People often say “Be true to yourself”, “Just be yourself”, “Don’t mind what others think”, and all the other ego boosting lines that tell you that you can do it, that no one else can do it better but yourself. But how far can those lines go? Are those lines supposed to encourage cultivate even the dark side of yourself?
Being you doesn’t mean that you’re perfect, or you should be perfect. Being you is a package. You are created unique. In that uniqueness, you have your strengths, shortcomings, imperfections, and blemishes. But the question is, are we supposed to entertain our imperfections just because people told us to be true to ourselves?
They say that when you can’t beat them, join them. It is indeed logical. Why logical? Logical because, if you are a hard loser, engaging your enemies knowing that you stand no chance against them, only means defeat. Why not turn the tables? Instead of facing sure defeat, why not join among their ranks and face victory? I don’t know if that strategy is acknowledged in the art of war, because it sounds like you’re giving away your dignity. But, to a man whose priority is winning, why not?
I’d like to propose another idea, or version about the beating one another thingy. If you can’t beat them, at least pull them down to your level. Does it sound close to winning? Yes, it is a no. Confusing, I know. Ha ha! It may not sound close to winning but, it do sounds like both of you are in the same odds of not winning. Does it sound familiar? It sure does, and it is called the crab mentality.
Why is the idea of beating one another involved in being true to ourselves? I’d like to point out that I have the mentality of “If I can’t get it, neither of us should.” Why should I suffer alone, when the two of us can suffer together? And to the question I’ve raised earlier, this is what I’m trying to point out. Should we continue to cultivate the “dark side” of the package, where in my case the crab mentality thingy?
I’d like to tell you a story. It was during my Management class. During that period, we were to check our examinations. The examination comprises a 60 items for True or False, 5 items for Multiple Choice, 15 items for Identification, and a 20 items for Enumeration, for a total of 100 items. Instead of using the traditional way of checking for True or False, which was “Number 1, true. Number 2, false. Number 3, false.” He improvised it into a more efficient way, which was enumerating first all the items which were true, and then all the remaining items which were not mentioned were automatically false.
During that time, I was thinking that if I can’t get a high score, the owner of the paper that I was checking shouldn’t also get a high one. When my professor finished enumerating all the items that are True, I said a remark in which for me was just nothing, but audible enough to be heard by everyone in the classroom. I jokingly, or intentionally said, I’m not sure which, that “It’s so fun!” There, I got the attention of my professor and classmates. My professor got the hint that the paper I was checking had many mistakes.
My professor told me that, “Don’t you know it is immoral to laugh at someone’s misery?” Boom! I was hit head on. I don’t know if they can’t identify a sarcasm or they just took the remark seriously. I think they took my remark seriously, obviously. I may have thought of getting even with people. But, I never thought that what I did was immoral. Now, I’m starting to get confused with ethics and morals. Tch.
So, the sadistic part of me, the part of me that enjoys the misery of others, would it still be me if I’d stop being it? Will I continue to do it just because it’s part of being me?