Ask Blue_Nose

Stepping away from the regular question/answer theme for now; consider this a question I've asked myself:

We've all heard the expressions "Be happy with whom you are", "Be happy with what you've got", etc, at some point in our lives, and mostly accept that as good advice; we are whom we are and have what we have, and we all wish to be happy, right? Well, there's another, more apt name for this outlook on life: complacency.

I understand the underlying sentiment of the expression - it's an attempt to boost the morale of people otherwise unhappy with themselves and/or their lot in life. Whether it be a person struggling with obesity, or someone working in a deadend job, we want to assure them that not everyone needs to be beautiful or successful to lead a fullfilling life. With the superficiality that has taken over most aspects of our society and culture, it's a simple reminder that happiness need not derive from a low bodyfat percentage or a shiny car.

That is, at least, what I assume was the original intent of the message. These days, it's been bastardized to indicate that having goals is a sign of superficiality or discontent, that you should not care about the the opinions of those around them, and/or that everyone should be happy with the way you as well.

First of all, goals are important to human nature - it's not a bad attitude to have to want to continually improve one's position in life. Does that mean I have to be a millionaire to be successful? Obviously not, but the effort should still be there, and if I'm going to be successful in life, it sure as hell isn't going to be just by lowering my standards to what I've already accomplished. Success in life should be measured by improvement, not by having the most lackadaisical outlook.

Having this desire means I'm discontent, right? Again, it doesn't, and I'm probably more content knowing I'm able to improve my situation even more.

People also seem to assume that since they can choose to ignore the opinions of anyone around them, that they should be free from criticism of those choices. This is a bit trickier, since people get touchy when it comes to criticism, regardless of whether they agree with it. If I accepted the "fact" that I didn't like to bathe, why would I expect others to ignore the fact that they value personal hygiene? If I'm disgusted by a 300 pound woman wearing a tube top and stretch pants, does it make a lick of difference to me whether or not she's "happy" with her obesity? Nope. The fact is, being overweight isn't something to be happy about, and this ignorance of community acceptance is anti-social. That's not to say I must conform to every whim of those around me, but I shouldn't be ignorant or counter them out of spite, as many are based on good reasoning.

I also should expect criticism from the community when I challenge the status quo, and there's nothing wrong with either. Challenging people and their worldview is a good thing, and expanding and enhancing society is the original sentiment behind "be happy with whom you are". That being said, being an anti-social degenerate is not something to be happy about, and having a community around to support that ideal is a good thing. The kid who enjoys painting instead of football should be happy with himself, not some dolt who's too lazy to do anything with their life. Some choices in life are not to be proud of, and to comprehend that is much more important than tossing away values and standards.

So, at the end of the day, should we be happy with ourselves? Only if we know we're doing our best to be happier tomorrow.