(no subject)

[rowyn]

"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." --Andre Gide

Is it, do you think?

Comments

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I would differ with Strangess and Telnar here. I have experienced both in abundance. There is a certain ... utility, perhaps, in the hater exposing himself, as Strangess suggested -- but they do not always do so.

On the other hand, to be loved for something you are not can mean to be loved for the potential you have to be something you almost are -- and this can inspire you to struggle to be that which you can be, in order to live up to the love that you have been given.

That is no burden, and no falsity; instead, it is a powerful motivator.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

"Loved for what you want to be" is, perhaps, not the same as "loved for what you are not". I think Strangess's observation captures the one of the main thrusts of the quote: "people tend to love by delusion but hate with accuracy".

That said ... I can't say I agree with that point. I think most if not all emotions are based on imperfect, if not grossly flawed, understandings. If anything, hate tends to be more irrational than love, based on single incidents, misunderstood intentions, things done by accident. Love, on the other hand, is more likely inspired by things done intentionally -- if not things one does often enough. ;)

Being loved for what you aspire to be -- yes, I daresay that's a pleasant enough position. Better than being hated, regardless of the hater's level of insight. >:)

Still, there is that flip side to the quote, which is "It's better to be honest". And it is better to make enemies by being who you want to be, than to make friends by pretending to be something you have no will or desire to become.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

With those refinements, I'd agree. But I don't like the implication that it is only one or the other.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

I'll freely admit that I feel a lot of ambivalence about the quote -- hence my original question on it. :) It's the sort of thing that I'm glad doesn't have any more authoritorial weight behind it. The best way to take it is the way Strangess looked at it -- better that she should stay true to her values and alienate those who disagreed with them, then to abandon what she thinks is right in order to conform. (After all, if they don't like what you value, you shouldn't want them on your side, anyway.)

But the worst way to take it would be as a justification for any sort of bad behavior, because "You should love me for who I am! And I just happen to be the sort of person who beats up his girlfriend, okay? It'd be wrong for me to change merely to please someone else." O.o No, really, sometimes it's OK to change.