Shane Warne proposes to Elizabeth Hurley with a 30,000 pound diamond ring that very closely resembles what Prince Charles gave Princess Diana. This is the top headline on any news channel you would've tuned into, yesterday. I've never liked poking nose into the private lives of unrelated people, but there are a few general questions here that are a little uneasy to answer.The simpler ones first. Are diamonds really so precious considering that the diamond cartel artificially keeps the prices of diamonds high by ridiculously reducing their supply, is question one. Are diamonds really human-safe considering that scores of humans are tortured and beat to death in the fields of Africa, is question two. If you have answer to the first question, you almost have figured out your way to happiness. If you have answer to the second question, you almost have figured out what is right and what is not. But considering that none of us could've immaculately figured those out, we will leave them free.
Let us create a better question. Are sports and entertainment two fields that do not contribute to human progress but celebrated the most? Though the fact about celebrity status may be true, the fact about contribution to human progress may not be. In a way, everything contributes to everything, isn't it? Anyway, human progress cannot be the only motivation behind something. And it's really individual preference and discretion to choose who should be made a star. Hence the question three about whether it is a great idea to create celebrities out of movie stars and sports heroes, and not out of space scientists and social workers is also difficult to answer.
All these are so subjective questions that can be extrapolated to most things, if not everything. So before we can create one more question, let us batter these a little more. If diamond is artificially over-valued, almost every other thing is too. If diamonds are not human-safe, almost every other thing is not life-safe in some way. If sports and entertainment do not contribute to human progress, almost everything else can be argued against in the same way. So let us ask a more practical final question. Are these disparities in earnings and rewards right? Is it not an irony that a porter has to whistle and applaud a film hero cast as porter in a movie? Shouldn't it be the other way around? What is skill and what is not? Who are we to decide?
If a restaurant's business is counted in a country's GDP, so should a mother's cooking be. If a school's business is counted in the GDP, so should a father's teaching be. But should we really attach money value to things invaluable? Maybe it's a better idea to just leave them noble?
Is it then a better idea to leave the real heroes of the world materially uncelebrated? I would say yes.
Money is in fact something and like many other sad truths, it is sad that the hard work of the porter is not as rewarded... not even appreciated, in non-material terms, by most.
ReplyDeleteForget adding mother's cooking to GDP, if the home-maker's efforts at home are appreciated by the husband, in non-material terms, that in itself is great... but are we all doing that? I guess there are worse issues here than just the plain lack of material celebration.
So coming to the paragraph: "But should we really attach money value to things invaluable? Maybe it's a better idea to just leave them noble? Is it then a better idea to leave the real heroes of the world materially uncelebrated? I would say yes."
I'll add my thoughts though I understand what you're saying. If nobility is something that would cause intangible joy, but tangible sorrow, how can I not feel sorry for the noble? There should be some way to save them from their sacrifice. Isn't it injustice to let them sacrifice? Isn't it injustice to almost bring it down to the level that they're noble, because they dont get even a bit of what they deserve?...
May be there's no answer to this. May be its just another unsolvable irony of life.
Yes, agree. A better conclusion for this post would be what you said - The noble at least need intangible appreciation, if not celebration, non-material or material, that can keep them going, that can continue to sustain their nobility.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it can start another post! Is a wife appreciated enough? Is a mother appreciated enough? Well, why leave mother-in-law, is she appreciated enough? Why stop with family? Why, be gender-biased? Is everyone appreciated enough? Wait, why restrict to just appreciation? Is everyone censured enough? Rewarded enough? Punished enough?
ReplyDeleteIn short, does everyone get only as much as he or she deserves, good or bad?
I don't have an answer to this other than resorting to cliched quotes like "Be good, do good", "Love all, serve all", etc. which are pretty much impractical anyway, unless you're really noble :)
... But the post didnt need that conclusion though, it's fitting to have it in the comments section, that's all.... Like a footnote or something :-)
ReplyDeleteDoes everyone get only as much as he deserves? I think the answer is "yes, over time, everyone gets what he deserves". So, for everyone to get the good, they had better do some good! :) I think, not essentially the noble or self-sacrificial good, but the Utilitarian good.
ReplyDelete