I was examining my own decision about my marriage. Even before I had come to the age of marriage, I had decided never to marry. Ultimately, I had to change my decision. Therefore, for a long time, I struggled with the question that how could I change that conviction.
I think I figured it out. What went wrong in that conviction is that I tried to relate the question of marriage from a point of view of "principle". I tried to give the answer to this question in a similar fashion as I would answer the question whether stealing is wrong or right. This is where I went wrong.
The fact is that the question of marriage cannot be answered from a moral standing. Because neither it is morally wrong or morally right. Being used to looking at it from a moral point of view yields a wrong answer when the time comes to make an actual decision. Given some compelling reason for marriage, the logic gets shattered because, at the moment of decision, we apply the same moral principle. Of course, the moral principle, when applied to the question of marriage, will yield the answer "I do" because there is nothing morally "wrong" about it.
The bottom-line is that marriage is a question of willingness to live with a partner. When we are ready to do so, we are ready for it. The call should be made from the stand point of how behemoth this task is and what freedoms are at stake. The right question to ask about marriage is not if love or romance exists. Marriage is a practical question while love and romance are the intermittent fluctuation of heart and chemistry.
I failed in marriage. The lesson to learn here is to look at any issue (not only marriage) honestly and making a point of view not from the fervor or zealot but from a more objective analysis of "what is the bottom-line" and breaking a problem into its most simplified elements and then trying to take position on it. In that case, it is easier to take a point of view and then change it if needed and still able to reconcile the two sides. More likely than not, when we answer a question at a very fundamental level, the answer will persist.
I think I figured it out. What went wrong in that conviction is that I tried to relate the question of marriage from a point of view of "principle". I tried to give the answer to this question in a similar fashion as I would answer the question whether stealing is wrong or right. This is where I went wrong.
The fact is that the question of marriage cannot be answered from a moral standing. Because neither it is morally wrong or morally right. Being used to looking at it from a moral point of view yields a wrong answer when the time comes to make an actual decision. Given some compelling reason for marriage, the logic gets shattered because, at the moment of decision, we apply the same moral principle. Of course, the moral principle, when applied to the question of marriage, will yield the answer "I do" because there is nothing morally "wrong" about it.
The bottom-line is that marriage is a question of willingness to live with a partner. When we are ready to do so, we are ready for it. The call should be made from the stand point of how behemoth this task is and what freedoms are at stake. The right question to ask about marriage is not if love or romance exists. Marriage is a practical question while love and romance are the intermittent fluctuation of heart and chemistry.
I failed in marriage. The lesson to learn here is to look at any issue (not only marriage) honestly and making a point of view not from the fervor or zealot but from a more objective analysis of "what is the bottom-line" and breaking a problem into its most simplified elements and then trying to take position on it. In that case, it is easier to take a point of view and then change it if needed and still able to reconcile the two sides. More likely than not, when we answer a question at a very fundamental level, the answer will persist.
No comments:
Post a Comment