It has been quite some time since my last blog entry. A few personal, and not so personal, things happened that took my attention. That, and sometimes it's far more rewarding to have a dialogue instead of a monologue. In any case I find myself back here again, to read and watch a few blogs and people.
Some time ago, I talked about strength. And I had the theory that men use the word "strong" for a man who is physically and/or mentally strong, while women usually use the word strong for someone who is mentally strong. I quickly found that I was only half right. As with most psychology, you always have a pretty big margin of error, and while the women who responded tended to value strong mental traits, and the men who responded seemed to value strong physical and mental traits equally high, there were obviously some who didn't follow along those lines. This was probably my own fault, because I had ventured into a very subjective territory, but I still appreciated the responses that I got.
One of the reasons why my theory couldn't hold water was because we didn't have the same definition of physical and mental strength to begin with. Let me explain. If you think of strength, and you take the absolute bottom and say "Well the weakest person in the world wouldn't physically be able to lift anything", while the strongest person would be "able to lift anything", then you have a pretty good idea of the difference in strength. I fully understand that "being able to lift anything" borders on godhood, but it's a good place to visualize strength as two extremes. It's relatively easy to define physical strength like that, but once you begin to use that definition for strength on mental strength, things start to go wrong. For example, what is mental strength? The ability to think fast, or be able to hold several ideas at once in your head? Is it having a good memory, or is it about how flexible your mind is? It's very difficult to think of a classic "strong" mental trait, because it simple doesn't make sense to compare it to a physical trait. People might say someone who is able to take a lot of mental abuse might be strong, but that would more fittingly be attributed to toughness instead of pure strength. So, the reason why my theory was not correct, is because I took two concepts that were incomparable to each other and tried to find something in common.
Secondly, and probably the most obvious, is that men and women are different. If I had thought about it, I would've realized that I "stated the obvious". I could've just as well say that girls tend to play with dolls and boys with swords. It is a generalization, and there will always be those who don't fit into it. Thus I stated something that is public knowledge, and therefore not very meaningful.
In hindsight, I could've probably just asked what people think mental strength is. As we saw, it was easy to define two absolutes on physical strength, but a lot more difficult to attribute strength to a mental trait. Maybe the word "strong" is an umbrella for several terms. Toughness, resilience, perseverance etc. I would probably have gotten quite a few different ideas of what mental strength is, but even if I got some great suggestions, I probably wouldn't be able to use it for anything other than conclude that the word "mentally strong" is very subjective.
Perhaps if we think a little bit more abstract, we might be able to derive some sort of conclusion. Let's just assume that there is good and evil. And let's use the 7 deadly sins as inspiration for a "mentally strong" person. If we consider the sins to be signs of a mentally "weak" person, and in this case that would be moral weakness, we can try to establish a mentally strong person (with this definition of course).
Let's start with pride. A prideful person would believe himself better than everyone else. He would stubbornly refuse to associate with, and maybe not even acknowledge, others. He would believe himself to be the pinnacle of humanity, the very definition of perfection, and step on all others. He would refuse to believe that anyone else knew more than him, or could teach him anything at all. In contrast, a person with his pride under control would know that he isn't much different from everyone around him. He would be humble, and acknowledge his fellows. He would believe himself to be one of many, instead of being unique. He would be open to learning, and would know that others have plenty to teach him.
For a glutton, he would eat until he burst. He would never say no to stuffing himself full, and he would seek to do so at all times. By indulging himself constantly, he would always crave more and more. In contrary, the man who would only eat what he needs to, who would demonstrate restraint when faced with temptation, he would be free of a ruinous hunger. There would be little waste for such a man, and he wouldn't take away food from others who might've needed it more than he does.
For greed, the man who could never amass enough wealth, and hoards it without every sharing it, would again be weak to temptation. His greed would rule his life, and he would, like gluttony, take away more than he needs. A man of the opposite disposition would not cling onto his wealth, and would understand that there is a time to save and a time to spend. By doing so, he would share his wealth instead of holding onto it too tightly. He can therefore resist temptation better than the man who give in to his greed.
A sloth would laze about and not do much of anything. He would prioritize sleeping, avoid all work and be unwilling to put in any effort. By doing this, he can't reach his full potential, and will waste away his days without achieving much. For the opposite man, he would resist the temptation to spend all his time doing nothing. He would do so in moderation, but also be willing to work and put in effort when it is needed.
For a wrathful man, he would take out his anger on anyone and everyone. All would be equally deserving of his wrath, no matter how little they may deserved it. He would not be able to control his anger, and he would let it consume him. A man with his anger under control would only get angry when it was justified and reasonable. He would never take his anger out on anyone who did not deserve it, and he would not cause unjust harm to anyone.
As for envy, he would only look to his neighbor and dream of what they possess. He would always strive to not only have more, but have what he can't have. It wouldn't matter if he needed it or not, if he doesn't have it he wants it. A man who has no envy would look to his own and see how much he already has. He would find joy being able to appreciate the little things in his life, and he would congratulate his neighbor for having more, rather than wanting it for himself.
Finally a lustful person (the irony of writing this on TheCage is not lost on me) would drown himself in it. He would do nothing but seek to satisfy his carnal urges, day in and day out. For him, the world would revolve around getting his next fix, and he could not be trusted to stay faithful, should he ever be in a committed relationship. On the other hand, a person who has no lust would not seek it out more than necessary. He would resist temptation, and stay faithful, rejecting to lose himself in the pleasure and thereby keep a more level head.
The conclusion to the comparison between the two people with the 7 deadly sins is that mental strength seems to focus on being able to resist temptation, and knowing how to balance desire with what is reasonable. Someone who isn't full of himself, while also living an active and healthy life, where you don't deprive yourself of anything, but also never overindulge. This is obviously just one take on mental strength, but I found it to be very interesting, especially how mental strength in this case seems to rely on getting along well with others, not taking too much from them and staying true to them.
Anyway, true or not, what really matters is the thought process itself. I had fun, and I hope you had too.
2 years ago. January 26, 2022 at 5:12 PM
