Human nature

  Sometimes I offer my thoughts on things in general. I'm just writing out loud, that's how I think about that. I guess it is a form of self-help therapy only difference being I'm writing the book. I have always thought self-help books were amusing anyway. You can't get professional help from yourself, even when you are the professional. Reminds me of that old adage, physician heal thyself. Tough doing surgery on yourself, especially after the anesthesia kicks in. I'm okay, you're okay is one that I did read. I decided after reading that, that I am okay, it's others that need help. I suppose that was the point of the book.

 Other times, when I'm writing about a particular subject, I will go to google to check certain facts. I will read what others have had to say about the topic as well. I'm surprised how often I find others saying pretty much the same thing. I'm amused when I realize the only difference is that they have some degree of fame and I don't. That is why I thought there isn't much anyone can say that hasn't been said before. I believe that and it is only the choice of words that differ. I'm beginning to think that all you really need to do is use words that others don't understand. When others have to look up the meaning it makes you appear smarter somehow. It's an old tactic, but effective sometimes. 

 I'm just amused when I can quote some great figure from history and everyone will agree on what a profound and insightful observation was made. Then when I say the same thing using regular every day words I'm told how stupid that is. And today I'm just seeing the meaning of words being changed to suit the narrative. That is what it says but that isn't what it means. A lot of that going on, especially among all the constitutional scholars on social media. Combine that with the disparaging of historical figures to discredit them and here we are. It's almost as though these highly educated people are shocked and surprised that those historical figures were simply human beings like all the rest of us. Jefferson created on his wife and Washington owned a brewery. Some of those people even held slaves! 

 I also wonder why it seems like some talented people are only talented for so long. What I mean is, take a songwriter for example. The ones that go on to record there own songs and have big hits always seem to fade away after a while. Oh, they may still be around performing, but they are just doing their old songs. Willie Nelson is a great example of that. Name the last big hit he penned. Unless you are a true diehard fan you most likely won't know. Yet, he wrote plenty of classics, songs that will continue forever. Neil Sedaka, Carol King and Kristofferson also come to mind. I suppose that is why they say fame is a fleeting thing, the public is fickle. Always looking for something new, something different, but in reality rediscovering the past. There really isn't much new in the world.

 And that statement isn't new either, it's an old adage. Human nature really hasn't changed all that much over the centuries. It is just the technology and availability of resources that change. People are still the same. Some call it the survival instinct. We will do whatever is necessary to survive in the world. We will also do whatever is necessary to advance our position in this world. That is where the question of  morality and ethics enter the picture. That is the reason for the spiritual! It's an appeal for help, and a justification for your actions, the proverbial double edged sword. We see that taking place in the world every single day. The middle east is the breeding ground for that. It has been since biblical times. Nothing new about any of that. 

 Much has been written about human nature. Nature or nurture? That is a primary issue that is in constant debate. I'm in the nurture camp, believing you will act pretty much the way you were taught. It's my feeling we are in a period where a lack of nurturing is causing civil unrest. In short, people just don't know how to act right! Yeah, not a big scholarly thesis or statement backed by "science." I'm not referencing past scholars, famous philosophers or phycologists. Just telling you what I see and think about it all. 

 A commonwealth is a political community established for the common protection of those in the commonwealth. You really do have to have the same objectives for that to be successful. Yeah I know, that doesn't seem scholarly enough now does it, too obvious, so therefore it can't be right. I probably need to attend a universities and earn a doctorate degree before making any such bold statement. A commonwealth must have shared values and goals.

 I'm not seeing that today, in our republic. That was a choice of words as well. When we broke away from Britain some "states" chose to call themselves a commonwealth, ie: Virginia and Pennsylvania are two. Others chose to call themself a state, as in state meaning government. It's all a matter of very subtle semantics. In the constitution when it refers to states that includes the commonwealths, although I'm certain that has been challenged at some point. Well, whatever name you want to use but I'm thinking we are losing that commonality that inspired the revolution in the first place. A sentiment that was inspired (nurtured) by the colonists. Or, was it just human nature? History repeats itself.