Evaluate people instance by instance, context by context, and act accordingly. That way, you can do everything in your power to avoid the worst and eke the best out of any given person.
The idea of demonizing or idolizing someone is an introductory stepping stone that–as you continue to evolve–becomes a weighty anchor that threatens to drown you.
Nobody screws up everything.
Musings, Volume 1, available on Amazon Kindle: Musings, Volume 1
Dirty Sci-Fi Buddha 
Nobody screws up everything? I dunno, seems to me there’s some that come mighty close…Mighty close.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is probably not as brilliant as you think it is. Sounds to me as a soldier who wants to introduce some front-line philosophy into daily life. How would you feel about a butcher who wants to introduce some slaughterhouse philosophy at the dinner table?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t feel anything about the fact that he’s a butcher. I would judge his philosophy on its own merit, regardless of whether he learned it at the slaughterhouse. I would try to follow the spirit of the musing, and evaluate him as an individual person in a specific context, so I could strip away any preconceptions, biases, or dogma I might have, and glean what is useful from my interaction with him. I’m not concerned with brilliance; I’m concerned with what is useful, and I’m concerned with when it becomes obstructive, so I may exist in the most harmonious state of being possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The whole idea of not bringing up slaughterhouse philosophy at the dinner table is that it will probably make other people lose their appetite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The loss of appetite due to slaughterhouse philosophy is triggered, though, due to bias/beliefs of the individual losing the appetite. What’s being suggested, I think, is that you should not apply judgement of someone no matter how far off YOUR beaten path they are. A vegan might learn something from a butcher if he were to set aside his immediate aversion to eating animals and by proxy a person who prepares those animals for human consumption. It’s not about openly accepting a person you don’t generally like, but maintaining an open-mindedness that allows you to maybe learn or like something from or about that person.
At work, it’s called professionalism. There are plenty of folks I have worked with over the years that I simply don’t like. I wouldn’t even consider associating with them outside of the work environment. But the necessity of the job says that I WILL associate with them while at work. Since I have to, I might as well make the best of it. By making myself open to their ideas, etc. while on the job, I might just add to my own capabilities and/or accomplish the task in a better fashion. That seems pretty beneficial to me.
Outside of work, I’m not suggesting that you actively seek out people you might not like, but there are always situations that pop up where you are stuck with those that you would normally avoid. So, why not make the best of a bad situation?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. Context dictates “appropriateness,” or in military terms, mission dictates strategy. I’ve eaten with plenty of folks who wouldn’t mind talking slaughterhouse philosophy at a dinner, and plenty of folks who would throw a fit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again–depends on the context. I’ve eaten dinner with military friends who can talk about anything and everything and not care, and I’ve also eaten with people who get outraged when someone so much as mentions the idea of hunting, whether it’s during dinner or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fundamental problem I wanted tackle here in an allegorical way, is that if you want to sell a steak, you don’t have to accompany it with a graphic description of its production process. I understand that Kent’s attitudes, perception and thinking processes have been heavily influenced by his stint into the military, but he seems to believe that the majority of his potential readers are willing to deal with such raw and unpolished material.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conversely, if you want people to respect the sourcing of food and the full context of its impact, perhaps you SHOULD educate them with a graphic description of the production process. I believe this is an awesome benefit of ethical hunting. Once again, as the musing said, it is dependent on context.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s a good thought… one of my small personal philosophies is to remind myself each time I meet someone that they are a complete human, with strengths and flaws, that deserves an open-minded and honest attempt to meet them where they are and remember that they are worthy of my respect and love. It is hard sometimes because in my job, I’m often meeting people at a very challenging time in their life and if I *only* thought of them as who they were in that one instance I would probably come away with a rather jaded view of people. It’s important for me to treat them with respect and empathy (even if they don’t do the same for me) because they will 1) have a better outcome if I do and 2) they always will see themself as a person, not just a sick patient and will remember the feeling if they are treated like a problem instead of a person…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed, and from a personal development perspective, you can learn the most from them if you understand the origin of their behavior and don’t discount them through demonization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Nobody screws up everything.”
Hold my beer, sir. XD
(On a more serious note, true. I think it’s okay when one is a child, as we’re still learning how the world works, but it makes little to no sense for an adult to look at things in suck a black and white way.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. It becomes a simple matter of practicality, in the end. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person