I just finished a book called The Good Life, What makes a life worth living, by Hugh Mackay, and I really want to talk about it with you all. It made me think a lot, and when I think, I write, so here you go.
A life lived for others?
I overall quite enjoyed the book, even though many parts didn't quite resonate with me. Mackay unambiguously highlights that a life worth living is a life lived for others. To be honest, I was quite resistant to this concept when I started the book, even though I consider myself a rather altruistic person (altruistic enough at least). That means I ask myself this kind of questions: What about taking care of yourself first to be able to take care of others (i.e. self-care)? Should life really be about taking care of others, or forging your own experience? Define taking care of others? Everyone can't be Mother Theresa.
But MacKay doesn't mean that everyone should be Mother Theresa. He means that humanity is only the sum of his parts: we're not much without others. He also means that taking care of others doesn't necessarily imply taking care of someone who isn't well, or tending to someone. It also means:
To take someone seriously, no matter what stages they're at in their life, what they tell you and so on;
To listen actively: that means not thinking about what you're going to say when someone speaks to you, but listen to this person wholeheartedly, without judgement. Mackay's honest about the fact that there are a myriad of other things you'd often rather be doing or thinking about rather than listening to someone, but I guess that's where you test (and improve!) your altruism and patience.
A successful life is not necessarily one where you climbed the social ladder. Also, a certain type of life, i.e. "full", "blameless", "creative" doesn't exist. There are many things that define our life, at different stages of our life. That might be an obvious statement but doesn't hurt to say it again.
Being comfortable with death
The last chapter, entitled "A Good Death" really triggered me, because I am often uncomfortable talking about death (please tell me I'm not alone?). I think the fact that I'm not religious doesn't really help because I just believe that when you're dead, that's it, the end, bye.
But Mackay's last sentence has made me reconsider my approach to death: "If you wish to end your life knowing that you are loved, the only way to make this possible is to love, generously and selflessly. No one can promise you that a life lived for others will bring a deep sense of satisfaction, but it's certain that nothing else will". Well, I have nothing to add to this.
Don't be preachy: I'm not going to be good to BP
Mackay tried really hard not to be preachy through the book, and is being very careful about certain concepts. I'm thinking about the "Golden Rule" which basically says to treat others the way you'd like to be treated, including bad people or people who do mean things to you or others.
I find it really hard to follow the Golden Rule.
As an environmentalist, the analogy I thought of straight away is the destruction of the planet. So yes, BP (one of the largest oil companies in the world) isn't a person, although it is a corporation, and in regards of the law, a corporation can be treated as an human individual (yes this is crazy, this is why corporations get away with so much shit. I refer you to the Citizen United vs FEC case in the US). BP is violating the earth, destroying the environment, putting people's health at risk. Should I be nice to BP and treat it with respect? I don't think so.
On another note, should I be respectful with someone who killed my mother for instance (to take an extreme case)? Can I be? I don't really have an answer to these questions, but I believe Mackay's assertion that we should all just comply to the Golden rule is sometimes a bit hasty, or in my opinion, just wrong. I think part of being human is also acknowledging that we might not comply to the Golden Rule, and I don't think that's making us bad, or worse.
What do you think? Can you be good to BP?