Regarding what does it mean to be respectable and admirable

It was a Saturday evening while I was thinking about existential thoughts that had been bothering me for quite some time. The main reason behind the existential thoughts is not knowing the future and not having a concrete goal. It is not to say that I am someone who does not have any goals. But rather, what’s bothering me is if my goal is even a correct one to begin with. The existential thought is so deep that I am not even sure if I will remain a software engineer in 5 years time. Assume if I don’t, what will I be then?

Remember one of the speeches by Jordan Peterson regarding having a meaningful life is to become someone who is respectable and admirable. I had been thinking about what does it even mean for a long time. It is not to say that I had no idea at all, but a rather vague idea. Jordan Peterson is certainly among one of those who I looked up to. The reason is he appeared to be intelligent (I believe this is the case especially when he is young while he is working out the thoughts that he had put together right now), seems to be full of wisdom (pretty much the same as the previous point), as well as courageous (various videos show that he is willing to face eye to eye to people who confront him directly, and have a discussion with them, which most people would probably just walk away, me included).

So, to understand more, I set out to ask people around me who they admire the most, as well as what makes them admire the said person in question. To sum up with the answer I had gathered, they generally can be categorized as below:

1. One who alleviate others materialistic in exchange for almost nothing (here we mean expected returns in materialistic terms)
2. One who alleviate the said person when the said person is in need (to differentiate from the first, the respondent is a direct beneficiary from the action)
3. One who possess leadership quality in uniting people from different background with different opinions and different values
4. One who alleviate others in psychological term
5. One who works as hard as he possibly can towards a goal
6. One who is acting appropriately in the world (courageous, honest, self-respect, carefree, positive attitude towards things)

What does that really mean?

At first, I thought it might mean that “he who alleviate others” (being direct beneficiary does not matter) constitute to be the quality of being respectable. This certainly can explain points 1–4 with ease. What about 5 and 6? I start to think about how those 2 points might be able to link back to the point of alleviating others. Maybe one who is acting appropriately in the world (point 6) might positive influencing those who had come in contact with them, thus directly or indirectly alleviating them. Perhaps, looking at one who works as hard as he possibly can towards a goal (point 5) is motivating on its own, thus provide motivation towards the said person when the said person needing it.

However, I can’t help to ask if I am looking too much into the above 2 points. Certainly, I can make a case out of it, but could I be looking too much into it, thus rationalizing it too much at the very same time? I am by no means satisfied with that explanation at all.

Then, the light bulb moment occurs. It’s responsibility.

1, 2, 4. One who voluntarily takes on the responsibility in alleviating other people

3. One who voluntarily takes on the responsibility in uniting people

5. One who voluntarily takes on the responsibility in alleviating oneself

6. One who voluntarily takes on the responsibility of learning how to act appropriately in a horrible world where there is always one more reason for one to act inappropriately than to act appropriately, on top of our evolutionary instinct of attraction towards the negativity instead of positivity.

Funny how becoming respectable and taking up responsibility are both preached by Jordan Peterson. I suppose that might be how he reach from one point to the other (although the order can be completely opposite from this article).

Suppose that is one of the answers…

Let’s suppose responsibility is one of the answers, the immediate follow-up question will surely be “is this for everyone?”.

People with high openness and low orderliness might find a life of creative endeavour a hell of a meaningful journey. Meanwhile, the other person with the exact opposite temperament might find the same endeavour a hell of a burden that leads to a life that has nothing like what he would remotely consider a “meaningful life”. The same goes for the relationship between extroversion and the priority of a person in seeking wealth and status.

One may argue that “If a person finds people who take up responsibility are both respectable and admirable, then he is probably biologically inclined to be able to find a meaningful life in becoming exactly that”. Well, presume that might be the case, then the next question would probably be “how much is too little, and how much is too much?”.

Let’s suppose there is a person who is a cardiovascular specialist of a major hospital in the city he lives in. Throughout his profession, he saves countless life who suffers from cardiovascular disease such as cardiac arrest, cardiac fibrosis, etc. His parents once suffer from cardiovascular diseases, and therefore he is working 18 hours per day, 7 days a week, almost 365 days a year (with generally less than 10 off days per year) in order to ensure as many people are saved as possible.

At the very same time, he is also a man with a family. He is the husband of his wife and also a father of three. As you may imagine, he is able to fulfil any financial needs of the whole family single-handedly. However, a family has more needs than just financial needs. His working hour simply means that he does not have the time to accompany his family. The only time he spends with his family is the only few days of the year where he takes on leaves (reasonably most of us would agree that it’s not a lot).

In the above example, what we see is the conflicting responsibility between responsibility as a cardiovascular specialist and the responsibility of a family member. He is sacrificing time with his family in order to save as many lives as possible. Now, one may argue that one cannot expect anything if one does not willing to sacrifice. However, the same argument can be argued for the otherwise. He sacrifices the possibility of saving more lives in order to have time with family. Surely no one is going to blame him for that. How about sharing the workload with the other cardiovascular specialists so no life is lost in the process of him getting more time with his family?

Now, change the family to some hobby of his. He may choose to perform medical practices 80 hours per week, and hardly spend any time in photography (his hobby). Or, he can also choose to perform medical practices 40 hours per week + necessary overtime (extra hours for emergency patients) and allocate the rest for his hobby. Could we say the former is more meaningful than the latter? Most of us would probably agree that the latter are more likely to be a more meaningful life for more people despite shouldering less responsibility than the former (inclination to one or the other probably highly dependent on the temperament of the person).

With this example, we can safe to say that meaningful life is more than just responsibility although it might very well play a large role in it.