“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
“Saying no and setting boundaries creates time and space which allows you to discover and focus on what is essential.”
“Take risks for…
1) …what you believe in.
2) …”the sake of the survival of a layer higher than yours.”
Seems admirable and virtuous, doesn’t it? It seems right and proper that the sincerity of a belief or principle is measured by the cost required to sustain it. But here’s where it gets interesting. If taking risks for what you believe in is honorable and virtuous, does that mean that terrorists are honorable and virtuous? A terrorist puts his life on the line for what he believes in; in a non-metaphorical way, he dies for what he thinks. Can you or I say the same?
Of course, terrorists also kill people. Which makes me think that, alongside the standard for risk taking, I need some sort of counter-metric to assess the validity of a belief. Because, as Oscar Wilde said, “a thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.” So it’s a balancing act, really. On one hand, to have skin in the game I must take risks for what I believe in. But on the other, I must entertain the idea that I am mistaken in what I believe, and thus, risking everything for something that isn’t true.