The Good Son Upon emerging once again into reality, following my midday neurological consumption, an interesting sight was beheld. Outside the library, sit square-shaped, cocrete protrusions, with trees and other assortments of potted plants within. A young lad, still in his anal psychosexual stage, was running erratically along the outermost of the two-foot-high, aforementioned embankment. A father stood, neither particularly near or remote, aloofly conversing over a cellular phone with an aura of self-importance. A prophet is unnecessary in fortelling the ending to this quite ominous situation. Expectingly, the child trips upon his own size-three sneakers, and plummets to the concrete floor. The consequent crying require the father to retake control of the situation. This is where our interest begins. What needs to be done in said situation, where an hysterical youth threatens the authority and competence of his paternal figure? I am not sure, but what needs to be done and what was done, are quite different. The father, annoyed and embarrassed, loudly chastised the boy for his childish outcry. Two thoughts came to my mind upon comteplation of this event. The first is the standard idea. That the father is rebuking his son in order to mold him into a real man. Social learning theory in action, but there is also another view in need of viewing. The second does not disagree with the first, but merely examines the intensitiy with which the reprimand was issued. This intensity, shows the anger involved here, but what could this anger be directed at? Surely the father is not anger at the child for falling? In truth, the father is angry at the threat imposed upon his self-image. He bases his self-esteem upon the belief that he is a good father, a good employee, a good husband, etc... When an event occurs -such as allowing his son to injure himself- there are two possible explanations. Either the child or the father is at fault. The father realizes this somewhat, and blames the fall on the child; because if he were at fault, his self-image as a good father would be challenged. So what? The point is that the event also represents the father, who in turn also represents the majority of our culture. There is a mood in which people feel that by ignoring or lessening threats to their personhood, the negative effects are averted. In reality, by losing the threat, one loses more. Instead of combatting the threat and transcending the challenge, one forfeits the battle and faces the mounting reparations. What does one lose? One loses perspective, experience, knowledge (both introspective and extrospective), understanding, and future freedom of action. A more relevant example will help to illustrate this point. When asked to attend a conservative political lecture, I often am told, "I'm a democrat, I wouldn't be caught dead there." Or when asked to attend church, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in your god, and more so, why are you imposing your beliefs on me?!" These peoples self-image is so tied up to their beliefs that even a divergent suggestion causes resentment. The irony, is that their lives are so strongly based on their beliefs, yet their beliefs are so weak that they cannot even consider alternatives for fear of destruction. The point, my friend, is that a construct that is able to be destructed, should welcome destruction. Our father, will be greatly benefitted by the realization of his error. Similarly with the pinko fanatic and zealous atheists. Cannot you see the benefits of nihilism?