![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cruel to be kind?
Oct. 4th, 2005 09:27 amI've often wondered about the phrase "You have to be cruel to be kind".
It always struck me as a strange concept, I mean, how could that possibly be the case?
I'm starting to gain an insight into it though. Put simply, the hand that's burned is slow to reach for the fire. Whilst you can keep the hand from getting burned, then it never learns that simple lesson, against the day where you can no longer watch over.
I think that means that sometimes, you just have to let something do something wilful and stupid, because if you try to protect and fix, then they don't realise the consequences. A child might want to be fed sweets all the time, but few would agree that doing so is a good idea. And if the child throws a 'want sweety!' tantrum, then the best thing to do is 'be cruel'.
This kind of has analogies in my life at the moment, although in this particular case there's no child involved, and denying them their sweeties isn't something I can do. All I can do is warn that they'll make themselves sick, and then let them go and do it. Even if this time I stop them, I can't, and won't always come running. So, standing back, watching and hoping both that it'll not go horribly wrong, and that it will, both at the same time, is the only option. As much as it might break my heart to do so.
So how do you find a balance? I mean, at a fundamental level of dealing with other people. A friend in need is one thing, but what if what that friend _really_ needs is a reality check? What they really need is to learn that very tough lesson, that the world is a hard place.
I think, perhaps, I shall or should be talking to the person after work. But I've no idea what to say.
(Apologies for being a little vague, I'm not entirely sure why, except it's just not very nice to spout other people's personal problems across the world, and ... well, maybe that'd count as 'cruel to be kind' but in a way that's much harder to anticipate eventual outcomes)
It always struck me as a strange concept, I mean, how could that possibly be the case?
I'm starting to gain an insight into it though. Put simply, the hand that's burned is slow to reach for the fire. Whilst you can keep the hand from getting burned, then it never learns that simple lesson, against the day where you can no longer watch over.
I think that means that sometimes, you just have to let something do something wilful and stupid, because if you try to protect and fix, then they don't realise the consequences. A child might want to be fed sweets all the time, but few would agree that doing so is a good idea. And if the child throws a 'want sweety!' tantrum, then the best thing to do is 'be cruel'.
This kind of has analogies in my life at the moment, although in this particular case there's no child involved, and denying them their sweeties isn't something I can do. All I can do is warn that they'll make themselves sick, and then let them go and do it. Even if this time I stop them, I can't, and won't always come running. So, standing back, watching and hoping both that it'll not go horribly wrong, and that it will, both at the same time, is the only option. As much as it might break my heart to do so.
So how do you find a balance? I mean, at a fundamental level of dealing with other people. A friend in need is one thing, but what if what that friend _really_ needs is a reality check? What they really need is to learn that very tough lesson, that the world is a hard place.
I think, perhaps, I shall or should be talking to the person after work. But I've no idea what to say.
(Apologies for being a little vague, I'm not entirely sure why, except it's just not very nice to spout other people's personal problems across the world, and ... well, maybe that'd count as 'cruel to be kind' but in a way that's much harder to anticipate eventual outcomes)
