BEKÂR ERKEKLER
‘Bekâr erkek’ olmak çoğunlukla bir ayrıcalıktır, bekar erkek havalıdır, rahattır; ya da en azından çevre tarafından öyle algılanmaktadır. Kimseye bağlı olmamak, kendisinden başkasına sorumlu olmamak, dilediği zaman istediğini yapabilmek ve kimseye bir açıklama gerekliliği duymamak; tüm bunları, bekâr-yalnız erkek olmanın avantajlarının başında sayabiliriz.
Bekar, yalnız yaşayan erkek, kariyerine odaklanabilir; istediği saatlere kadar çalışıp sabahlayabilir, yurt dışı seyahatlerine arkasında aklı kalacak birileri olmadığından sık sık çıkabilir. O, aynı zamanda da kazandığı parayı doyasıya ve sadece kendisine harcamanın zevkine varabilir …
İstediği zaman sessizlik ve huzur bulabilir, yalnızlığın tadını çıkarabilir, istediği düzeni kurabilir veya düzensiz olmanın keyfini yaşayabilir.
Dilediği kişiyle gezebilir; bağlanmadan ilişkiler yaşayabilir. En önemlisi ‘uzlaşmak’, ‘orta yol bulmak’ zorunda değildir çünkü değer verdiği ve ciddi bir beraberlik yaşadığı bir ilişkisi yoktur yalnız erkeklerin…
Yapılan araştırmalar, bekâr erkeklerin toplum tarafından; sürekli olarak bir bardan ötekine giden, çok para harcayan, kendilerine pahalı hediyeler alan, önüne gelen ile ilişkiye giren, dışarıdan mutlu gibi gözükse de aslında mutlu olmayan kişiler olarak görüldüğünü vurgulamaktadır.
Oysaki, belli bir yaşa kadar yalnız olmak mutluluk getirir ve başlı başına yaşanması gereken bir deneyimdir, özellikle de erkekler açından…
Hatta ‘yalnızlık’ yaşamamış, bu duygu ve süreci hiç tatmamış olmak, bir erkeğin gerçek anlamda mutlu ve sağlıklı ilişkiler kurmasına engel oluşturur. Gelecekte, yaşayacağı ilişkide başarısız olmasına ve hatta yanlış zamanda, yanlış kişi ile beraberlik kurmasına kadar gidebilecek seçimler yapmasına sebep oluşturabilir.
Yalnız yaşamanın erkeklere kazandırdıkları…
Yalnız olmak kişiye istediğini yapma imkânını verir; her şeyin sorumluluğu kişiye aittir.
Kendisiyle, huzur içinde baş başa kalma fırsatını sunar. Böylelikle iç dünyasını tanımak için zamanı vardır. Özgürdür. Yalnız olmak; hayattan beklentilerini, neyi isteyip istemediğini anlamasını, hedeflerini daha rahat belirlemesini, potansiyel ve limitlerini keşfetmesini sağlar.
Yalnız olmak yeni bir beraberlik için temel oluşturmaktan öte, duygusal ihtiyaçları gidermeyi, hayalleri gerçekleştirmeyi ve bireysel gelişimi sağlar. Erkek kendisine değer vermeyi, sevmeyi ve bakmayı öğrenir; başka bir deyişle gereksiz yere başkalarını kullanarak kendi eksiklerinizi kapatmamayı özümser ki, bu ileride yaşanacak berberlikler için sağlam temeller oluşturması demektir.
Bazı erkekler için ilişki isteme nedeni, kendi eksiklerini kapatmak, yaşamını kolaylaştırmaktır. Oysaki ilişkiye girmenin tek amacının ‘paylaşmak’ olması doğrudur; çünkü boşlukların başkası tarafından kapatılacağını umut etmek hayal kırıklığı, başarısızlık, gücenme ve kırgınlıklardan başka bir şey getirmez. Bu tarz bir ilişki yaşamak yerine yalnız olmak daha sağlıklıdır.
Araştırmalar gösteriyor ki, erkekler özellikle kendi ‘bekâr’ hayatlarını paylaştıkları yakın erkek arkadaşları ciddi ilişki ve evlilik sürecine girdiklerinde, yalnızlık duygusuna kapılabiliyorlar. Hatta sırf bu nedenle panikleyip, yanlış eş seçimleri yapabiliyor ve mutsuz bir beraberlik sürecine adım atabiliyorlar. Uzmanlara göre, böyle bir durum ile karşılaşan erkeklerin soğukkanlılıklarını korumaları, ani kararlar vermekten kaçınmaları ve yeni bir ilişkiye başlamadan önce kendi iç ses ve mantıklarını dinlemeleri önem taşımaktadır.
Bekârlık mı Evlilik mi?
Bu soru halen psikologların en çok analiz ettikleri ve üzerinde araştırma yaptıkları konu başlıklarından biridir. Bu konu ile ilgili değişik görüşler var tabii ki:
Kimilerine göre evlilik, kişisel tatminsizlik, ‘otonomi’ yani ‘özerklik’ için bir tehdit, özgürlük kısıtlayıcı bir durum olarak görülmüştür.
Yapılan araştırmalar, evlilikle ilgili negatif düşünce ve yorumlar üzerine odaklanıldığında, tam tersine, evlilik kurumunun hem erkek hem de kadın için yararlarının çokluğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Sonuç olarak evli olmanın; fiziksel, ruhsal, duygusal, cinsel ve ekonomik anlamda kişilere daha iyi geldiği saptanmıştır. Evlilik ve aile kurmanın, ait olma duygusunu pekiştiren, temel ihtiyaçlarımız olan sevgi, güven, sadakat ve bağlılık duygularını güçlendirdiği belirlenmiştir.
Erkekler ne ister?
Genel olarak bir gerçek vardır ki… Erkekleri anlamak kimi zaman zor olabilir. Hatta kendileri bile bazen kendilerini anlamayabilirler.
Psikologlar, erkekler için ‘başarı’nın, benliklerini bulabilmeleri adına çok önemli bir faktör olduğunu gözlemlemişlerdir. Özellikle erkekler birden fazla alanda başarılı oldukça kendilerini daha iyi hissetmektedirler. Bu nedenle, bir erkek aile kurmak istediğinde; kadınına iyi bir koca ve çocuklarına iyi, başarılı bir baba olacağını kanıtlamak ister. Bunu da; saygılı, kendine güvenen, akıllı, hoş, oturup konuşulabilecek, başka bir deyişle, hem akıl hem kalbine hitap edecek kadınla gerçekleştirmek ister… Aksi takdirde, erkek, doğal olarak yalnız, yani ‘bekâr’ olarak kalma yolunu seçer.
Bekâr Erkeklere tavsiyeler
• Özgürlüğünüzün tadını çıkarın.
• Yeniliklere açık olun.
• Sizi geliştirecek, yeni imkânlar sunacak her şeye ‘evet’ deyin.
• Kendinizi analiz edin.
• Kariyerinize odaklanın.
• Ailenize ve dostlarınıza zaman ayırın.
• Kendinize yatırımlar yapın.
• En yakın arkadaşınız ciddi bir ilişkiye girerse asla paniklemeyin, herkesin ‘doğru zaman’ı aynı değildir, tıpkı her bebeğin farklı zamanlarda ilk adımını atması gibi…
Uzm. Psikolog E. Selin Uçal
24 Ocak 2011 Pazartesi
21 Ekim 2010 Perşembe
Easy-to-dictate, hard-to-enact insights about marriage.
10 Hard Truths About Marriage
Easy-to-dictate, hard-to-enact insights about marriage.
A close friend got married last week, and in the build-up to her wedding I compiled a few hard truths from the trenches. I'd rank them in the "easy to note; hard to enact" category of human endeavor.
#1 There will be one disagreement in your marriage that will never be resolved--and you will never agree on what it is! The earlier you identify and accept it, the better. Encourage your partner to do the same with his or her complaint.
#2 You can only change yourself. This is as intellectually obvious as it is emotionally challenging. Important to remember when struggling with #1.
#3 Be stoic about your own (no doubt herculean) efforts. If you want it done, do it and don't expect praise. Yes, I am unfortunately thinking specifically of housework here. Reframe the task(s) as maintenance and improvement you do for yourself alone. This helps, because the corollary (3b) is: Don't expect anyone else to notice what you do. For all intents and purposes, you are doing it for yourself!
#4 You chose each other. Your spouse is the only family member you will ever select. Because it is a self-directed relationship, you will evolve together in a way no other intimate relationship can. This can be exhilarating, as when you establish new traditions and a new familial baseline. It can also be frustrating and scary: No roadmap, and the prospect of "de-selection" in the offing, however abstractly.
#5 Life necessitates trade-offs, your relationship and partner included. The qualities that frustrate you are intimately connected to the qualities you love.
#6 The social fabric of marriage is lovely, but it is not what marriage is about. The diamond rock, the social approval, the identity as a huband or wife.... these facets matter but they are a distant second to the intrinsic connection between the two of you.
#7 The outside world sees mainly these secondary characteristics (#6), and is therefore apt to misjudge your relationship. Ignore their judgments.
#8 A good relationship is made better by adversity. Again, not worth highlighting what can happen in a bad relationship. But I've seen plenty of on-the-fence relationships bump up a notch after challenges.
#9 Take responsibility for your own satisfaction. Keep your partner privy to your goals, dreams and of course frustrations, but do not confuse this with making him or her accountable for these feelings or outcomes. Likewise, help him to realize his own dreams.
#10 Never forget the moment you first connected. The way you felt about one another then, and in the weeks and months after, is a reminder of your potential to connect, no matter how much time has elapsed
Easy-to-dictate, hard-to-enact insights about marriage.
A close friend got married last week, and in the build-up to her wedding I compiled a few hard truths from the trenches. I'd rank them in the "easy to note; hard to enact" category of human endeavor.
#1 There will be one disagreement in your marriage that will never be resolved--and you will never agree on what it is! The earlier you identify and accept it, the better. Encourage your partner to do the same with his or her complaint.
#2 You can only change yourself. This is as intellectually obvious as it is emotionally challenging. Important to remember when struggling with #1.
#3 Be stoic about your own (no doubt herculean) efforts. If you want it done, do it and don't expect praise. Yes, I am unfortunately thinking specifically of housework here. Reframe the task(s) as maintenance and improvement you do for yourself alone. This helps, because the corollary (3b) is: Don't expect anyone else to notice what you do. For all intents and purposes, you are doing it for yourself!
#4 You chose each other. Your spouse is the only family member you will ever select. Because it is a self-directed relationship, you will evolve together in a way no other intimate relationship can. This can be exhilarating, as when you establish new traditions and a new familial baseline. It can also be frustrating and scary: No roadmap, and the prospect of "de-selection" in the offing, however abstractly.
#5 Life necessitates trade-offs, your relationship and partner included. The qualities that frustrate you are intimately connected to the qualities you love.
#6 The social fabric of marriage is lovely, but it is not what marriage is about. The diamond rock, the social approval, the identity as a huband or wife.... these facets matter but they are a distant second to the intrinsic connection between the two of you.
#7 The outside world sees mainly these secondary characteristics (#6), and is therefore apt to misjudge your relationship. Ignore their judgments.
#8 A good relationship is made better by adversity. Again, not worth highlighting what can happen in a bad relationship. But I've seen plenty of on-the-fence relationships bump up a notch after challenges.
#9 Take responsibility for your own satisfaction. Keep your partner privy to your goals, dreams and of course frustrations, but do not confuse this with making him or her accountable for these feelings or outcomes. Likewise, help him to realize his own dreams.
#10 Never forget the moment you first connected. The way you felt about one another then, and in the weeks and months after, is a reminder of your potential to connect, no matter how much time has elapsed
You Always Hurt the One You Love
You always hurt the one you love
Published on October 9, 2010
You always hurt the one you love, the one you should not hurt at all;
You always take the sweetest rose, and crush it till the petals fall;
You always break the kindest heart, with a hasty word you can't recall;
So if I broke your heart last night, it's because I love you most of all. (The Mills Brothers)
It is easy to understand why someone who doesn't love another person might break the heart of this person-when we do not love those who love us, we are likely to hurt them. However, the above song refers to hurting the one we do love. How can one both love and hurt the same person?
Lovers can easily hurt the beloved without intending to do so. Because the lovers are so significant to each other, any innocent remark or action can be interpreted in a manner that the other person did not intend and hence be hurtful. For instance, someone might devote a lot of time to her work, thereby neglecting, and inadvertently hurting, her partner. The more time two people spend together, the greater the likelihood that this will occur. Our beloveds hold great significance for us and this makes these people a source of both great happiness and deep sadness; they can bring us great joy, but they can also hurt us deeply.
In situations in which we have nothing of value to lose, we seldom experience disappointment. In love, which involves our happiness and many of our most precious experiences, there is a great deal to lose. Hence, disappointment and frustration, and consequently hurt, are common. It has been said that completely blissful love does not exist. Indeed, in a survey of over 500 lovers, almost all of them assumed that passionate love is a bittersweet experience. Similarly, it has been found that people low in defensiveness have more experiences of love than do highly defensive people. This link suggests that to love is to make oneself vulnerable in ways that enhance the possibility of pain.
These and other considerations indicate how easily you can hurt the one you love without intending to do so. However, the explanation for deliberately hurting the person you love is far more complex. Certainly, one major factor in hurting the beloved deliberately is related to the central role that mutual dependency plays in love.
Mutual dependency may exist in inappropriate proportions: lovers can consider their dependency on the partner to be too great or too little. Hurting the beloved may be one resort, usually the last one, which the lover takes to bring this dependency to its appropriate proportion. Mutual dependency has many advantages, stemming from the fact that two people are joined together in a relationship attempting to increase each other's happiness. However, a sense of independence is also important for people's self-esteem. Indeed, in a study of anger, the most common motive for its generation was to assert authority or independence, or to improve self image. Anger has been perceived as a useful means to strengthen or readjust a relationship.
This type of behavior is frequent in the child-parent relationship: children often hurt parents in order to express their independence. This behavior is also part of romantic love in which mutual dependence may threaten each partner's independence. Sometimes lovers hurt their beloved in order to show their independence. Other times, however, hurting the beloved expresses an opposite wish: the lover's wish for more dependency and attention. Indeed, a common complaint of married women, far more than of married men, is that their partners do not spend enough time with them.
By hurting the beloved, the lover wishes to signal that their mutual relationship, and in particular their mutual dependency, should be modified. Hurting the beloved may be the last alarm bell that warns of the lover's difficulties; it is an extreme measure signaling urgency. If the relationship is strong enough, as the lover wishes it to be, it should sustain this measure. A less extreme and more common measure employed is that of moodiness. Moodiness, which imposes a small cost on the relationship, may function as both an alarm bell and as an assessment device to test the strength of the bond. Love involves a dynamic process of mutual adaptation, but not all adaptive processes are smooth and enjoyable; hurting the beloved is an example in kind.
Another consideration in light of which the lover may sometimes hurt the beloved is related to the lack of indifference in love. Since the lover greatly cares for the beloved and their mutual relationship, the lover cannot be indifferent toward anything that may harm the beloved, their relationship, or the lover's own situation. This lack of indifference toward the beloved may lead the lover to take measures which hurt the other when viewed within a partial perspective, but can be seen as beneficial from a global perspective. This is the painful side of care: a close connection exists between people who help and hurt as well. In the same way that improving the quality and happiness of our lives may demand some suffering, improving the quality and happiness of our beloved's life may require such suffering.
As for people who love us but whom we do not love, we may be indifferent, or at least would not harbor such a deep overall concern. Accordingly, we may not bother to help them by hurting them. Therefore, people in love prefer to be hurt by the beloved rather than be treated with indifference. Jose Ortega y Gasset says that the person in love "prefers the anguish which her beloved causes her to painless indifference." Similarly, the saying goes that it is better to break someone's heart than to do nothing with it. Concerning those who are near and dear, we prefer anger to indifference.
I do not want to say, as Oscar Wilde did, that "each man kills the thing he loves"; however, hurting one's beloved is frequent. Since the beloved is a major source of happiness, this person is also a major threat to our happiness: more than anyone else, the beloved can ruin our happiness. Similarly, the security involved in love goes together with the fear of losing that security. Feeling happy is often bound up with the fear of losing that happiness. Caring for the beloved sometimes goes together with hurting the beloved.
Love is closely connected with vulnerability: the ability to hurt and to be hurt. Although some kinds of hurt in love are intended, most of them are not.
Nevertheless, someone who deliberately hurts another person can simultaneously claim to love that person. The phenomenon of emotional ambivalence, stemming from the presence of two different evaluative perspectives, can account for such a possibility (see here). The lack of indifference and mutual dependency typical of love suggests why this frequently occurs in love.
The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, although this article has given you some justification to hurt me, I am still not sure you are doing it out of your profound love for me."
Published on October 9, 2010
You always hurt the one you love, the one you should not hurt at all;
You always take the sweetest rose, and crush it till the petals fall;
You always break the kindest heart, with a hasty word you can't recall;
So if I broke your heart last night, it's because I love you most of all. (The Mills Brothers)
It is easy to understand why someone who doesn't love another person might break the heart of this person-when we do not love those who love us, we are likely to hurt them. However, the above song refers to hurting the one we do love. How can one both love and hurt the same person?
Lovers can easily hurt the beloved without intending to do so. Because the lovers are so significant to each other, any innocent remark or action can be interpreted in a manner that the other person did not intend and hence be hurtful. For instance, someone might devote a lot of time to her work, thereby neglecting, and inadvertently hurting, her partner. The more time two people spend together, the greater the likelihood that this will occur. Our beloveds hold great significance for us and this makes these people a source of both great happiness and deep sadness; they can bring us great joy, but they can also hurt us deeply.
In situations in which we have nothing of value to lose, we seldom experience disappointment. In love, which involves our happiness and many of our most precious experiences, there is a great deal to lose. Hence, disappointment and frustration, and consequently hurt, are common. It has been said that completely blissful love does not exist. Indeed, in a survey of over 500 lovers, almost all of them assumed that passionate love is a bittersweet experience. Similarly, it has been found that people low in defensiveness have more experiences of love than do highly defensive people. This link suggests that to love is to make oneself vulnerable in ways that enhance the possibility of pain.
These and other considerations indicate how easily you can hurt the one you love without intending to do so. However, the explanation for deliberately hurting the person you love is far more complex. Certainly, one major factor in hurting the beloved deliberately is related to the central role that mutual dependency plays in love.
Mutual dependency may exist in inappropriate proportions: lovers can consider their dependency on the partner to be too great or too little. Hurting the beloved may be one resort, usually the last one, which the lover takes to bring this dependency to its appropriate proportion. Mutual dependency has many advantages, stemming from the fact that two people are joined together in a relationship attempting to increase each other's happiness. However, a sense of independence is also important for people's self-esteem. Indeed, in a study of anger, the most common motive for its generation was to assert authority or independence, or to improve self image. Anger has been perceived as a useful means to strengthen or readjust a relationship.
This type of behavior is frequent in the child-parent relationship: children often hurt parents in order to express their independence. This behavior is also part of romantic love in which mutual dependence may threaten each partner's independence. Sometimes lovers hurt their beloved in order to show their independence. Other times, however, hurting the beloved expresses an opposite wish: the lover's wish for more dependency and attention. Indeed, a common complaint of married women, far more than of married men, is that their partners do not spend enough time with them.
By hurting the beloved, the lover wishes to signal that their mutual relationship, and in particular their mutual dependency, should be modified. Hurting the beloved may be the last alarm bell that warns of the lover's difficulties; it is an extreme measure signaling urgency. If the relationship is strong enough, as the lover wishes it to be, it should sustain this measure. A less extreme and more common measure employed is that of moodiness. Moodiness, which imposes a small cost on the relationship, may function as both an alarm bell and as an assessment device to test the strength of the bond. Love involves a dynamic process of mutual adaptation, but not all adaptive processes are smooth and enjoyable; hurting the beloved is an example in kind.
Another consideration in light of which the lover may sometimes hurt the beloved is related to the lack of indifference in love. Since the lover greatly cares for the beloved and their mutual relationship, the lover cannot be indifferent toward anything that may harm the beloved, their relationship, or the lover's own situation. This lack of indifference toward the beloved may lead the lover to take measures which hurt the other when viewed within a partial perspective, but can be seen as beneficial from a global perspective. This is the painful side of care: a close connection exists between people who help and hurt as well. In the same way that improving the quality and happiness of our lives may demand some suffering, improving the quality and happiness of our beloved's life may require such suffering.
As for people who love us but whom we do not love, we may be indifferent, or at least would not harbor such a deep overall concern. Accordingly, we may not bother to help them by hurting them. Therefore, people in love prefer to be hurt by the beloved rather than be treated with indifference. Jose Ortega y Gasset says that the person in love "prefers the anguish which her beloved causes her to painless indifference." Similarly, the saying goes that it is better to break someone's heart than to do nothing with it. Concerning those who are near and dear, we prefer anger to indifference.
I do not want to say, as Oscar Wilde did, that "each man kills the thing he loves"; however, hurting one's beloved is frequent. Since the beloved is a major source of happiness, this person is also a major threat to our happiness: more than anyone else, the beloved can ruin our happiness. Similarly, the security involved in love goes together with the fear of losing that security. Feeling happy is often bound up with the fear of losing that happiness. Caring for the beloved sometimes goes together with hurting the beloved.
Love is closely connected with vulnerability: the ability to hurt and to be hurt. Although some kinds of hurt in love are intended, most of them are not.
Nevertheless, someone who deliberately hurts another person can simultaneously claim to love that person. The phenomenon of emotional ambivalence, stemming from the presence of two different evaluative perspectives, can account for such a possibility (see here). The lack of indifference and mutual dependency typical of love suggests why this frequently occurs in love.
The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, although this article has given you some justification to hurt me, I am still not sure you are doing it out of your profound love for me."
30 Eylül 2010 Perşembe
Should You Tell Your Friend That His or Her Partner Is Cheating?
Should You Tell Your Friend That His or Her Partner Is Cheating?
Is revealing an adulterous spouse to a friend good or right?
An anonymous commenter to an earlier post on adultery asked:
So, if you know someone is a serial adulterer and is currently having another affair, would it be better to tell his wife? Is it better for her to know? Better for him perhaps? What about the longterm effects on his daughters? Will they be more likely to choose an adulterous husband because of their own father's behaviour? Rather like children of alcoholics?
Let's set aside the issue of serial adultery for now and just address the core question: if we know a friend's partner is cheating on him or her, should we tell our friend or not? This question is heart-wrenching, but exactly why is that?
On the one hand, you feel your friend is being wronged, and we don't like seeing wrong being done, whatever we feel the response should be—at the very least we want it to stop, especially when the one being hurt is someone we care about. But on the other hand, telling our friend would likely hurt him or her in some way. Even if we believe that our friend is being hurt by adultery he or she is unaware of, that hurt is not our fault—but we would be directly hurting him or her by revealing the truth, and we dont want to cause (further) harm to our friend (or other people involved, such as children).
In other words, it would seem to be the right thing to tell our friend, but it may not be the best thing in terms of the good. The commenter's questions were written in terms of "better," which implies a focus on the good: which action would result in the most good being done? This reflects a utilitarian outlook, in which the act that would produce the most good is morally required. But the pull of the right thing, which follows a general principle other than "do the most good," is very strong as well; we often hear people say, "it's OK, you did the right thing," when doing the right thing doesn't turn out well. This is a sign of a deontological approach to ethics, which corresponds more to duties, rules, or principles than to goodness or utility.
One of the arguments for deontological ethics is that utilitarianism is too demanding, not only in terms of the actions it demands (such as Peter Singer's calls for extreme self-sacrifice to help alleviate poverty), but also in terms of the knowledge and calculations involved. This is illustrated well by the reader's comment: What's best for the person who is cheated on? What's best for the cheater? What's best for the children? How do we compare these? How do we work in all the uncertainties, risks, and unknowns?
This sounds like an argument for rule utilitarianism, which recommends we follow simple rules that generally maximize the good, rather than try to calculate the consequences of uncertain actions (as would be required by act utilitarianism, discussed above). That's fine for simple rules like "do not lie": most of us believe that lying generally ends up badly, so it's easier—and, in the long run, better—to refrain from lying in general, even if occasionally a lie would be best. But it doesn't help much in the case we're considering here, because it's hard to decide what is generally the best action in the case of our friend and his or her adulterous partner.
So rather than try to do the best thing, whatever that might be, maybe we should just do the right thing—and in this case, the right thing would seem to be to tell our friend the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. OK, but those chips may hurt, and they may hurt a lot. Are we comfortable with that? We can always tell ourselves we did the right thing—even our friend may actually say that to is, while he or she is crying, punching a wall, or emptying one bottle after another. But doing the right thing doesn't feel so great when it results in hurt; that's the deontologist's burden, and it can be a heavy one.
This is yet another example of the never-ending debate between the right and the good. I've oversimplified a bit—philosophers have developed much more elaborate versions of these arguments, of course—but as always, I just want to show that moral decisions are not always easy, even when we know all the ethical schools, rules, and perspectives. In the end, it always comes down to judgment, and believing that you found the "right answer" that maintains the integrity of your moral character.
My personal opinion? I would ask myself, "What would my friend want me to do?" After all, it's his or her marriage, life, and future--what do I think he or she would like me to do? Respect what I think my friend would want: that's my right answer. Is it yours?
Is revealing an adulterous spouse to a friend good or right?
An anonymous commenter to an earlier post on adultery asked:
So, if you know someone is a serial adulterer and is currently having another affair, would it be better to tell his wife? Is it better for her to know? Better for him perhaps? What about the longterm effects on his daughters? Will they be more likely to choose an adulterous husband because of their own father's behaviour? Rather like children of alcoholics?
Let's set aside the issue of serial adultery for now and just address the core question: if we know a friend's partner is cheating on him or her, should we tell our friend or not? This question is heart-wrenching, but exactly why is that?
On the one hand, you feel your friend is being wronged, and we don't like seeing wrong being done, whatever we feel the response should be—at the very least we want it to stop, especially when the one being hurt is someone we care about. But on the other hand, telling our friend would likely hurt him or her in some way. Even if we believe that our friend is being hurt by adultery he or she is unaware of, that hurt is not our fault—but we would be directly hurting him or her by revealing the truth, and we dont want to cause (further) harm to our friend (or other people involved, such as children).
In other words, it would seem to be the right thing to tell our friend, but it may not be the best thing in terms of the good. The commenter's questions were written in terms of "better," which implies a focus on the good: which action would result in the most good being done? This reflects a utilitarian outlook, in which the act that would produce the most good is morally required. But the pull of the right thing, which follows a general principle other than "do the most good," is very strong as well; we often hear people say, "it's OK, you did the right thing," when doing the right thing doesn't turn out well. This is a sign of a deontological approach to ethics, which corresponds more to duties, rules, or principles than to goodness or utility.
One of the arguments for deontological ethics is that utilitarianism is too demanding, not only in terms of the actions it demands (such as Peter Singer's calls for extreme self-sacrifice to help alleviate poverty), but also in terms of the knowledge and calculations involved. This is illustrated well by the reader's comment: What's best for the person who is cheated on? What's best for the cheater? What's best for the children? How do we compare these? How do we work in all the uncertainties, risks, and unknowns?
This sounds like an argument for rule utilitarianism, which recommends we follow simple rules that generally maximize the good, rather than try to calculate the consequences of uncertain actions (as would be required by act utilitarianism, discussed above). That's fine for simple rules like "do not lie": most of us believe that lying generally ends up badly, so it's easier—and, in the long run, better—to refrain from lying in general, even if occasionally a lie would be best. But it doesn't help much in the case we're considering here, because it's hard to decide what is generally the best action in the case of our friend and his or her adulterous partner.
So rather than try to do the best thing, whatever that might be, maybe we should just do the right thing—and in this case, the right thing would seem to be to tell our friend the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. OK, but those chips may hurt, and they may hurt a lot. Are we comfortable with that? We can always tell ourselves we did the right thing—even our friend may actually say that to is, while he or she is crying, punching a wall, or emptying one bottle after another. But doing the right thing doesn't feel so great when it results in hurt; that's the deontologist's burden, and it can be a heavy one.
This is yet another example of the never-ending debate between the right and the good. I've oversimplified a bit—philosophers have developed much more elaborate versions of these arguments, of course—but as always, I just want to show that moral decisions are not always easy, even when we know all the ethical schools, rules, and perspectives. In the end, it always comes down to judgment, and believing that you found the "right answer" that maintains the integrity of your moral character.
My personal opinion? I would ask myself, "What would my friend want me to do?" After all, it's his or her marriage, life, and future--what do I think he or she would like me to do? Respect what I think my friend would want: that's my right answer. Is it yours?
The Call of Solitude
The Call of Solitude
How spending time alone can enhance intimacy. Being alone can fuel life.
What's really blocking our joy in relationships, our creativity, and our peace of mind? One surprising answer, in this age of alienation, is a lack of solitude.
Meaningful alonetime, it turns out, is a powerful need and a necessary tonic in today's rapid-fire world. Indeed, solitude actually allows us to connect to others in a far richer way.
We live in a society that worships independence yet deeply fears alienation: our era is sped-up and overconnected. The earth's population has doubled since the 1950s, and in cities across the world, urban crowding and the new global economy have revolutionized social relationships. Cellular phones now extend the domain of the workplace into every part of our lives; religion no longer provides a place for quiet retreat but instead offers "megachurches" of social and secular amusement; and climbers on the top of Mt. McKinley whip out hand-held radios to call home. We are heading toward a time when, according to the New York Times, "portable phones, pagers, and data transmission devices of every sort will keep us terminally in touch." Yet in another, more profound way, we are terminally out of touch. The need for genuine and constructive aloneness has gotten utterly lost, and, in the process, so have we.
Now, more than ever, we need our solitude. Being alone gives us the power to regulate and adjust our lives. It can teach us fortitude and the ability to satisfy our own needs. A restorer of energy, the stillness of alone experiences provides us with much-needed rest. It brings forth our longing to explore, our curiosity about the unknown, our will to be an individual, our hopes for freedom. Alonetime is fuel for life.
As a psychologist, I have witnessed the enormous benefits of time alone and seen how it actually strengthens our attachments. A young woman confided in me that her husband was a wonderful lover, and the intimacy between them remarkable. Yet they did not go to bed or wake up at the same time, and in the morning she sipped coffee and read the paper by herself. The streets were quiet, and she was truly alone. She would never give up that alonetime in exchange for more sex; those solitary mornings and her husband's solitary nights were the bedrock of their unusual intimacy.
Both the need to be alone and to engage others are essential to human happiness and survival, with equally provocative claims. Mother nature gives aloneness a high priority: sleep is nature's way of ensuring solitude. But given the rise in the number of sleep-disorder clinics and the sale of soporific drugs, even this one fundamental outlet for aloneness is in trouble.
Our error is in presuming that aloneness and attachment are either/or conditions. They are at odds only when they are pitted against each other. The healing aspects of solitude have not gone wholly unnoticed in current psychology; "time out" has been heralded as a coping strategy, as an emotional breather. However, the phrase "time out" suggests that, in the theatre of life, relating and stimulation are the important dramas and alonetime merely intermission. In truth, each profoundly enriches the other. So, let's discover the joys of solitude.
Alone But Not Lonely
In the past century, the way we have handled aloneness has changed dramatically. "Alone" did not always mean an absence of others. The word was coined in medieval times, and originally signified a completeness in one's singular being. In religious terminology, "solitude" typically meant the experience of oneness with God. Yet all current meanings of "alone" imply a lack of something. Invariably, solitude meets with social questioning, if not censure. Even worse, people associate going it alone with antisocial pursuits and unnecessary risk taking. Perhaps most striking, solitude conjures up pangs of loneliness.
Loneliness is indeed the most obvious risk of aloneness. The very idea of solitude may evoke deep childhood fears of abandonment and neglect, and cause some people to rush toward connectedness. But I do not believe that loneliness can be totally banished from life, nor that it should be. Like anxiety or guilt, it's part of the human condition. It tells us that we are not being understood and are perhaps too isolated from community and connection. Surprisingly, it can also tell us that we are not taking time to be in contact with our inner selves—to be alone.
Psychology is only just beginning to distinguish aloneness from loneliness. Longing for a lover, relative, or friend is not the cause of loneliness, nor is finding someone necessarily the cure. People inside a tight-knit nuclear family can be just as unknown and lonely as those living on their own. Attachments are not automatically fulfilling relationships. In some cases, attachments are maintained only at the cost of extreme personal compromise: people speak of being shackled and held hostage in a relationship. Certainly there are well-made marriages, but if we are primarily social animals, why would bonding prove so arduous?
Most people seek balance through finding someone or something that will keep them in the world with peers and alone in contentment. Alonetime and together time require smooth segues in order to avoid conflict. Many societies that emphasize close-knit family patterns also provide built-in loopholes that offer individual escape, acceptable ways to dissociate from society—whether in trance dancing, vision quests, or hunting. Western travelers to Japan in particular are impressed by the niches set aside in public spaces for individuals to sit alone.
How spending time alone can enhance intimacy. Being alone can fuel life.
What's really blocking our joy in relationships, our creativity, and our peace of mind? One surprising answer, in this age of alienation, is a lack of solitude.
Meaningful alonetime, it turns out, is a powerful need and a necessary tonic in today's rapid-fire world. Indeed, solitude actually allows us to connect to others in a far richer way.
We live in a society that worships independence yet deeply fears alienation: our era is sped-up and overconnected. The earth's population has doubled since the 1950s, and in cities across the world, urban crowding and the new global economy have revolutionized social relationships. Cellular phones now extend the domain of the workplace into every part of our lives; religion no longer provides a place for quiet retreat but instead offers "megachurches" of social and secular amusement; and climbers on the top of Mt. McKinley whip out hand-held radios to call home. We are heading toward a time when, according to the New York Times, "portable phones, pagers, and data transmission devices of every sort will keep us terminally in touch." Yet in another, more profound way, we are terminally out of touch. The need for genuine and constructive aloneness has gotten utterly lost, and, in the process, so have we.
Now, more than ever, we need our solitude. Being alone gives us the power to regulate and adjust our lives. It can teach us fortitude and the ability to satisfy our own needs. A restorer of energy, the stillness of alone experiences provides us with much-needed rest. It brings forth our longing to explore, our curiosity about the unknown, our will to be an individual, our hopes for freedom. Alonetime is fuel for life.
As a psychologist, I have witnessed the enormous benefits of time alone and seen how it actually strengthens our attachments. A young woman confided in me that her husband was a wonderful lover, and the intimacy between them remarkable. Yet they did not go to bed or wake up at the same time, and in the morning she sipped coffee and read the paper by herself. The streets were quiet, and she was truly alone. She would never give up that alonetime in exchange for more sex; those solitary mornings and her husband's solitary nights were the bedrock of their unusual intimacy.
Both the need to be alone and to engage others are essential to human happiness and survival, with equally provocative claims. Mother nature gives aloneness a high priority: sleep is nature's way of ensuring solitude. But given the rise in the number of sleep-disorder clinics and the sale of soporific drugs, even this one fundamental outlet for aloneness is in trouble.
Our error is in presuming that aloneness and attachment are either/or conditions. They are at odds only when they are pitted against each other. The healing aspects of solitude have not gone wholly unnoticed in current psychology; "time out" has been heralded as a coping strategy, as an emotional breather. However, the phrase "time out" suggests that, in the theatre of life, relating and stimulation are the important dramas and alonetime merely intermission. In truth, each profoundly enriches the other. So, let's discover the joys of solitude.
Alone But Not Lonely
In the past century, the way we have handled aloneness has changed dramatically. "Alone" did not always mean an absence of others. The word was coined in medieval times, and originally signified a completeness in one's singular being. In religious terminology, "solitude" typically meant the experience of oneness with God. Yet all current meanings of "alone" imply a lack of something. Invariably, solitude meets with social questioning, if not censure. Even worse, people associate going it alone with antisocial pursuits and unnecessary risk taking. Perhaps most striking, solitude conjures up pangs of loneliness.
Loneliness is indeed the most obvious risk of aloneness. The very idea of solitude may evoke deep childhood fears of abandonment and neglect, and cause some people to rush toward connectedness. But I do not believe that loneliness can be totally banished from life, nor that it should be. Like anxiety or guilt, it's part of the human condition. It tells us that we are not being understood and are perhaps too isolated from community and connection. Surprisingly, it can also tell us that we are not taking time to be in contact with our inner selves—to be alone.
Psychology is only just beginning to distinguish aloneness from loneliness. Longing for a lover, relative, or friend is not the cause of loneliness, nor is finding someone necessarily the cure. People inside a tight-knit nuclear family can be just as unknown and lonely as those living on their own. Attachments are not automatically fulfilling relationships. In some cases, attachments are maintained only at the cost of extreme personal compromise: people speak of being shackled and held hostage in a relationship. Certainly there are well-made marriages, but if we are primarily social animals, why would bonding prove so arduous?
Most people seek balance through finding someone or something that will keep them in the world with peers and alone in contentment. Alonetime and together time require smooth segues in order to avoid conflict. Many societies that emphasize close-knit family patterns also provide built-in loopholes that offer individual escape, acceptable ways to dissociate from society—whether in trance dancing, vision quests, or hunting. Western travelers to Japan in particular are impressed by the niches set aside in public spaces for individuals to sit alone.
29 Haziran 2010 Salı
Walking the path alone: Self-responsible spouse
Walking the path alone: Self-responsible spouse
How going it alone brings couples together
Published on June 17, 2010
Going it alone is not what most brides and grooms envision on their wedding day. We picture a lifetime of togetherness. Expect to meet each other's needs. Hope never to feel lonely again.
Of course, opportunities for togetherness are chief among the benefits of love and marriage. If, however, we accept the conventional wisdom that spouses are supposed to fulfill each other's wants and needs, we are headed for frustration and disappointment. And, if we believe the old thinking that marriage is the antidote for loneliness, we are sure to blame our spouses when we feel lonely.
Based on the belief that marriage is the most important and special relationship of one's life, we hold spouses uniquely responsible to "be there for each other." If our needs go unmet or loneliness besets us, we conclude that our spouses are failing to shoulder their share of marital responsibilities. We easily justify this conclusion, because conventional wisdom condones pointing the finger at matrimonial slackers. (See previous post, Is your partner a matrimonial slacker?)
In order to get off the road to marital dissatisfaction, we must choose a singular new path - the path of self-responsibility. And each of us must walk this path alone. "But wait," you may ask, "don't couples have to work together to resolve marital issues?" Simply put, no.
When we say we have marital issues, we are expressing dissatisfaction with each other's behavior. Think about it. We, essentially, tell our partners, "My feelings of resentment/insecurity/loneliness will change, if you change your behavior." Of course, it's understandable to feel unhappy about perceived neglect and "grown-up" tantrums or to initially react by pointing a finger and saying, "He started it!" But we all know where that leads.
Exception: If you are being abused by your spouse, the self-responsible approach is to rescue yourself.
Unfortunately, most of us mistakenly believe that the act of making our dissatisfaction known - "speaking up for ourselves" - is being self-responsible. "Speaking up" about our concerns equals asking a spouse to take responsibility for our unhappiness. Self-responsible spouses accept that, regardless of the specifics, others are not to blame for our negative emotions. Self-responsible spouses understand that managing negative emotions is strictly do-it-yourself. (See previous post, How to Train Your Dragon.)
Choosing the self-responsible path means: 1) Stepping off the road that everyone else seems to be following; 2) Giving up the idea that marital satisfaction hinges on transforming our partners; 3) Asking and answering a few ego-confronting, self-transforming questions:
Do my expectations reflect reality?
Do my reactions show emotional maturity?
Am I constructively managing my negative emotions?
Am I focusing on my partner's strengths?
As for how walking alone on the path of self-responsibility brings couples together, imagine the profound attraction you might feel toward a spouse who stopped criticizing you and started transforming himself or herself.
How going it alone brings couples together
Published on June 17, 2010
Going it alone is not what most brides and grooms envision on their wedding day. We picture a lifetime of togetherness. Expect to meet each other's needs. Hope never to feel lonely again.
Of course, opportunities for togetherness are chief among the benefits of love and marriage. If, however, we accept the conventional wisdom that spouses are supposed to fulfill each other's wants and needs, we are headed for frustration and disappointment. And, if we believe the old thinking that marriage is the antidote for loneliness, we are sure to blame our spouses when we feel lonely.
Based on the belief that marriage is the most important and special relationship of one's life, we hold spouses uniquely responsible to "be there for each other." If our needs go unmet or loneliness besets us, we conclude that our spouses are failing to shoulder their share of marital responsibilities. We easily justify this conclusion, because conventional wisdom condones pointing the finger at matrimonial slackers. (See previous post, Is your partner a matrimonial slacker?)
In order to get off the road to marital dissatisfaction, we must choose a singular new path - the path of self-responsibility. And each of us must walk this path alone. "But wait," you may ask, "don't couples have to work together to resolve marital issues?" Simply put, no.
When we say we have marital issues, we are expressing dissatisfaction with each other's behavior. Think about it. We, essentially, tell our partners, "My feelings of resentment/insecurity/loneliness will change, if you change your behavior." Of course, it's understandable to feel unhappy about perceived neglect and "grown-up" tantrums or to initially react by pointing a finger and saying, "He started it!" But we all know where that leads.
Exception: If you are being abused by your spouse, the self-responsible approach is to rescue yourself.
Unfortunately, most of us mistakenly believe that the act of making our dissatisfaction known - "speaking up for ourselves" - is being self-responsible. "Speaking up" about our concerns equals asking a spouse to take responsibility for our unhappiness. Self-responsible spouses accept that, regardless of the specifics, others are not to blame for our negative emotions. Self-responsible spouses understand that managing negative emotions is strictly do-it-yourself. (See previous post, How to Train Your Dragon.)
Choosing the self-responsible path means: 1) Stepping off the road that everyone else seems to be following; 2) Giving up the idea that marital satisfaction hinges on transforming our partners; 3) Asking and answering a few ego-confronting, self-transforming questions:
Do my expectations reflect reality?
Do my reactions show emotional maturity?
Am I constructively managing my negative emotions?
Am I focusing on my partner's strengths?
As for how walking alone on the path of self-responsibility brings couples together, imagine the profound attraction you might feel toward a spouse who stopped criticizing you and started transforming himself or herself.
24 Haziran 2010 Perşembe
For Better Or For Worse
For Better Or For Worse
In-Loveness Will Often Collapse Under The Weight of "The Worse"
Published on June 23, 2010
How many weddings have you attended where a portion of the vows has included the phrase “for better or for worse?” If you are like me, probably lots.
But most of the time when we hear those words, we are hoping for lots of “better” and not much (if any) “worse” for the newly-wed couple.
We operate as if the only thing love needs for its development and growth is “the better.”
Rare is the person who realizes that “the worse” is just as important for the development and growth of love as is “the better.”
Some may have heard the story of “The Beggar And The Chrysalis”:
Along a dusty road in India there sat an old beggar who sold cocoons. A curious young boy watched him from a distance day after day. Unexpectedly the beggar one day beckoned to the boy: “Do you know what beauty lies within this ugly chrysalis? I will give you one so that you might see for yourself. But you must be careful not to handle the cocoon until the butterfly emerges.”
The boy was enchanted with the gift and hurried home to await the butterfly. He laid the cocoon on the floor and became aware of a strange thing. The hidden butterfly was beating its fragile wings against the hard wall of the chrysalis. It appeared that the butterfly would surely perish before it could break the unyielding prison. Wanting only to help, the boy impulsively pried open the cocoon. Out flopped a wet, brown thing that quickly died.
The boy sadly returned and told his story to the beggar. When the beggar discovered what had happened, he quietly explained to the boy: “In order for the butterfly’s wings to grow strong enough to give support, it is necessary that it beat them against the walls of the cocoon. Only by this struggle can its wings become durable and beautiful. When you denied that struggle, you took away its chance for strength and beauty.”
We often think of “the worse” as an obstacle to the development and growth of love. But in reality, the hard times are a necessary part of the experience whereby the strength and beauty of love takes shape.
In-Loveness Will Often Collapse Under The Weight of "The Worse"
Published on June 23, 2010
How many weddings have you attended where a portion of the vows has included the phrase “for better or for worse?” If you are like me, probably lots.
But most of the time when we hear those words, we are hoping for lots of “better” and not much (if any) “worse” for the newly-wed couple.
We operate as if the only thing love needs for its development and growth is “the better.”
Rare is the person who realizes that “the worse” is just as important for the development and growth of love as is “the better.”
Some may have heard the story of “The Beggar And The Chrysalis”:
Along a dusty road in India there sat an old beggar who sold cocoons. A curious young boy watched him from a distance day after day. Unexpectedly the beggar one day beckoned to the boy: “Do you know what beauty lies within this ugly chrysalis? I will give you one so that you might see for yourself. But you must be careful not to handle the cocoon until the butterfly emerges.”
The boy was enchanted with the gift and hurried home to await the butterfly. He laid the cocoon on the floor and became aware of a strange thing. The hidden butterfly was beating its fragile wings against the hard wall of the chrysalis. It appeared that the butterfly would surely perish before it could break the unyielding prison. Wanting only to help, the boy impulsively pried open the cocoon. Out flopped a wet, brown thing that quickly died.
The boy sadly returned and told his story to the beggar. When the beggar discovered what had happened, he quietly explained to the boy: “In order for the butterfly’s wings to grow strong enough to give support, it is necessary that it beat them against the walls of the cocoon. Only by this struggle can its wings become durable and beautiful. When you denied that struggle, you took away its chance for strength and beauty.”
We often think of “the worse” as an obstacle to the development and growth of love. But in reality, the hard times are a necessary part of the experience whereby the strength and beauty of love takes shape.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)