Pieces
A person is made up of many different pieces to themselves, pieces of identity.This means that everyone can see each other in a different way.
A can see me in a totally different way than B does, and so can C.
So then, who can we truly determine who we are?
That is up to us, regardless of what others think.
But then, why does what we think matter, if it is only subjective?
Because it compromises our internal integrity of being.
But, do not confuse this with thinking that you are always right, because time has proved time and time again that humans are filled with fault.
Thus, an essential part of who were comes from that balance we seek between our internal integrity and our outside identity.
Who we are is a balance between who we THINK we are and who we ACTUALLY are to others.
And ultimately, the deciding factor is who we OBJECTIVELY are, in the eyes of God.
When all of those pieces of identity are put together, a person comes alive.
Be generous&kind.
Be sensible.
Be perceptive.
Be aware.
Be strong-willed.
Be yourself.
2 love letters:
"Who we are is a balance between who we THINK we are and who we ACTUALLY are to others."
i see it differently. Who we ARE, period, is just who we are. who we THINK we are and how we are VIEWED by others has NO part in defining "who we are." It's because Who we are is an objective truth, and only God is able to fully understand who we are (having no human input).
that is the realm of objectivity.
"who we THINK we are and who we ACTUALLY are to others."
this is a separate concept, in my opinion, from "who we are"
simply because it puts the variable of "human" into equation (and thus flaws) unlike the concept of "who we are," which is absolutely absolute.
in my honest opinion, who we THINK we are has more merit & credibility than how we are VIEWED by others (though both subjective) simply because we have a more objective lens, though still in realm of subjectivity, in evaluating ourselves than others because we have a much broader picture. When others view us, all they have are snapshots and slices of the whole story, not to mention their subjective vision in evaluating those limited slices of the full story.
i'll give you an example.
let's say i refer to camille as "camel shit"
and people, say william and jonathan (for the sake of convenience) in their highly subjective angle, view me as a complete "dick."
and let's say i view myself not as a dick but as a friend close enough to refer to my friend as "camel shit" and not leave a single hint of offense.
in this case, i would assume "who i think i am" to be a much more
credible and accurate stance than those of the bystanders.
the people who see my as "a dick" had only seen the smallest slice of my relationship (or friendship in a more personal scope) and thus has no sound base, if at all, for their subjective evaluation.
in conclusion,
im disagreeing to you because i believe
the concept of "who we are" is exists only in God's realm (the realm of absolute objectivity)
while the concepts of "who we THINK we are and how others SEE us" should be separate since they involve human input and thus are fallible. and in that realm of imperfection, i credit who we THINK we are to have more merit than others' view because the latter involve limited base of evaluation ON TOP OF subjectivity.
Post a Comment
comments •~•