An acquaintance on Facebook has started a thread of posts ending in the phrase, “Question everything.” She has asked all her “Facebook Friends” to question the made-up Hallmark holidays that exclude any who are single and/or childless. She has asked people to question the validity of religions, charities, and zoos. She even offered a post about people on Facebook having an agenda when they post – which seemed very much like an existential knot in a shoelace. Suffice it to say, I find her ability to encourage questioning satisfactory and therefore I have no need to push forward her agenda. Instead, I will share the inner dialogue which occurred as I considered her request to “question everything,” which I have dubbed:
If I’m to question everything, shouldn’t I begin by questioning that question? Why does she want me to question everything? The encouragement to question everything could be seen as a passive aggressive persuasion to think like her. Is there any proof that the questions she brings up are examples of how she’s had to adjust her own thinking? Perhaps they are just all the things she believes, wrapped up in a non-threatening form, hoping to catch some unsuspecting fish to pull into her philosophical doctrine. And if her questions are, in fact, just attempts to persuade others to change their beliefs to become more in line with hers, should I really begin to question everything?
Wasn’t there some phrase about how our perspectives are changed by the lens we look through? If there’s not, there should be. I mean, look at that woman walking into the store with the sunglasses on. It’s bright out here, so she shades her eyes; when she gets into the store, I bet she takes off the sunglasses. Different circumstance requires a different lens. But most people don’t do that with beliefs and perspective. They put on one pair of lenses and walk through life using only that one pair. How sad it must be to look at a rainbow and only see it as a natural refraction of light waves through droplets of water. How boring it must be to see only coincidence and not Fate, and how frightening it must be to see sin in anyone who lives differently. What would life be like if we could switch our perceptions as quickly as removing and putting on new glasses? A single flower would have hundreds of possibilities to explore as we looked upon it.
I always thought it was completely stupid that no one could guess that Clark Kent was Superman. His disguise was a pair of glasses! There’s Lex Luther, using his vast intellect to build another kryptonite-powered juggernaut but alas he cannot imagine a pair of glasses on Superman’s face and say, “Dear heavens, is that you Mr. Kent?!” Perhaps Lex should have changed his perception by putting on a new pair of glasses. Or maybe… when Superman puts on the glasses it’s not about changing how people see him, but how he sees himself. Superman has multiple personality dissociative disorder!
That’s a better theory than, “he’s just a good actor,” or “he has the superpower to hypnotize anyone into not thinking he’s Superman.” Certainly better than all these really intelligent (supposedly) super-villains being unable to connect the dots. “Hey – that reporter who’s always around Lois Lane, until Superman shows up and he mysteriously vanishes. He kinda looks like Superman… but nah, he slouches and wears baggy clothes and has glasses. Couldn’t be him.” It’s one of the reasons why I hate Superman as a “superhero.” He’s not a hero – he’s invulnerable and super-strong. He can fly, shoot laser beams out of his eyes, freeze things with his breath, travel so fast he can go back in time, and travel through space without a suit. When there’s no risk or danger to you, how can you be called brave? Is it brave for me to pick up a glass of water? Of course not, because there’s no realistic danger.
Which is why Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner isn’t a hero or brave. I’m very supportive of anyone who lives an “alternative” lifestyle because I live one and know the difficulties. But there was no danger or risk involved in Caitlyn becoming who she wants to be; Bruce was rich and self-employed. No one was going to be able to bring ruin onto her life because of how she lives it. Facing judgement and ridicule? Every human faces that risk every day, so we’re either all heroes for that or it’s not enough to qualify someone as a hero. I’m happy for her, and I support her, but the only reason anyone could claim she’s a “hero” is because she is a celebrity. Bravery is about doing something dangerous and heroism is doing something dangerous for the benefit of others. Caitlyn Jenner may have been brave, but she’s not a hero.
Speaking of heroes, “Daredevil” is actually a pretty interesting Netflix show. I’m glad I decided not to put it in the category of “Things I’ll Never Watch Because People Talk About it Too Much,” like the movie “Avatar” or the show “Game of Thrones.” Plus, I hated the books anyways. But “Daredevil” is good. The acting is good enough, the written story is excellent, the portrayal of the characters from the comics is pretty accurate (love how they’ve portrayed Fisk), and the action sequences are decent (although a bit more lighting would be nice… it’s always a bunch of shadows fighting shadows). I think I’ll watch a few episodes before heading off to work.
Where’s my remote control? And the Cheetos. Wait, what was I thinking about before? Guess it wasn’t that important. Hmm… should I ever admit to Cheri that I did, in fact, bob my head along to that Bruno Mars video? Naw, it’s too much fun to argue with her. What’s this DVD under… oh yea! The Batman movie I bought a month ago. Maybe I’ll watch this instead.
Batman… now there’s a real hero. No superpowers and he always questions everything. Why does that sound familiar?