The desire to create, conquer and the desire to submit to the world, to live in respect for it. Ambition and tenacity. Which of the ways of existence is more interesting and more important? Reflections of writer David Brooks.
Lately, I’ve been thinking about the difference between the virtues we write about in resumes and the virtues we mention in anniversary (or commemoration) speeches and toasts. In the resume, we note those personal qualities that we put on the labor market. The virtues we remember in farewell speeches are more essential. They show who you are at heart, how you maintain relationships with friends and loved ones, whether you are courageous, loving, responsible and consistent.
Many, including myself, will say that these qualities are definitely more important. But do I think about them most of the time? The answer is no
Thinking about this topic, I thought of the book by the Jewish thinker, Rabbi Yosef Soloveichik, «The Lonely Man of Faith,» which he wrote in 1965. Soloveichik said that every person has two sides, which he called «Adam I» and «Adam II».
Adam I is the worldly, ambitious outer side of our character. She wants to build, create, start companies, create something new. Adam II is the humble side of our character. Adam II wants not only to do good, but also to be kind, to live in respect for God, creation and our possibilities. Adam I wants to conquer the world. Adam II wants to find his calling and submit to the world. Adam I values success. Adam II values inner strength and resilience. Adam I asks how things work. Adam II asks why we exist on earth. Adam I’s motto is «success». The motto of Adam II is «love, redemption and return.»
Soloveichik believed that these two sides of our character were at enmity. We live with a constant conflict between external success and internal dignity. And, in my opinion, the difficulty lies in the fact that these two sides have different logic. External logic — economic logic: entry — exit, risk — reward. The inner side of our character is moral logic and often the opposite logic: to give in order to receive. Surrender to something outside to become stronger inside. Overcome desire to get what you want. To express yourself, you have to forget yourself. To find yourself, you have to lose yourself.
We live in a society that favors Adam I and often neglects Adam II. The problem is that it turns you into a pragmatic animal who sees life as a game, and you become a cold, calculating creature who slips into mediocrity when you realize that there is a difference between the you you want and the you you really are. You don’t deserve the epitaph you want, you just hope it will be given to you. You have no depth of conviction. You have no emotional sonority. You don’t take on problems longer than a lifetime.
I was reminded of the all-time popular way of creating a strong and solid Adam II, a way of tempering character. For centuries, people returned to their memories, to precious moments of life, to childhood. Often our mind is drawn to a moment in the past, to a moment of shame, a committed sin, a selfish act, omission, cowardice, anger, self-pity, reaching out to please people, out of fear.
Adam I is born relying on his strengths. Adam II is born struggling with his weaknesses
You withdraw into yourself, find the sin that you have committed many times, your personal sin, from which others are born, and you fight with it, fight, and out of this struggle, out of suffering, a strong character is born. Often we are not taught to recognize our inner sin, not taught how to fight it, how to resist it and how to fight against it. We live in a culture with an Adam I mindset, unable to even comment on Adam II.
Finally, here is how the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr summarized this struggle, the life lived by the full-fledged Adam I and II: “Nothing worthwhile can be achieved in one life, so we must be saved by hope. No truth, beauty, or goodness is fully understood in the current historical context, so faith must save us. Nothing no matter how virtuous can be done alone, so love must save us. Virtue is not as virtuous from the point of view of friend or foe as it is from our own point of view, so the last form of love, forgiveness, must save us.”
About the Author: David Brooks is an American writer, sociologist, columnist for The New York Times, regular contributor to The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal, commentator for National Public Radio, and author of The Public Animal and Bobo in Paradise. Where does the new elite come from? His speech was first published on www.ted.com