Day 40
What makes a person "great" in the eyes of others? Is the measure of one's greatness tied to what they gave to society, their contributions to history, art, science, medicine or sport; or is it a measure of who they were as a person?
I've been mulling over these questions in recent weeks. It's my observation that we - either as a society or, possibly, as a species - tend to exalt accomplishment much more than exceptional humanity. Examples of people who did great things are easy to come by: Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Earnest Hemingway, Michael Jordon, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. This is an easy list to add names to. Much easier than adding names to a list of people who were (or are) known for being exceptional human beings: Mother Teresa is the first name that pops into my head. And about the only one. With a little more effort I come up with Morrie Schwartz, the focal point of Mitch Albom's nonfiction work Tuesdays with Morrie and John Madden, the football coach and sports commentator. Based on Albom's characterizations of Schwartz and the same with a recent biographical documentary of Madden, both men were exceptional in how they treated others in their roles as mentor, friend, father, husband, etc.
What got me to thinking about all of this was a need, of indeterminate origin, to place a value of Damian's life. Not a monetary value, obviously, but to quantify his life nonetheless, in terms of meaning. I am not able to make the case the Damian accomplished great things. He didn't cure cancer or solve world hunger. Am I therefore to conclude that due to his lack of accomplishments that he wasn't great, or that his life wasn't great? And by extension, without meaning?
I don't think this is a fair measure of a person. Consider for a moment the opposing view that, in fact, the measure of a person's life lies in direct proportion to their accomplishments. What does that say about the 99.999% of humanity not named Ford, Churchill, Hemingway, Jordan, Jobs, Musk, etc? Are we less than? Do our lives have little meaning because we didn't make significant contributions to history, art, science, medicine or sport? Of course not.
I do think Damian was great. I think he was a great son - the best son I could have hoped for. I was proud of who he had been, who he was and who he was becoming. For nearly16 years I watched Damian grow up physically, emotionally and intellectually through the normal forces of nature and nurture. And as I reflect on his life I realize now that he did accomplish something great: he made me a better man, father and husband. He made me want to be better for him and for others. And I think he inspired others to do the same. How can anyone say that isn't great?
Comments
Post a Comment