Unapologetic

My philosophy on life, though formed and shaped by my personal experience, can be said to have been focused by my readings of the French essayist, Michel de Montaigne. My view on the condition of man and my mode of analysis has been directly influenced by my reading of his essay: Du Repentir (Of Repentance).

OTHERS form man; I only report him: and represent a particular one, ill fashioned enough, and whom, if I had to model him anew, I should certainly make something else than what he is: but that's past recalling. . . I propose a life ordinary and without lustre: 'tis all one; all moral philosophy may as well be applied to a common and private life, as to one of richer composition: every man carries the entire form of human condition.

In this essay he explores, not just the concept of repentance, in fact his treatment has less to do with the conventional understanding of the concept, but in a more general way he engages in an exploration of the constitution of man as an active moral being.

Ultimately this is all that we are. Our actions, whether consistent or at odds with them are functions of our personal or societal mores. And everything that all we know and experience of this universe is a result of our actions, directed towards scientific advancement, philosophical understanding, or the simple perpetuation of our contemporaneous existence. Active morality entails the entirety of human existence.

Now what does any of this have to do with the constitution of a man, or more specifically, with repentance? Well, to answer that we need to understand what repentance truly means.

Montaigne in his essay talks about the formation of man as an imperfect being and attempts, at various points in life, at re-forming this being. This use of vocabulary is not arbitrary. To talk about a man, as he exists, is to talk about a man as he was formed or created. This implies the existence of a creator whom, for the purposes of simplicity, we'll just call "god." This god bore the task of forming these imperfect beings at the beginning and to a certain extent continues to bear the responsibility for the imperfection of these beings. Now imperfection in this context is not meant to have a negative connotation. It is a descriptive term. It is a simple fact of the universe that things exist as they are. It is a simple fact of the universe than people exist...FLAWED!

Now we get to the good stuff. Repentance is not a simple matter of reciting three words and continuing the business of life with no true moral, and therefore, existential consequence. Repentance is synonymous with reformation as in fact the term is often used in the various contexts where repentance ostensibly has a practical consequence (religion, penal system, etc.).
The act of repenting is the act of reforming something that was not originally of your creation. It is the re-forming of a constitution that was admittedly, and unabashedly imperfect. Therefore a decision and intention to repent is tantamount to an intention to re-sculpt the shape of a rock cliff. The imperfection of the previous form did not preclude its possible beauty. Nor does the act of reformation assume the creation of a more perfect form afterwards. The point here is there needs to be an understanding of what the act of repenting is and what it entails.

Repenting is the act of creating a new being, not the simple statement of a new being, but an actual new being...at the core. A creative act. A godly act. This isn't something we should be claiming to do on a weekly or even yearly basis. (A friend of mine wrote a great article about a similar subject in his blog. Here's the the link.)

And this isn't to justify sociopathic or antipathetic behavior. Besides the implicit moral responsibilities we all have as members of civilized societies, there is a personal morality that we develop as we develop an identity beyond the original parameters of our creation. There is a certain personal code of conduct that we come to adopt that is largely a result of the sum total of our personal experiences. This code of conduct is individually specific (though we often want others to adopt it). It is when we violate THIS code, this self-formed morality that we should feel the need to repent.

As politically inappropriate as it might be, I am not genuinely apologetic about my tendency to stereotype people on cultural, racial, or gender bases. That's a natural human tendency (Another great article from the same author). Nor do I generally apologize for tardiness, property destruction or inappropriate sexual advances.

"That's what I DO, son!"

These acts are part of my character, for better or worse. Do I like it when ill comes to anyone as a result of anything I say or do? Of course not. But does that mean I will forswear future engagement in whatever activity resulted in that outcome? That's crazy. There's a reason I decided to do it the first time and it's probable that that reason had more to do with my own motives and inclinations than the unfortunate outcome. Unless I'm deciding to rethink my motives and change my inclinations I should never forswear that future action!

Again, this is putting aside the instrumental value of apologizing that comes out of our existence in a civilized society. I'm talking about genuine contemplation of repentance. I'm talking about rethinking who you are and what you want to be. That kind of change only happens a few times in a person's life and should only accompany deep introspection and speculation.