The False Accusation of Rape

The false accusation of rape is something that I frequently think about.  For it is ever so obvious that the false accusation of rape is unequivocally one of the most horrifically false charges that one person can make against another.  To state the obvious: A false rape charge means that a person is being accused of committing a horrific wrong that she or he absolutely and unequivocally did not commit.  Quite disconcertingly, a who person who voluntarily engage in sex but tremendously regret having done so can be highly motivated to make a false accusation of rape as a way of coming to grips with her or his own conception of wrong-doing.  By definition, we have a false accusation of rape when person Alpha claims that entirely without her or his voluntarily consent it turns out that person Beta nonetheless had sex with him or her even though the indisputable reality is that the sexual encounter was clearly initiated by the very person who makes the charge and thus person Alpha in this instance.

It is my view that the false accusation of rape is primarily advanced by individuals who want to engage in sexual activity but who nonetheless do not want to be deemed morally responsible for having committed the wrong of rape.  Part of what gives this point considerable force is that the capacity for self-deception is one of the deep, deep psychological features of human beings.  Indeed, no other earthly creature seems to be capable of self-deception.  Not monkeys.  Not lions or tigers or cats.  Not elephants.  And so on.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I certainly hold that there can, indeed, be actual instances of horrific rape.  That is manifestly obvious.

Alas, the question that I often ask myself is the following: Which is worse: (1) A victim of actual rape or (2) A victim of a false rape accusation?  My first thought is that we have such a significant difference in experience here that it is not possible to compare the two.  What is more, while there is no denying the horrific wrong of rape, it is surely the case that being viewed by countless many others as a rapist is also quite horrific.  Indeed, a person who is viewed as rapist will most certainly experience a tremendous loss of friends.  And while it is certainly the case that there are instances where a person can provide evidence of not being a racist, it is nonetheless true that there will be instances where a person cannot provide any such evidence.

The point here is not to diminish in anyway the wrong of rape.  Rather, what is surely the case is that we need to give more attention than we now give to how a person can provide evidence against a false allegation of being a rapist.  Progress in that regard will be a non-trivial measure of moral insight.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

United Airlines and the Costumer

If United Airlines substantially reimbursed passengers every time a United Airlines departure was more than 30 minutes late, an awful lot of people would thereby obtain a considerable sum of money.  But, of course, nothing of the sort happens although it is somewhat commonplace that United departures are often substantially later than scheduled.  And unless a person is forced to stay overnight in a hotel, United Airlines essentially offers no compensation to passengers for its tardiness.  Yet, late United departures are quite commonplace—so much so that when a departure is actually on time, there is almost a sense of wonderment on the part of passengers.

I hold a very simple view, namely that United Airlines needs to be a bit more tolerant of customers.  And the most salient reason for line of thought just articulated is none other than the reality that we live in a world in which in so many things change through no fault of our own.  Indeed, the point just made clearly holds for United Airlines.  And it strikes me as more than a little narrowminded for United Airlines to suppose that no such thing holds true for passengers.  Nowadays, a measure of malleability is ever so relevant to living well.  For example, parents could be set to leave the house for the airport on time, only to have it turn that the baby-sitter is 45 minutes late.  Are the parents at fault here?  Surely not.  Should an airline treat the parents as if they were at fault?  Again: Surely not.

My view is very, very simple.  For example, an airline company should allow somewhere between 3 and 5 occasions a year why a frequent flyer of that very airline is not able to arrive on time for the flight.  There is no reimbursement.  But there is also no fee for a change of flight owing to tardiness or a major shift in responsibility on the part of the passenger.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have no trouble with an airline company making a substantial profit.  Just so, an airline company should not come across as utterly exploitive in doing so.  Alas, United Airlines is very much coming across as exploitive to that degree.  Indeed, the company would seem to be so animated by the aim to make a profit that it appears to have lost a tremendous measure of sensibility to the life of being a human.

As I have indicated above, I have no qualms whatsoever with the idea that United Airlines is very much concerned to make a profit.  But something has gone terribly wrong when making a profit is unequivocally anchored in a considerable measure of moral callousness.  For an airline company whose flights often taken-off more than 30 minutes later than scheduled, it is surely quite morally callous for the company not to accords its frequent flyers, in particular, a measure of malleability with respect to flying.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

On Being Angry

Surely a person who has never been angry has to be from another plant.  Indeed, I am inclined to think that the person cannot in fact be a human being.  For at some point in life, every human being will have a very good reason to be angry.

Of course, anger can take many forms.  And it is clear that some forms of anger are completely inappropriate.  Yet, there are some inappropriate forms of anger that are surely understandable.  For example, if a parent beholds an individual killing her/his infant child, it will be perfectly understandable that the parent immediately sets out to tremendously harm—if not kill—that very individual.  In fact, many will surely think that something is quite wrong with that parent if the parent is not motivated so to behave.

Indeed, we can think of numerous instances when a lack of anger on a person’s part would suggest that the person has a serious problem.  lies been about Jones.  For example, Smith tells the lie that Jones has raped several 12-year old children.  If upon learning that Smith has told such a lie to others, Jones does not become absolutely furious with Jones, then surely it would be reasonable to suppose that Smith has a major psychological problem.  This is because raping a 12-old child is indisputably such a horrific wrong that any morally decent person would be utterly distraught that someone has falsely accused her or him of so behaving.  And it would be absolutely inexplicable if a person did not become incredibly angry precisely because she/he was the victim of such a horrific and false accusation.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, it should be noted that it is not at all a logical feature of a false accusation that anger on the part of the person falsely accused is warranted.  No, a false accusation can be so utterly ridiculous and so viewed that the wisest thing to do is simply to ignore the accusation.  For example, if Jack accused Susan of killing John F. Kennedy, clearly it would make perfectly good sense for Susan simply to ignore Jack; though, understandably, she might think it appropriate to inform others that Jack has made such a ridiculous accusation regarding her.  What is unmistakably true however, is that the accusation is so utterly ridiculous and incredulous that no one—other than an utterly warped individual—would believe the charge.  Hence, it is manifestly clear that the charge absolutely has no traction.  Accordingly, it would make more sense for Susan simply to ignore Jack’s false charge that she killed JFK—which essentially no believes—rather than to become angry with him on account of making that false charge.

Not surprisingly, I hope, a factor that plays a major role in living well is exhibiting marvelous self-command (to use the language of the great philosopher and economist Adam Smith [1723-190]) with respect to becoming angry.  Clearly, there are times when anger is absolutely justified.  Alas, a most fascinating truth is that one of the keys to living well is not to become angry when clearly doing so is not at all justified.  To be sure, that will not always be obvious.  But there can be no about: We give to ourselves a marvelous gift of life when we have considerable clarity regarding whether or not we should become angry.  That is a non-trivial aspect of living well.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Not Realizing that One is Overweight

The Washington Post reports that nearly half of the overweight people in the United States do not realize that they are overweight (1 December 2016).  Needless to say, a quite fascinating question is the following: How is it possible for a person not realize that she or he is overweight?   Of course, being overweight admits of degrees.  It is surely one thing to be 40 to 70 lbs. overweight and quite another to be only 10 to 15 lbs. overweight.

I am prepared to allow that a person can be 15 lbs. overweight and not realize it.  But I do not see how it is at all possible for a person to be, for instance, 40 pounds overweight and not realize it.  For that is a substantial measure of being overweight.

Perhaps what the Washington Post means is that when people are sufficiently overweight, then they engage in a considerable amount of self-deception.  Self-deception, of course, is a way of hiding the truth from one’s self.  But how is it possible for persons not to realize that they are unquestionably overweight.  After all, if a person is considerably overweight, then there are countless many reminders that such is the case.  For instance, I can walk up 6-flights of stairs without any difficulty whatsoever.  A substantially overweight person cannot do that.  Or it happens often enough that I can turn sideways and squeeze into a room.  But again: A person who is substantially overweight cannot do that.

Perhaps the Washington Post means that when a person is tremendously overweight, by, for example, 40 pounds, then it is frequently the case that a significant measure of self-deception kicks in and the 40-pound overweight person wallows in self-deception.  But for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I do not see how the self-deception is possible on the part of overweight persons.  For instance, I do not see how such individuals can hide from themselves that they cannot squeeze into a room like a thin person can do.  Or if a vehicle of public transportation is crowded and there is a relatively small space for someone to sit down, it seems to me that it has to be as obvious as the night follows the day that the seating space is simply too small for someone who is really large.

Of course, being overweight admits of degrees; and it is quite understandable that a person who is merely a few pounds overweight may not at all realize it.  Indeed, others may not realize it.  And surely things would be quite different if by-and-large overweight persons were only a few pounds overweight.  Alas, it is manifestly clear that there are lots of overweight people who are clearly more than a few pounds overweight.  And there is simply no way that they do not realize it.

Alas, a most poignant reality is that human beings have the capacity for self-deception.  However, by definition a person is self-deceived about something only if there is a level at which the individual actually knows the truth.  Without a doubt, people can be self-deceived about their weight in precisely the manner mentioned in the preceding sentence.  A person can know that she or he is overweight and yet have a very clever way of diminishing the uptake of that reality.  For instance, a person may have an extremely attractive dressing style.  Hence, the person attracts the attention of others notwithstanding the fact that it can be clearly seen that she or her is obese.

On the one hand, I would be truly stunned if, indeed, people do not realize that they are obese.  On the other hand, though, it is clear that there are clever ways for persons to deflect the reality that they are obese.  And it is possible that a person can be so successful in that regard that, at the practical level, the person’s obesity essentially takes a backseat.  The person realizes that she or he is obese.  But socially the person’s obesity is quite inconsequential.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

The Psychological and Moral Majesty of Trust

When I Reflect Upon My Life, the first thing that comes to mind are the relationships of trust that are absolutely—and thus unequivocally—a fundamental part of my life.  In the language of David Hume (1711-1776), those individuals are truly a marvelous mirror until my very soul.  Indeed, there is no amount of self-reflection that can render irrelevant the magnificent mirror reflections of truly marvelous friends with regard to my behavior.  Indeed, notwithstanding the fact that I rightly grasped how I behave, it is still the case that when a wonderful friend bears witness to what I have done, the friend thereby conveys an affirmation that is ever so meaningful and equally unforgettable.

To be sure, there are successes that mean quite a lot to me.  But those successes do not overshadow a bond of trust.  Not at all.

Given how important the majesty of trust is, then what clearly follows that two of the most significant forms of psychological development on the part of human beings is (1) the deep, deep development of social perceptivity and (2) a marvelous psychological configuration whereby deeply genuine trust is possible.  Needless to say, it is with the capacity articulated in (1) that a person correctly grasps the reality articulated in (2).

The view that I hold is that trust plays a truly definitive role in all person being psychologically healthy.  Accordingly, there is no amount of intellectual ability so majestic or powerful that the significance of trust is utterly irrelevant.  To be sure, people can trust one another in significantly different ways.  Just so, the value of trust is underwritten in both ways, though there may be a difference in the value of trust or the nature of the trust.  A friend may trust me with her/his wallet.  Friends who are parents may trust me with their children.  And friends who are neighbors may trust with the keys to their home so that I monitor their home during their absence.  And of course, it is possible that a friend trust me in all three respects.

And there is the truly sublime truth that the affirmation that is constitutive of being genuinely trusted is not an affirmation that a person can give to herself or himself, no matter talented or perceptive or financially well or successful the person might be.  An equally sublime truth is that being genuinely trusted is not and cannot be anchored in having power over the person who trusts one.  For coercion is not in any a catalyst for being trusted.

A final and ever so sublime truth is that genuine trust can be ever so affirming (without occasioning any arrogance).  Indeed, I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that for a truly decent person an immutable truth is that being wonderfully trusted is both a moral and psychological gift that marvelously enhances the trusted person’s determination to be live a life of moral decency.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Dr. David Dao and the Morally Callous Flight Attendants of United Airlines

THE TREATMENT OF DR. DAVID DAO BY THE STAFF OF UNITED AIRLINES was so horrific that it is utterly incomprehensible to me that any airline personnel could have engaged in such behavior. The usual strategy when a flight is overbooked is to seek a volunteer to leave the plane and the incentive in that regard is the amount of compensation that is offered, with the amount offered increasing in the face of complete resistance on the part of passengers. When I am at Hancock Airport in Syracuse (NY), a mere $100 is often more than enough of an incentive for me to get off the plane and fly out at another time—even a different day. By contrast, when I am flying out of Paris (France), a much higher offer is needed before I or anyone will consider getting off the plane.

Thus, the horrific treatment of Dr. David Dao is absolutely incomprehensible to me. The behavior of the agents in their treatment of Dao could not have been much worse if they had all been on crack or utterly drunk. And the point just made holds all the more so given that David Dao is 69 years old and was flying with his wife. There is a modicum of respect which surely any 69-year-old person is owed. To be sure, there are 69 year-old folks who have lots of latitude. Just so, a measure of graciousness and respect is owed to a person of that age. Or so it is in the absence of evidence that makes it clear that the 69-year old individual is rather lacking in terms of having self-respect and exhibiting basic moral decency.

There is not a shred of evidence that suggests that Dr. David Dao, who is 67-years of age, was lacking either in terms of having self-respect or exhibiting basic moral decency. Nothing whatsoever. And that reality makes the horrific way in which he was treated by the flight attendants even more reprehensible and incomprehensible. Quite honestly, I have wondered over and over again whether or not the flight attendants were inebriated—a point that holds all the more so given that Dao is clearly a senior citizen. A modicum of basic respect towards a senior citizen is so clearly appropriate that the horrific attitude on the part of the flight attendants is utterly incomprehensible. More precisely, the horrific treatment of David Dao by the flight attendants reveals a horrific level of moral callousness on their part.

My view is that the behavior of the flight attendants with regard to David Dao was is so callous and indefensible that the flight attendants deserve to be dismissed. For there are times when an immediate 2nd-chance is entirely out of the question. For example, if a male friend of mine raped a female, my friendship with that male would come to an immediate halt. Perhaps some years later, we could be friends again.

Of course, the flight attendants did not commit rape. Just so, their behavior nonetheless revealed such a horrific measure of moral callousness that in my mind they are no longer worthy of employment by United Airlines. At their very least, they deserve to be suspended without pay for at least 2 or 3 months. For they did not just make a mistake—which all of us do from time to time. Quite the contrary, the flight attendants exhibited a substantial measure of utterly callous and, therefore, inexcusable behavior.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | 4 Comments

Self-Love versus Arrogance

No one can flourish without self-love. And quite fortunately, a most significant truth is that proper self-love is not at all a form of arrogance or egotism. To have self-love is to value oneself all the while making sure that one does not harm or exploit others. What is more, self-love is not at all about running around drawing attention to oneself successes and accomplishments.

In other words, self-love is not at all tantamount to a form of arrogance. Quite the contrary. An absolutely immutable truth is that having genuine self-love typically entails having a considerable modesty. That is because genuine self-love entails having a considerable degree of perceptivity, insight, and self-awareness, but not at all the desire to call attention one’s social gifts.

The reason why self-awareness is so important to self-love is none other than the reality that a person with genuine self-love has a very, very, very deep desire to do right by others. And a very simple truth is that personal insightfulness is typically quite relevant to a person doing right by others. For doing right by others entails both (1) having considerable self-knowledge and (2) being tremendously perceptive with respect to how one may properly assist another. Precept (1) entails having tremendous knowledge about one’s strengths and weaknesses. Precept (2) entails having tremendous knowledge with respect to what the uptake one’s behavior will be like in the eyes of others.

As is obvious, precept (1) is not a form of arrogance. Likewise, precept (2) is not form of arrogance. There is nothing at all arrogant about having considerable self-knowledge and being perceptive. Or to put the point more precisely: Having considerable self-knowledge and being tremendously perceptive is not at all a psychological configuration that yields arrogance and condescension on a person’s part.
Indeed, surely just the opposite is true, namely that having considerable self-knowledge and being tremendously perceptive is absolutely crucial to flourishing without at all feeling the need to be condescending with respect to others.

Indeed, a most interesting truth that in point of fact few seem to acknowledge is that when a person has a truly secure sense of self, then it is very, very, very unlikely that she or he will be arrogant. By contrast, precisely what is characteristic of the arrogant person is that she or her is so insecure that she or he very much needs to be lifted up in the eyes of others.

Self-love is one of the most significant and desirable psychological configurations that a person can have. Unfortunately, the association of self-love with arrogance or egotism has been a tremendous impediment to countless many individuals giving self-love its proper due. That warped association has very much done far more harm than good.

© 2017 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Black Man Who Killed an Elderly Black Person

Every time I think about the 37-year old black man, namely Steve Stephens, who killed an innocent elderly black male, I am profoundly pained. For all the talk on the part of blacks that black lives matter, I have asked myself over and over and over again: How could a 37-year old black man kill an innocent elderly black person if, indeed, black lives truly matter to blacks?
Of course, the news reports that Steve Stephens his now dead. But that reality does not settle the horrific behavior on the part of Steve Stephens of killing an elderly and innocent black person. And there is nothing that anyone has said that makes any sense of the horrific wrongdoing on the part of Steve Stephens.

Most significantly, I have not at all heard a tremendous outcry on the part of blacks with regard to the horrendously wrongful behavior on the part of Stephens. And that suggests to me that there is a kind of psychological dysfunctionality on the part numerous blacks in the United States.

When a white person kills an innocent black person, it is very often the case that blacks take to the street in protest. Now, to be sure, since Stephens is dead, there is a sense in which protesting his wrongful behavior can be seen as utterly inconsequential—certainly in terms of reminding Stephens of the wrong that he did. Just so, a significant gathering on the part of blacks could be a way of blacks taking a substantial moral stance in terms of how blacks need to conduct themselves.

I do not deny that there is yet racism in the United States. However, an indisputable truth is that there is a perfectly understandable reason why blacks are not seen as models of moral excellence. And that reason is none other than the reality that violence is way too commonplace in black communities. Horrific behavior on the part of the members of an ethnic group towards one another is a very substantial obstacle to the members of that very ethnic group being respected by individuals of other ethnic groups.

Interestingly, there is a very respect in which blacks during the Civil Rights Movement had greater respect among non-blacks than blacks do nowadays. For an indisputable truth is that during the Civil Rights Movement blacks showed a level of moral excellence and determination that very much commanded the respect of numerous non-blacks.

As far as I can see, blacks are doing little nowadays to command the respect of non-blacks. And the behavior of Steve Stephen’s—who killed an elderly black male—mightily underscores the point just made. I fully embrace the view that black lives matter. Alas, unless black lives also truly matter to blacks, then there is a very strait forward sense in which we who are black are not according one another the moral standing that people like the Rev. Martin Luther King put their very lives on the line in order to bring about for blacks.

As we all know, if a white person had killed that innocent elderly black male, there would have been riots in the street on the part of blacks. Well, if in general blacks were going about achieving profound success, we would have a very different form of gathering in the streets on the part of blacks, namely a gathering where blacks majestically inspired one another, as well as non-blacks, to be tremendously successful and excellent. And that would be absolutely awesome and ever so awe inspiring.

© Laurence Thomas, 2017

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Friendship: Aristotle’s Era versus Now

Aristotle’s account of friendship has ever so majestically withstood the test of time. He maintained that there are three types of friendship: (1) friendships of pleasure, (2) friendships of convenience, and (3) perfect friendships. Many centuries later, Aristotle’s three-tier account of friendship continues to be deemed as ever so accurate.
The question that I have asked myself over and over again is whether or not perfect friendships or companion friendships—as I prefer to say—have acquired a richness that they did not have during Aristotle’s era.

Aristotle held that perfect friendships profoundly enjoy one another’s company. Accordingly, they willfully spend a considerable amount of time with one another. Of course, during Aristotle’s era, it is rather clear that spending time together was absolutely crucial to companion friends getting to have both (a) profound insight into one another’s character and (b) the deep conviction that each could fully trust the other. Well, a question that mightily presents itself is whether or not advances in technology have eliminated the need for companion friends to spend time with one another, since such friends can tremendously communicate with one another even though they are oceans apart. Moreover, trust remains ever so important between companion friends notwithstanding. For even if two companion friends are oceans apart, the trust between them remains ever so important.
But if the concluding point of the preceding paragraph is right, then there is a respect in which Aristotle’s account of companion friendship is in need of modification. For he held that companion friends very much look forward to spending time together, where doing so is a very deep sign of their mutual trust. And there is certainly a reason why that is so. While written accounts of this or that physical or moral pain and this or that social and/or professional benefit can be ever so rich and informative, it is manifestly clear that no written statement is the equivalent of bearing witness to the emotions that an individual expresses. So, it is whether we are talking about emotions of joy or emotions of sorrow or pain.

Thus, with companion friends, the ease with which they can communicate with one another via technology does not at all eliminate the need for them to interact with one another face-to-face. And that stands to reason. For no amount of texting can take the place of directly bearing witness to a friend’s reaction or non-reaction. Indeed, there is the expression “pregnant pause”. To state the obvious: That expression is not at all about the act of giving birth. Rather, it is about the moral significance that attaches to a person’s hesitation in responding. Indeed, a pause can be rather informative. If I ask you “How did you enjoy the party last night?” And you respond with “Ah, hum, ah, hum it was interesting,” then you have essentially told me that you really did not have all that good of a time being at the party. For you had really enjoyed yourself, you would have immediately responded with “Awesome” or something akin to that word.

Is it the case that in general technology is marvelously enhancing or enriching friendships? Quite poignantly, it is far from obvious that the answer to the question just asked is a resounding “Absolutely ! ! ! Indeed, it seems that sufficiently many are more besotted with communicating by way of their gadget than communicating face-to-face. And that preference structure is ever so revealing; for it is tantamount to saying that one does not want to be bothered with the actual feelings that person is having. And that is an ever so clear sign that the friendship is not at all the tremendously deep perfect friendship that Aristotle described.

Painfully, modernity allows for a self-deception with respect to deep friendship that in the past was a level of self-deception that was essentially an impossibility. Thus, there is a fundamental respect in which modernity is doing more harm than good.

© Laurence Thomas, 2017

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Believing In Oneself vs Being Arrogant

The movie entitled The Wiz stands as one of my very favorite movies. Diana Ross and Lena Horne were two of the key actors. Over the years, I have watched all or parts of the film at least a dozen times. And perhaps the most moving part for me is when as an angle Lena Horne sings “Believe In Yourself” to Diana Ross, the woman who struggled with being successful. Every single time I watch that part of the movie, I am filled with emotion.

With tremendous majesty, the movie out brings out the profound difference between (1) a person being arrogant and (2) a person believing in herself or himself but who is not at all arrogant. The arrogant person is very much given to drawing attention to her or his accomplishments and abilities. By contrast, the non-arrogant person who believes in herself or himself will characteristically be ever so modest notwithstanding the many ways in which she or he is quite successful. And the view that I hold is that if, indeed, a person genuinely believes in herself or himself, then that individual is not at all given to being arrogant. In other words, I take arrogance to be a horrendous form of insecurity.
Now, it goes without saying that there can be occasions when a person needs to mention that she or has a given skill or wherewithal, where doing so does not at all constitute a form of arrogance. For instance, there was an instance when a person at a grocery store buying basic groceries comes up $4.50 short. I was right behind her and I simply gave her a $5 bill. She looked at me with great puzzlement. But without saying anything about my financial resources, I made it very clear to her that the gesture did not pose a financial difficulty for me. Needless to say, that was all that she needed to know. She teared-up and gave me a hug.

The preceding story strikes as being right in on point in terms of genuine goodwill. For of if a person is indeed acting out of genuine goodwill, then she or he is not at all aiming to draw attention to herself or himself. By contrast, if a person is arrogant, then simply drawing attention to the good that she or he does is very much a defining feature of that person’s behavior.
Needless to say, it is simply not possible for an individual to truly be the author her or his life if the individual does not have considerable measure of self-knowledge pertaining to the way in which the individual pertains to live. But an ever so profound and majestic truth is that a person can have such self-knowledge without being at all concerned to draw attention to that reality.
On the one hand, a a person can be none other than a most majestic author of her or his life. On the other hand, a person can be a quite insecure author of her or his life.

If, as I believe, there is a deep, deep respect in which human beings are foundational, then it stands to reason that whether or not an individual has truly been the beneficiary of majestic parental love can make a major difference in how that child turns out as an adult.
There are individuals who marvelously thrive in the absence of parental love. Frederick Douglass was such a case in point. Hellen Keller was such a case. And I have taught students for whom such a claim is true. But as a modified version of a saying goes: “Such individuals are the exception that proves the rule”.

Far more or often than not, an individual truly believes in herself or himself as an adult only if the individual has properly received majestic affirmation while growing-up.

© Laurence Thomas, 2017

Posted in Articles | 1 Comment