Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Being True to Yourself
I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence. —Frederick Douglass
What does it mean to “be true to myself”? It’s actually a rich and powerful phrase, that I try to live and embrace in my own life. I try to be as consistent as I possibly can to act according to my values; to be transparent about what is important to me, the beliefs I try to maintain, and the people I try to honor. It means making awkward or difficult decisions when I know they will be criticized or ridiculed; it’s possible that in being true to myself, I will lose the relationship of a person to whom I’ve spoken.
In these times, a phrase like “being true to myself” is rarely encountered, particularly on the Left. Their priority is to be true to the latest doctrine, leftist position, and Marxist ideology. It’s not wrong necessarily to want to be true to an idea, but it should be necessary to check whether supporting the idea actualizes your values and who you are as a person. I think that there are many people who don’t even know what their beliefs and values are, so the congruity between values and ideas isn’t relevant.
In spite of all I’ve said here, it’s still very challenging to be true to one’s self. Does this goal apply to all of our beliefs and values? Does it apply to only the most significant ones? For example, my late mother-in-law was a lovely woman in many ways, but had grown up in a time in northern Kentucky where blacks were seen as less than white people. She was always subtle in sharing that perspective, but her perspective was clear. I knew there was no way I would change her perspective, and fortunately the topic rarely came up; in fact, she spoke about it as a reality, rather than with hatred. For those reasons, I didn’t broach the subject of racism with her. She was a model mother-in-law in so many ways, and always treated me with love and respect, and I didn’t want to jeopardize our connection by bringing up the subject.
So, I don’t take the effort to be true to myself lightly. There are times when I disagree with others and the issues are superficial and unworthy of exploration. At other times, I feel like I must take a position or speak up.
Do you find it challenging at times to be “true to yourself”?
Published in Religion & Philosophy
No, but other people find me very challenging. 😆
Interesting phrase, “be true to yourself”. Until fairly recently it was a rather banal statement that you held to your worldview and moral principles, whatever they might be. More recently, as phrases such as “lived experience”, “personal truth”, “lived reality” came into use, the statement “be true to yourself” has taken on a more vague meaning — as with so many things in a world where progressives harness the language to confuse/control the mind. Being true to yourself has no value when all reality is flexible and subjective. It only has value in a world where objective reality exists, even as we all must contend with our own understanding of that objective reality.
I think that the source of this quote, though phrased a bit differently, is Shakespeare in Hamlet, in which Polonius says: “This above all – to thine own self be true.”
It seems like very bad advice, to me. It is interesting that Shakespeare has Polonius say this, in advice to his son Laertes. Polonius is a fool, and the chief counselor to the villain of the play.
Don’t you think that one should be true to God and His commands, rather than to thine own self?
The assumption of the assertion is that one’s own feelings, thoughts, or morality are necessarily right, and should never be compromised. In reality, of course, our feelings, thoughts, and moral opinions may be right or wrong. This particular advice prevents any reconsideration, doesn’t it?
Today that seems to mean honoring your appetites and desires. I opined on that in these posts Authenticity is Overrated and Please Stop Being Yourself. When they hear the phrase about being “true to oneself” older people might tend to think of martyrs or Marshal Will Kane in High Noon (1952) and younger people might think of
BruceCaitlyn Jenner.Ah, but others love you, just as you are!
I doubt that Frederick Douglass felt his worldview was banal, though. If we are clear on our own values and beliefs,we don’t need others to validate us.
It doesn’t seem to matter to people that Frederick Douglass made this statement, and that it was an honorable statement. Of course, if we are honorable people, our values and beliefs should not be independent of our faith and belief in G-d. Honorable and faithful people should understand that they have to measure up to what G-d asks of us. It sounds like you’ve let the Left corrupt your belief in the importance of a Christian mindset.
We’ve let the Left corrupt Douglass’ intention; are we conservatives going along with that understanding? This is a perfect example about how a principled idea has been co-opted by the Left, and we’ve let them do it. Too bad.
I didn’t intend to have this post be about a discussion of how the Left has corrupted perfectly legitimate and reasonable aspirations, but we can go in that direction. It looks like everyone who has commented so far has acquiesced to the Left’s narcissistic redefinition of “being true to oneself.” I choose to take back the definition as Douglass originally intended it. So there!
This is noble but it only applies to people of integrity and introspection. But there are people for whom any form of self-abhorrence is in itself abhorrent.
Well said. Without reflection on our beliefs, our life’s mission, our obligations to G-d and the people around us, we are likely to live superficial and meaningless lives. That is the kind of life that many people pursue. But I have enough people around me who think that taking the high road is important. Thank goodness!
I think that Shakespeare’s “to thine own self be true” is the ultimate of the Christian mind set. All falsity will be burned away one day, and all that will remain is what is true and noble.
Secondly, Jesus says: Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. And: be either hot or cold, but don’t be lukewarm.
I have no real understanding of what that phrase means, or more accurately, what Shakespear meant. What I “hear”, is don’t delude yourself. Don’t think you are something or someone you aren’t.
If your goal is, and for me it always was, self-improvement, the first thing one needs is an accurate self-assessment.
I think your definition fits very well with my goals, Django. An accurate self-assessment is essential to be true to one’s self. Unfortunately, not everyone believes in self-improvement, as you and I do, which means they have limited their maturity and growth.
To me it means first and foremost not to betray oneself. I’m sure there are other interpretations.
I have assigned myself to comment jail for thread hijacking.
I’m not sure what you mean about the Left corrupting my belief. I think that a Christian mindset is very important. I think that Liberalism, of both the Left and Right, undermines that mindset. I have only come to this opinion recently.
I don’t see how it makes any difference that you were quoting Frederick Douglas. Even if he was an admirable man, he can still be wrong about something, and I think that he was plainly wrong about this.
I have come to suspect that Douglass may have been seriously overrated. This is affected by my Christian mindset, and my recent recognition that slavery is not a moral wrong according to the Bible. It is a moral wrong according to the Liberalism that emerged in the so-called Enlightenment. I used to think that slavery was morally wrong, and Douglass was presented as an important crusader for that cause. I don’t think that I’ve read any of his writings personally, so I only know him by reputation.
[Cont’d]
We have a secular mythology in this country, idolizing certain individuals as proponents of various causes that are commonly held to be good. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are obvious examples, along with Coolidge and Reagan more recently (among libertarian-leaning folks). Douglass is presented as a similar figure, though I have the impression that he wasn’t particularly idolized until the 1960s.
It seems likely, to me, that some Leftists re-popularized Douglass as part of the 1960s movements.
I’m not familiar with this history myself. It was just an impression and general recollection of mine. According to this account from Harvard University Press, Douglass’s 1845 autobiography was widely read at the time, “but like most accounts of slave life it fell from favor as memory of the Civil War receded into myth and popular historical narratives tended toward reconciliation.”
The first modern edition was published by Harvard University Press in 1960. Thus, my suspicion that a largely forgotten historical figure was popularized for political and ideological purposes.
The link above includes the introduction to the Douglass autobiography by Benjamin Quarles, a black historian whose first publication (in 1948) was about Douglass. It’s an interesting summary of the life of Douglass, who did have some notable accomplishments. He was apparently the first black publisher in America, running an abolitionist weekly in Rochester (NY, presumably) for many years. His first autobiography sold around 30,000 copies.
Quarles’s introduction also details the close association between Douglass and the murderous abolitionist terrorist and insurrectionist John Brown. Douglass and Brown were reportedly friends from 1848, and Brown was even a guest at Douglass’s home for 3 weeks in 1858 — right between the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 and the attempted insurrection at Harper’s Ferry in 1859. This is a troubling connection for those who would idolize Douglass, I think.
I guess that I should make it clear, again, that I don’t support slavery or think that it should be restored. I simply do not think that it is a moral issue, as Biblical teaching does not prohibit the practice. The Bible does not mandate slavery, either. It does include instructions requiring decent and humane treatment of slaves.
No! No! How did you hijack it so I can be annoyed with you?
I’m always “impressed” at how you opine on subjects about which you know almost nothing. Unlike you, I’ve read about Douglass’ life.
So, am I wrong?
My claim was that he was essentially forgotten until the 1960s. Is that true or false?
My suspicion is that he was a minor historical figure who was given prominence for, essentially, “affirmative action” purposes, to elevate some historical black hero. Is that true or false?
Also, since you’ve read about his life, is it correct — as a black biographer indicated in the introduction that I linked — that he was friends with the murderous Abolitionist terrorist John Brown? If so, did you know that? Does it give you pause?
I have nothing against Frederick Douglass, even for his association with Brown. Human beings are quite imperfect.
My main point is that you seem to have idolized Douglass, and are surprised by the criticism here of a rather foolish quote of his — which is actually a paraphrase of Shakespeare — apparently because you think that his recently-constructed historical stature should shield him from critique.
It is particularly amusing, by the way, that Douglass was paraphrasing a line from Shakespeare that was spoken by the fool of that particular play.
I can’t believe how you mischaracterize my comments, Jerry. It’s really sad. Since I haven’t done a search on how often Douglass was featured from the 1860s to the 1960’s I have no idea whether he was forgotten. And neither do you. He may have known John Brown–I don’t know how well, but he didn’t join in his destructive efforts. How have I “idolized” Douglass? Just because I defend the intention of his quote?? And you don’t know if he’s quoting Shakespeare. Maybe that was his own choice of words.
I’m done with this line of discussion. The assumptions you make are beyond belief. It’s not becoming a good Christian.
It would have been more in keeping with your intent to adopt a Jordan Peterson/Tucker Carlson approach of talking positively about how “now is the time for truth!” Not that untruth has any legitimacy and at any other time, but when the foundational thinking is under assault in the manner promoted by Progressives, the only defense…the only defense, is truth. That it can only be imperfectly known, that it is always run through a flawed filter we each possess uniquely, does not mean that we should not pursue it. Truth is. It is our obligation to seek it and incorporate it into our lives. And, most importantly, encourage others to pursue that path and not be sidetracked into narcissistic navel gazing –placing ourselves at the center of everything and measuring everything against our personal preferences.
Excellent! Seeking truth can be a challenge, since there is only one Truth that IMHO think has to do with the Divine, but we are humans trying to discover it. It is a journey that has no end, but is endlessly gratifying. Thanks, Rodin.
If the unexamined life is not worth living, it follows that the unexamined self is not worth being true to. And I think that is a large part of how the meaning has been corrupted.
There is nothing ennobling in going along to get along.
Not contradictory: When they are, it’s my failing.
Animals do that to fit in to the herd. Thanks.
The word count limit is your friend.
btw, we laugh at Polonius’ phrase because it is trite and tedious – whether it is true or not doesn’t come into it.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Added: It is worth noting that Laertes fails to take this advice when he agrees to Claudius putting poison on his rapier.
It doesn’t end well.
But that’s petards for ya.
🤣👍