Today I posted the following on my Facebook account:

I often post quotes, article excerpts or videos featuring the writings or conversation of others. I post these because I find them interesting and, sometimes, inspiring. Quite often, people respond in the comments by pointing out that that person once did something they disapprove of. They often write something like “I don’t like that person.”

I don’t understand this way of thinking. There are many brilliant but flawed people out there. In fact, each of us can see one of those significantly flawed people in the mirror every morning. When I share information on FB, it is because I find the information interesting. I am not saying “This is a perfectly well-adjusted person who is always correct and who has never done anything I would ever question.” For instance, there are severely flawed artists (e.g., Michael Jackson) whose work I admire greatly. Same thing with writers, podcasters, politicians and activists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is this a problem? Hell, yes. Was he also brilliant? Did his genius help establish this amazing (though flawed) country you call home? Absolutely. When I celebrate Jefferson’s amazing accomplishments am I trying to say it’s OK to own slaves? Some people apparently think so, because they’ve been renaming schools that bore Jefferson’s name. This is performative, not serious thinking.

All of the people I find interesting are flawed. I am flawed, you are flawed. People of prominence often stumble in big public ways. If you’ve never gone out into the world to attempt something brave and ambitious, you are flawed in that way too. Can we have an understanding, then, that I am already aware that everyone I mention in my posts is a flawed human being, and many of them have fucked up more than once? Sometimes they’ve fucked up in intensely cringe-worthy ways. Many of them have fucked up, realized they’ve fucked up and already admitted that they’ve fucked up. Pot shots are especially strange in those situations. When you watch a movie, do you sit there obsessing that some of the actors are personally flawed human beings? Or do you enjoy the movie on its own merits? Why do you give your favorite actors a pass?

I don’t share information about people BECAUSE they are flawed. Rather, I am sharing their work and observations because I have found that work to be interesting or admirable. I work hard to try to make sense of an extremely complex world and my thought process never stops evolving. I often disagree with things I have stated in the past and you have too. We do this all the time and there is no way to stop doing this. That’s how people think and that is why we have conversations–to help each other when we fall off the tracks.

It is the easiest, lowest and most ignorant form of criticism to sit back and point out people’s imperfections. This insidious pot shot form of ad hominem is ubiquitous on FB. I assure you that I could engage in taking pot shots at others every hour of every day, with very little effort, but it would do nothing to encourage meaningful conversation or human flourishing.

[Added March 18, 2023]

I posted a quote by Marcus Aurelius. Someone posted this response:

People like to quote Marcus Aurelius’s “Meditations”, but I don’t think he has proven himself worthy. He is often referred to as the last of the good emperors, the last emperor of Pax Romana.

But an emperor is responsible not only for what happens during his rule, but after his rule: good leadership includes providing for your successor. That Marcus Aurelius was the *last* good emperor means that he was a fuck up at one of his most important jobs.

Who was his successor? Commodus, his son. It was not a succession that Marcus Aurelius had no control over; Marcus Aurelius selected Commodus as his successor and they ruled jointly for the last three years of the father’s reign. Commodus was only 16 when he became joint emperor.

Commodus was a complete egotist. When his father died, he renamed the city of Rome after himself, Commodus. He immediately named himself a god, installed his statue in the Pantheon, and renamed many important public buildings after himself, having his predecessors’ names chiselled off the buildings. He didn’t like to work, putting the day to day running of the empire into the hands of his assistant and the Praetorian Guard. He preferred playing at being a gladiator and going to raves. It is not surprising that he was assassinated at age 31.

A father who raises and promotes a son like that cannot claim wisdom. Because of Marcus Aurelius’s huge failure in this domain, the selection and preparation of his successor, millions of people suffered and continue to suffer for about a thousand years.

Not a guy whose life history suggests he is a good source of life advice.

I responded:

Every quote I’ve ever found useful was by an imperfect person. I take good advice wherever I can find it. I love the music of highly suspect performers, such as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. I love the art of many decadent/narcissistic artists, including Gauguin and Picasso. I was inspired by the speeches of many flawed people, including JFK and Martin Luther King. I admire the athleticism of messed-up athletes. Shall we always obsess over the moral flaws of Thomas Jefferson, or can we sometimes simply admire his genius in founding this country? Do you admire any writers? I dare you to look into the lives of any prominent writer. Shall we burn all of the works of Woody Allen? Every single one of my friends occasionally falls off the tracks and every one of them has done things that I disapprove of. I am one of those severely flawed people. I’ve done things in my past that I very much regret. Does that mean I’ve never done anything admirable? In short, I take my inspiration, wisdom and art from imperfect people, many of them extremely and wincingly imperfect. What is the alternative?