Is being 'hard' a good thing? Is it a high moral? And are there others?
As a hypothetical grandmother may say, 'have some hardness to you?', a very underlaying take on the [I]'hard'[/I] of what people of this world may have experienced differently; as overt flamboyancy, or even disembodiment from society (in that falsely 'hard' people are too playful rather than serious about our livelihood.)
Hardness can be as simple as intricacy in mind and strength in body, as to be difficult, and tolerant - being difficult to break.
Hard is not as some might see it as having impossible stature.
I have a few questions:
Is it a moral thing to be hard? Are there other high morals(such as cuteness, smartness, etc)?
Is the term 'hard' displaced in this world? Is it understood by incorrect meaning through bad example of power in the wrong hands?
Hardness can be as simple as intricacy in mind and strength in body, as to be difficult, and tolerant - being difficult to break.
Hard is not as some might see it as having impossible stature.
I have a few questions:
Is it a moral thing to be hard? Are there other high morals(such as cuteness, smartness, etc)?
Is the term 'hard' displaced in this world? Is it understood by incorrect meaning through bad example of power in the wrong hands?
Comments (15)
I think the sentiment is an attempt at 'common sense' or what we might call folk wisdom. My mother put it differently - 'Don't be a push over.' I see no moral implications.
The legitimacy of breaking or being defeated.
This would also imply that because we might break, or be defeated, in that we would then have to experience loss in X degree, that 'hardness' is ought to a high degree.
Case examples:
Positive "bluntness":
Person A: "You're going to die if you keep drinking like that."
Person B: "That was mean."
Person A: "Just being honest."
Purposeless "bluntness":
Person A: "I don't like your clothes. You look stupid."
Person B: "That was mean."
Person A: "I'm a blunt person. Get on my level."
Etcetera...
Social floors or depths are often now painted as ceilings or "bare minimums" to aspire toward instead of the undesirable states of being to be avoided they always were by those who are confined to them.
Still, others offer a valid point. Any adult who cries over spilled milk or the slightest criticism for example is likely doomed to bring preventable hardship, struggle, and even mortal danger to themselves as well as those close to them. School of hard knocks I guess.
"If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you." - Nietzsche
It's a fine line to walk. Easiest thing in the world to bring someone down, a literal dried piece of excrement on a sidewalk can do that. But to lift someone up, make a person smile, and give purpose to the self-proclaimed purposeless? That is what takes ability most either do not possess or find too difficult to achieve and live by, what separates a true leader from his or her peers.
I already said this.
I don't understand your other response. But perhaps we should leave it.
I personally prefer the opposite (not necessarily as a moral position, but as a functional position--if the two are mutually exclusive, which, I think not).
I prefer malleable, like the Taoist "suggestion" to be as an "uncarved block".
Quoting Outlander
Yet, when asked what is Buddha Nature, the Master Yun Men answered, " a shit stick." Presumably used as TP.
If our condition is not static but perpetually becoming. There's no point in being a hard dried-up turd blocking your own bowels from discharging their duty, movement. Move along. Exercise discrimination where needed such that you are satisfied that you have discerned the most functional place to temporarily settle. But move, keep moving.
Quoting Outlander
I think I do too. In fact the Eden Myth offers itself up as a brilliant allegory (in my opinion, as brilliant as the Cave). It is because we have fallen from being (Tree of Life) and chosen becoming (tree of knowledge (of difference, i.e. "good and evil")) that we cannot be Hard, even if we think we can. We are like that piece of plastic in the film, American Beauty; and like the answers in Bob Dylan's early "hit", blowing in the wind.
If you have consent, I guess it is.
Hmm. Intuition tells me to look into that further, but on the face of it, I'd say no. I'm, maybe being "hard" regarding malleabiliy. But that's not what you mean, right?
Not sure I understand. My interest in malleablity is not per se driven by any moral drive. Rather, I'm suggesting--under the influence of Zhuangzi--that the obstacles to free and easy functioning "in the face of this world," and the resulting suffering, comes from hardness.
By hardness, do you mean Firmness? Resolve? Constitution? Principle? I certainly think the last three are all admirable qualities, but before you go any further, let's figure out what "hardness" means.