It is hard to judge others from our own perspectives and experiences in life. Accuracy on the essence of others is often elusive. Biographies about others are often very biased. For example, so many books have been written about Lincoln (more than any one else in history outside of Jesus) that it would be impossible to accurately depict the real Lincoln. Thus, we do with Lincoln what we do with Jesus---we pick and choose what to believe. For many years I shied away from autobiographies---after all, how biased are they? But now I realize, to understand why someone does or did what they do or did, we have to understand their own perceptions at the time. We like to tag way too much as evil vs good. In reality, evolutionary advancement is controlled by laws which involve diversity and chance. Evolution has advanced because better triumphs over inadequacy, and thus there is advancement. It is not good triumphing over evil or vice-versa. In a world in which there are billions of genetic changes occurring, most ever so slight, we cannot judge others by the only thing that matters---a genetic change for the better. In reality there are so many factors that enter into the picture as to what exactly better would be, that such a correct judgement would be unattainable. Precisely what we are not viewing is any kind of contest between good and evil. Diversity is the engine which drives God's evolutionary process, not a contest between some Devil and God.
Right and wrong are terms associated with ethics, and ethics is an aspect of life found only in more advanced species, primarily in humans, and then a process not yet perfected. The changes in evolution are both physical and mental. We often pay too little attention to the mental aspects of evolution. For me, I define God as the Creator of the laws which govern the evolutionary process.
We all have people we admire a lot in life---I reckon for different reasons, but these are the people we take the most time to understand. It took me a long time to see the difference between what I personally like and dislike vs right and wrong. There are some people who I do not like but there is nothing wrong or unethical about them. They are just not my cup of tea. More to the point, with age I have learned to appreciate diversity for the important role it plays in life. And, no matter how much I might wish otherwise, individuals are not the center of this evolutionary process. We each only live a minuscule period of time because individuals are not needed by the process for a longer time. What we all have is a chance to live, by chance, in an environment, by chance, with a genetic make-up, by chance. None of us earned the cards in our hands at birth. Some play their cards better than others. Some get more luck than others. And none of us will never get out of this world alive. If we understand the process of evolution there is no reason to be depressed. We got a chance, which is more than millions of other eggs and sperm ever got. We only have a beef if we think we are more important than the process, and create, or inherit, for ourselves, a 'God' who will save us from His own laws that govern the evolutionary process. To create, or inherit, such an illusion will generate frustrations and discontentment as we try to secure the blessings and protections of this invented 'God'.
It takes a lot of effort and thought to really understand someone else. To me, to understand them is sufficient to bring some contentment---I don't have to be personally attuned to their behaviors or opinions. In my case, the first efforts to really understand someone else came with pets, not humans. Pets can't talk so we are forced to observe and then figure out what makes them behave as they do. Pets have a wide diversity of personalities but we tend to like them despite the variety. Why? Because it is hard to dislike anyone who likes us no matter what our personality or faults or limitations. It is hard to dislike anyone who genuinely likes us. Therein lies the best peace plan among diverse human populations and cultures. We could have appreciated the diversity of Vietnamese culture, but we instead demanded they must have a particular form of government and went to war. What good ever comes from telling others you don't like them because of their religion, mode of dress, personality, politics, and the list goes on. The only genuine reason not to like others is because they treat selected others unfairly.
Except for my first hero (Duke Snider), my 'heroes' or 'special' people in life outside my own family and circle of friends and associates, have always been people whose unique life intrigued me, often because they were self-made and it is rare to find self made people. For most of us, people build people, and were it not for these other people, we would not have gone as far in life. It was always a challenge for me to understand what made self-made people tick---what in their background contributed to their uniqueness. My favorite, as with a lot of people, is Abraham Lincoln. I think he comes the closest to really understanding human nature. Of course he had little formal schooling. But he pondered everything he saw around him, relating, as best he could, cause and effect in human behavior. With careful reading about a famous person, and a determined effort, we can begin to understand their lives and feel the motives which drove their actions. In the process we ourselves become a better educated, more tolerant, more contented person---precisely because we start living our lives aligned with the evolutionary process rather than having invented some sort of imaginary process in our own minds, often one in which we become a soldier of God's army in a battle against the Devil (the heathens). This battle hardly becomes the road to contentment. Some sort of Bible in one hand, a sword in the other, with visions of heathens here, there, and everywhere, is not exactly a portrait of contentment.
My favorites, in no order outside of Lincoln are:
Harriet Tubman
Louvin Brothers
Jane Goodall
Sojourner Truth
Thomas Jefferson,
Terrell Owens
Victoria Woodhull
Tecumseh
Gandhi
Buddha
Jesus
Andrew Carnegie
Teddy Roosevelt
Barry Goldwater
James Baldwin
Jane Adams
Barack Obama
Eleanor Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Mario Como
Martin Luther King
Dalai Lama
John Stuart Mill
Henry Longfellow
John Muir
Henry David Thoreau
Walt Whitman
William Wordsworth
Allen Iverson
As I look at the list, one in which I am sure I have left out some names, in most cases these people are fairly current and wrestled with broader questions of life and did not miss the forest for the sake of the trees. Studying them is certainly good theatre. The Louvin Brothers and Allen Iverson don't fit in here, but the rest have a common attribute: they took the Golden Rule seriously. They seemed to understand that contentment in life emanates from the ethical duty to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Of course this path to contentment in life is open to all, not just those listed above. What stands out with most of the above is the degree of importance they were to the culture in which they were raised. Ethics may have started from scratch in the evolutionary process but it doesn't start from scratch for us. Others have left insights about the path for ethical behavior, a map with which we can use to follow. Just as over time humans have become physically taller, faster, stronger, so have we, in general, become more ethical cultures. For the most part we are not burning people at the stake or disemboweling them, etc. Of course there are exceptions, just as not all humans are taller, stronger, faster than in the past. Diversity produces trends and trends reset the average while the least advantageous traits fade away. But it need be remembered that ethics involves a reward for doing right rather than wrong. Contentment in life is the reward. Of course the degree of contentment will vary, it is never an all or none proposition.
People who live ethical exemplary lives directed at major cultural changes have a great impact on the lives of others, including those lives yet to come. Lincoln always seems to be the best example. There were many others who saw the injustice of slavery at the time and devoted their lives to ending it, often paying a high price for their unbending opposition to slavery. Lincoln stated long before he became President that "if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong". The difference between Lincoln and other notable abolitionists was that Lincoln had this uncanny understanding of human nature, and used this understanding to take a society which was overwhelmingly willing to tolerate slavery and use circumstances to turn the tide in favor of abolition. Lincoln was by no means the only one ethical about slavery back in our country then, but Lincoln was like a steel cable, which bends this way and that way with the wind, but despite the wavering the steel cable eventually reaches the desired destination. A group of avid abolitionists met with Lincoln early in his Presidency and heavily criticized Lincoln for the many political indulgences he afforded those who were not ready to abolish slavery. He told the gathering, "You just continue to do what you are doing to oppose slavery and I reckon, when the time comes, when the people are ready, that I will put my foot down firmly." And when the time came, so he did.
In Part 2, to follow, I plan to use some of the people on my list above and examine what enabled them to reach success in life. Be cautioned, however, that I cannot be trusted to stick to script.
