I really enjoy this book. It makes a lot of sense in the realm of humanity. It is interesting to read about the way in which people are amazed at the way they feel after demonstrating random acts of kindness. A quote that I have been thinking about a lot is in the beginning of the book on page four. "Reading these stories, we begin to wonder why people today are so surprised by the blindingly obvious. Why do the pleasures of kindness astonish us? And why are the stories about kindness often so corny or silly, so trivializing of the things that matter most to people?" (Phillips, Taylor pg. 4). When I read this passage, it really struck me and made me think about the types of kindness that are heard of in news stories and by word of mouth. Each time somebody does something kind or unselfish, it becomes a big deal.
People are flabbergasted by the sheer kindness that is done, or they completely take it for granted. From personal experience, I know that a lot of people are simply astonished by random acts of kindness. I work at a drive-thru coffee shop, and occassionally, someone will pay for another person's coffee even if they are previously unacquainted with the other person. The person who's drink was paid for will be very happy, and sometimes pay for someone else's drink. It's a great feeling being a part of making someone's day a little bit happier. Personally, I think that it is random acts of violence and anger that should be more astonishing to people. Kindness should be a part of everybody's lives without question. There should be nothing astonishing about someone paying for a coffee just because they felt like it. It should be nice, but not something unheard of in the realm of every day reality. If people focused more on performing acts of kindness instead of consuming themselves with their own lives completely, this world would be a much nicer place in which to live.
In this reading I noticed several contrasts. There was the contrast between male and female acceptable emotions. Females are commonly seen as the affectionate ones, allowed to show kindness, which is in direct contrast to the mentality and emotions of masculine males. It is the difference between the “coldness of the economic mind-set …associated with men” compared to the “warm kindliness of women” (Phillips, Taylor 44). It was commonly thought that women could be affectionate because it was a sign on weakness, where as men had to appear tough at all times to be truly male.
ReplyDeleteThe second interesting contrast was that Rousseau was renowned for his intellect on the idea of kindness; however, he was also known for being very harsh towards his family. He was known for his interesting in the good of his peers. Oppositionists however, criticized him calling him a hypocrite that “preached universal love while abusing his friends and family” (Phillips, Taylor 37).
Perhaps the greatest contrast is the ideas of what kindness truly is. Opponents say that kindness is not inside of every human and instead we are “all pleasure-maximizing machines driven solely by self-concern…”(Phillips, Taylor 44). Proponents on the other hand follow Marcus Aurelius’ words that “a man’s true delight…is to do the things he was made for…to show goodwill to his kind” (Phillips, Taylor 18). This two ideas are two completely different ideas that seem to have no overlapping ground. When you look closer the reader realizes opponents and proponents are both debating an idea called kindness; kindness is defined as “the ability to bear the vulnerability of others, and therefore of oneself” (Phillips, Taylor 8). Both philosophies fight to win followers for their argument. It is up to the reader to decide which side to believe and this book On Kindness most definitely gives the reader a clear look at both sides of the argument. So it is up to the reader to decide; “is it time to give up on being kind?”(Phillips, Taylor 8).