The Difficulty of Reconciliation


Well-Known Member
May 30, 2007
To say that human beings are estranged in essence in a way discounts one need for society and compassion. If people content themselves with the belief that there is no preestablished harmony, and we are despondent until the end of time, then there would be no reason to live, except as animals who act on pure instincts upon their own animalistic desires. I think that being estranged from others is the result of circumstances. People have the ability to unite, despite the externals that stifle solidarity. Even if one is estranged from society, he is not without hope, for even alone, one can transcend the material world and find company with the supernatural, where in which they would be fulfilling their human need for compassion, although in a more impalpable way. Both Hobbes and Aristotle are expressing views that are partial, inconclusive, subjective, and pertaining more so to Hobbes, impios. Some might be more estranged than others, just as some might be more disposed to socialization than others, but the fact is, some feeling of unity, plus time in solitude, possibly estranged, are needed to live a balanced and poise existence. Too much time alone can cause depression, just as to much time around others can cause superficialtiy. However, it should be noted, that once one has been estranged for an extended period, it almost seems as if it is his essense, for he becomes social inept, and it takes him longer to adapt to others, making him even a possible hindrance to unity. One needs time alone to reflect, just as one needs time in harmony with others to provide experience to reflect on. However, when someone who has been estranged too long and they are around others, it would be the same as if they are alone, and there enlies the problem when it comes to reconciliation.

A leaders primary goal should be to refute the theory that humanity is estranged in essence, in realization of the obstacles that substantiate its claims, such as population, diversity, tradition, or conviction. A leader should be altruistic to provide balance to a society that is egotistical. The common purpose to bring people together, and create harmony in a discordant area, is the increased chance of bringing heaven to earth, not in a mundane way, rather in actuality, where death will cease to be, and people will be sustained in a perpetual harmony. The challenge to our existence is, upon a mutual reflection, to reverse our intrinsic and combative natures, and find our true, in some cases abandoned, essense in peace. This does not mean we should coerse people into living in peace, for that would be an obstruction in itself, rather, it means we should guide other towards peace by exemplifying its possible outcomes and providing incentive and/or positive reinforcement. We also need to reject attribution bias, and factor in the effect ones externals have on their behavior. Therefore, for those states and societies which are disintegrating or dissolving, the other societies that function need to make sacrifices for the common good, for the end result, will be more beneficial than avarice, on part of the functional societies. The point is, the more we forgive others for their depravity, the more we reach out to those who are alienated, the more we provide reasons for unity, the easier it will be for society as a whole, to turn from their "original sin".

Zachary McBride
hmm. no one responded... and how come when i search my name, it no longer says i'm on a distinquished road... my presense in politics will be recognized regardless of my youthful, and often idealistic mind. I know that if I were giving a chance to act as ambassador to our imperialistic country I could bring peace to many countries and change overall sentiment foreigners have towards America merely by use of empathetic rhetoric which explains my divine experience, my common flaws, to which, despite them, God has still showed my compassion, and also influencing our country by getting them to worry less about the economy and more about mending the relations between conflicting nations by giving a great deal of patronage to those countries in need, not for arms, rather for peaceful processions which include rebuilding endeavors that strengthen the status of the more desolute regions which have been struck by privations, and as a result have resorted to violence. Hear my words, do not ignore my message, and help try to restore our image and values as a superpower. Leadership is not about getting things from others, it's about bringing order with as little force as possible.
Irishone, let my say, some of your beliefs are actually quite good, and some are very bad. Of course, I think this whole 'God speaks to me' stuff is a load of guff, but let me tell you something.

if you want to get your message accross to all these people, simplify it a bit. Typing an essay with a theasuaras in hand doesnt make it any better.
I apologize if my language slows the flow of the paper... It is honestly just the words that came to mind, it was not revised at all.
Well, first of all, writing the first thoughts that come to mind is not a good way to write an essay. When you enter middle school, teachers will give you failing grades for turning in a first-draft and trying to pass it off as a final draft.

Typing what comes to mind is fine for an Internet forum, which you need to realize is the audience you're talking to. (Not aiming your writings to the proper audience is another thing your eventual 6th grade English instructor will fail you for). So, QED, just type like you're in an Internet forum, not fulfilling your teacher's prompt of "write the most intellectually hollow piffle you can tolerate."

And hey, here's an idea: when you write something, actually have the following things:

(A) a point to the whole damn thing.

(B) facts or reasoning to back it up.

All you do is say something which is disputable on its face and then repeat a slightly modified version of it a few dozen times, then back it up with equally disputable deductive reasoning. Then you throw a confetti of pretty-sounding adjectives down a flight of stairs and scatter the ones that landed face-up throughout your writings.

Sorry if I'm sounding harsh (actually, I'm not sorry), but I was a communist when I was 12, too, and it took the verbal pimp-slapping of a grizzled intellectual street-fighter twice my age to smack some conservative sense into me. You're not idealistic, you're just ignorant and prejudiced by your environment. Time will change that. Until then, quit play-acting like some moldy old Greek philosopher and stick to writing in your composition notebook about what you did during recess.
One, I am not sure of your point? We should be more forgiving and people should try to unite more?

Two, I do think that todays society has changed the social dynamics of the world, and not all of the changes are positive. In the past, when people were limited in their travles by riding horesback and entertainment was limited to reading a book by candlelight at night, people HAD to deal with each other. The old sayings about how it takes a whole town to raise a child, etc.

The advent of cars, TV and other modern convienences has also allowed people to become very alone if they choose to be. Turthfully, do you know all of you neighbors. I mean know them more than a wave. I know that I don't. If this was a colonial town, I certainly would know my neighbors better. I saw once a study that said that people nowadays know fewer people than people have in the past. And this is in the age of the telephone, e-mail, text messinging, etc. where you can communicate with anyone at anytime.

I am not sure what we can do about it. Freedom also means people are free to live alone if they choose to. I guess the best thing to do is to encourage opportunities to get people together, and hope they take advantage of them.