis machine (not to mention an organ) sparing them of punishment partially (if not totally). Which is still great, of course – I mean, that good would end up winning (and hypocrisy aside, the ability to procure everything literally). But why can’t uprightness triumph over wicknedness even from the start? So that again, man can be inspired to uphold what is right from the beginning.
4. Finally, again, is it just an adage, my observation or an actuality that really, (tsk,tsk)- “matagal mamatay ang masamang damo”. After some massive stroke (ex-senator), a bad knee (ex-pres), or a deceased set of kidneys (current doj sec), they still manage to recover (OMG!). Others in fact, have remained quite well for ages (ex-comelec) while their divine counterparts are dying relatively younger (edsa figure, ex-presidentiable, national hero). Probably because the former just happens to have healthy genes. This being maybe just a coincidence. Or perhaps being righteous really is much more stressful than being crooked. You tell me.
But as we mature, we begin to reconcile the paradox, come up with acceptable answers and realize that our gurus were right (well, at least most of the time).
But as for me, the above incongruities, I have not completely resolved.
Probably because sarcasm denies reason. Or maybe it sees beyond what is believed as reasonable.
If you can help enlighten me, please do so. I don’t want to be in the dark. At least, not for long. He, he.
1. Why is it much harder to be good, moral and upright than to be evil, immoral and ruthless? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? What’s worse is, these bad people get to do it the easier way out and yet get to reap the rewards. And put it in a Swiss Bank. And get interest. In dollars (or in euros). For the long-term. Cost-averaged!
2. We often tell, or convince ourselves and others, that goodness will always be rewarded if not on earth, in heaven. Why can’t heaven be on earth but hell can? Why can’t our righteousness be compensated while we are still alive? So that we will be motivated to do more even good deeds. And end up in the heavens for certain (not to mention live life in merit)? And not kidnapped, vanished or eliminated.
3. Is it just me, or is it just in the movies, or is it but reality that evil always win over good initially (and for a much longer time). The latter prevailing eventually in the end after one or more (if not all) of the protagonist dies, or after 2 or 3 despicable generations, not to mention after 2 hours in a 2-hour movie. And then (in real life) when the time of retribution comes, they’ll wound up having so much money to pay a good liar or buy justice, or clemency or a dialysis machine (not to mention an organ) sparing them of punishment partially (if not totally). Which is still great, of course – I mean, that good would end up winning (and hypocrisy aside, the ability to procure everything literally). But why can’t uprightness triumph over wicknedness even from the start? So that again, man can be inspired to uphold what is right from the beginning.
4. Finally, again, is it just an adage, my observation or an actuality that really, (tsk,tsk)- “matagal mamatay ang masamang damo”. After some massive stroke (ex-senator), a bad knee (ex-pres), or a deceased set of kidneys (current doj sec), they still manage to recover (OMG!). Others in fact, have remained quite well for ages (ex-comelec) while their divine counterparts are dying relatively younger (edsa figure, ex-presidentiable, national hero). Probably because the former just happens to have healthy genes. This being maybe just a coincidence. Or perhaps being righteous really is much more stressful than being crooked. You tell me.
But as we mature, we begin to reconcile the paradox, come up with acceptable answers and realize that our gurus were right (well, at least most of the time).
But as for me, the above incongruities, I have not completely resolved.
Probably because sarcasm denies reason. Or maybe it sees beyond what is believed as reasonable.
If you can help enlighten me, please do so. I don’t want to be in the dark. At least, not for long. He, he.
No comments:
Post a Comment