Jane Eyre - One Pair Of Feet Planted In Independence

(They say that Jane Eyre is a required reading materials for high-school students. So does this mean a high school student can have a decent understanding of this literature classic? I read it when I was 16 or 17, but what I understood back then? “None”(exaggeration I may. I loved the book and watched the movie 6 times!). Because over 30 years later I re-read this book again, it struck me anew, electrified me like no other books!)

Jane Eyre, an orphan, an outcast of her own kindred, a ward of abusive institution, grows into a well learned and highly intelligent young woman. She learned kindness through hardship, learned love through her hateful abusers. Beside all these qualities, she has an earnest disposition for independence, which strikes me the most. Jane RESISTS anything that imposes upon her without her consent, not only cruel abuses but also mellow sweet love. Nothing can stay her way to hinder the will of her own. Yet she is soft, kind, sensitive and forgiving.

To Be Yourself

English: Three quarter length portrait of Oscar Wilde (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does it mean "to be yourself"? Coming from a collectivist culture (Chinese), I found in many cases it meant to break connections with others, if you happened to be different from majority. Even here in US I still can see that there is a strong tendency of conformity, which makes many people fear to be themselves.

I am a person who is very different in many aspects from majority of population, not necessarily "by choice". I knew this since I was very young. I have feared, also tried very hard to blend in, until I felt there was no room left for myself. Frankly speaking, I am quite tired of trying to be "one of many", so I decided it's time for me to relax, just to be myself.

Why it is so hard to break up with the "others"? The answer can be very complicated but, to simple put, I think it is because by nature we are still social animals, so without spiritual and material support from others, the loneliness is just unbearable to most of us. So based on this understanding, there is an exception, that is, if you are strong enough to be alone, to live alone, not to be afraid of rejection from the others, there will be no reasons not to be yourself.

So it's matter of how strong you are, in terms of how independent you can be. Those who sacrificed their lives just because of their being different, such as Oscar Wilde, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, and so many many more, were truly strong souls. Today, we are on the threshold of humanism, of individualism, being different is not at all a crime, so there are less and less reasons for us not to be ourselves. However, for those who do not have enough courage to break the connection with other, there is nothing to be ashamed of to admit their weakness, as we all humans, and we all have our own weakness; for those who are naturally "one of many", I think it's time for them to understand that those who are different are still just as normal as they are; for those who feel "superior" just because of they are "one of many", i think they better not to consider themselves "superior", nor "normal", but vulgar.

Two Different Kinds of Human Problems

There are two different kinds of human problem: the problem of human, and the problem of cultivated (or civilized) human.

Two Different Kinds of Moral Standards:

I understand that there are two type of moral standards: social and humanistic.
The social moral standards are set up for establishing social stability. This includes laws, religion doctrines and common social customs (based on traditional ideology). The humanistic standard is based on our conscience, which belong to our nature. The former favors more on social needs, latter more on individual rights.
History of ethics seems to involve from strict collective (social) rules that prohibited most individual desires or needs, to be more tolerant on individual rights. Examples such as marriage, patriotism, homosexuality, religious, etc. all demonstrated this route.

Are all communists evils?

I think they all are human. However, about all the disasters happened under the rule of communist party, I personally believe that we cannot blame them only to a single political party.
China was a feudal empire with long history. Along over 2 thousand years, Confucianism, both as a philosophy and political idea, successfully controlled Chinese people's minds. The core of Confucianism is its strict moral doctrines set for relationship within family members and social roles. These well established principles did hugh contribution for the feudalist monocracy. Thus the individualism could never take place in China. I believe that under this cultural background, individuals would take any opportunities to explode their oppressed ego, thus man-made disasters occur time to time, and the terrible events happened under communist government were just a continuation of the consequence of this extreme "collectivism".