Rejection

Why do we want to be accepted and hate rejection so much?  After all, rejection is quite logical.  In most scenarios there are more people trying to achieve a goal they will not reach.  For example, you might want to be a star athlete but there are only so many places on professional teams for you to obtain.  Moreover, just achieving professional status, hard as that is to do, doesn’t guarantee stardom.  You might want to be successful musician or a writer, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but the vast majority of people seeking those positions will not achieve them.

It’s true that anyone can start a band, write a book, or form a company, but to make it a success is something else entirely.  The odds are against us.  Still it doesn’t hinder some of us from reaching for the stars.  Hope springs eternal.

There are many who embrace the logic of rejection and don’t try to reach hugely ambitious goals, but they will face rejection from friends and potential romantic partners.  Even if you don’t want to be a corporate titan, most of us are not content to remain on the same rung of the ladder forever.  So even if we shy away from giant goals we can’t completely inoculate ourselves from rejection. 

Are we supposed to become accustomed to not achieving our dreams, and settle for the possible – to surrender to cynicism?  To sneer at those who try?

We seem destined to search for unconditional acceptance in a world where we face constant rejection. 

We know we are not perfect and so we need acceptance in spite of ourselves.  Close family can provide this to a certain extent, but our family members are often just as imperfect as we are. 

If there were a perfect person would they be disgusted by us?  Or would a perfect person be so gracious that only they could overlook our many flaws and accept us nonetheless?

If I were a truly “perfect” person I would likely console myself better that I was better than everyone else as I maintained splendid isolation. 

The Bible tells of a perfect God coming to live with hugely flawed people, some of whom couldn’t stand Him so much that they wanted Him dead.  But He offers acceptance – no matter what we have done.  That is good news.

For some thoughts on whether we are good people click here.

A Standard Of Measure

There is one thing of which one can say neither that it is one metre long, nor that it is not one metre long, and that is the standard metre in Paris. - Ludwig Wittgenstein (1)

When scientists decided to come up with the metric system, they needed a standard of measure.  A metre stick stored in Paris, made of platinum, was chosen as the standard against which all metres were to be measured.  Platinum was chosen because it would not vary or decay.  However, today the platinum metre has been superseded by laser light for the same reason. (2)

A standard of measure needs an objective source that can be accessed so as to verify the accuracy of a particular measure.  That source must be constant and unchanging.  Obviously, if the standard metre were constantly changing, measurements would be unreliable.  If measurements could not be relied on, they could not be used in science, commerce, or everyday life and the metre as a standard of measure would be abandoned.

The metre stick in Paris, therefore, holds a special place in the measurement system.  It is the standard by which all other metres are put against to see if they measure up.  Ludwig Wittgenstein, the celebrated twentieth century Austrian philosopher, wrote that the metre stick in Paris was neither one metre long, nor not one metre long. 

What does this mean?  Wittgenstein is often enigmatic, but he seems to be saying that the standard metre in Paris is not a metre long because it can’t be measured against itself to see if it is one metre long.  To see if it is one metre long, we would need another standard metre to measure the Paris standard metre against.  Then we would need another standard metre to measure that metre against, and so on into infinity.  So, it makes sense to have a starting point, a standard metre that is sui generis, that it to say, it can’t be measured against anything else. 

The concept of an objective standard of measure applies to other areas as well.  If we are to know how to quantify something we need a standard measure to make a determination.  For example, to make a decision whether an action is right or wrong we need a standard of right and wrong to measure our decision against.  If we have no such standard how can we make a decision?