I am often stumped when someone poses this question.
“Is he a good guy?”
How does one answer that question? I recently wrote a statement, trying to describe the world, and realized that it could apply to individuals too.
Here it is.
“The stupidity of reducing complex things to a simple binary when the devil lies in the nuances is the biggest tragedy of this world”
The human mind craves simplicity and targets to reduce everything to a simple binary.
Good; Bad. Love; Hate. Intelligent; Stupid. And so on……..
Amor Towles explained it beautifully in his book “The Gentleman from Moscow”
“After all, what can a first impression tell us about someone we’ve just met for a minute in the lobby of a hotel? For that matter, what can a first impression tell us about anyone? Why, no more than a chord can tell us about Beethoven, or a brushstroke about Botticelli. By their very nature, human beings are so capricious, so complex, so delightfully contradictory, that they deserve not only our consideration, but our reconsideration—and our unwavering determination to withhold our opinion until we have engaged with them in every possible setting at every possible hour.”
Absolutely true, right?
Even Stalin had his well-wishers.
And someone shot Gandhi.
And people forget that humans are inherently manipulative by nature. Forget manipulation, they are often indecisive, which is not the same as deliberately manipulating. And they can be indecisive by very nature or due to different circumstances.
One can love dogs. And get furious when one reads about a child who is killed by a stray dog attack. So, what is he? A dog-lover or someone who has no empathy for animals.
A person who has lost a family member or a friend to an attack can never reconcile to acknowledge the counterview of the party involved to justify why they had done what they did.
Try justifying the point of view of an Azerbaijani to a distraught Armenian. Try telling the parents of Unnikrishnan that a gang of rabid Muslims does not represent the whole of Pakistan.
Does it mean that the Armenian and the parents of Unnikrishnan in question are not stable individuals? Do they fail to qualify your litmus test of being good or bad people? How do you evaluate them?
The Armenian in question may be the most sensible individual that you come across but may still be totally unconvinced to agree to a counterview that an Azerbaijani could mean well. Here the issue is not if A or B is right or wrong? How do you judge if A or B is good or bad? It is impossible, right?
The examples taken are just samples. Given the deep rifts between various societies, we can fill this blog with thousands of examples.
When you are not personally impacted, it is possible for you to take a middle ground and evaluate the right reaction and conclusion towards any incident. It is not possible for some who have a personal stake. When you are personally invested, it is not possible to expect logic to be consistent. One can pardon the same act by X and rage with fury if the same act is committed by Y.
It is safe to say that every person in this world is bound to be disliked (or even hated) by another person. Their reasons could be as valid as yours for liking the same person. Here an agreement is impossible. The more you discuss the more acrimonious the arguments are going to be.
One does not have to venture out into the wide wicked world to see such incongruities. Haven’t you seen your parents display traits that are not expected of them? Islamophobia, intolerance for religious positions, and casteism, to name just a few. What does one do? Has your father and/or mother suddenly become the scum of the universe? That surely is the epithet we throw at an outsider whom we do not know intimately. How can the mentioned three traits (a microcosm of the bulk that can be raked up) be ignorable in some and ignoble in others? And used to decisively label one as such and such and glossed over in the other due to extenuating circumstances?
Parents, siblings, close relatives, at times even friends.
We are all guilty here of using two different sets of measurements before we consign them under G or B. Whereas we rush to label a total stranger rather quickly (and hence likely to be more erroneously). The focus is not on some non-existing standards of evaluation but the futility of trying to find one. Because it does not exist.
Can not exist.
It is rather tempting to make a universally sweeping statement saying “There are no good or bad people in absolute”. We should not venture in such a direction, because the reality is that we do not know. The possibility of such a statement being true is rather high but a wise one will stay away from making such sweeping statements.
We live in a world where one can get killed for
- Supporting the wrong club
- Celebrating a win
- Stating his religious leanings
- Demanding equality
- Demonstrating his sexual preference
This means it is the same world, where another person exists who is ready to kill for the same reasons. I agree that not everyone is going around killing people. But, like Orwell mentioned, the thoughts are as important as the thoughts form the base for convictions and convictions lead to actions.
Back to the question that started this blogpost; when you ask me if someone is good or bad, I refuse to answer. Not because I am afraid to take a stand. But because the truth is there is no way I can know. Anyone can know.
A binary is impossible. The more you interact, it is more likely you reach stages of tertiary, quaternary, quinary, senary and so on…….
The truth lies in the polynary.
It is not an existing word, but you understand what I mean.
Artwork by Nicola Jayne Seddon
