Did you get swept along by the argument that, ‘…it isn’t who I am, it’s what I do’? I know I did. I did make allowances that there were some ‘things’ (not identified but definitely difficult and outside the acceptable) and actions that were not a definition of the person but of the required (?) action. This really is so much nonsense. This really smacks of ‘the end justifies the means’. What happens to standards? What happens to character in this particular philosophy? It gets trashed.
I would counter the phrase with the argument that if the behavior was not an indication, definition of the person’s ‘who’, that the ‘what’ will begin to assume the status of definition… and change (?) the who. It’s unavoidable. But why would you even consider the ‘what’ if it isn’t who or how you define yourself? And why would you allow what you do as who you are becoming if it isn’t a tenant in your beliefs? Perhaps it is an issue of how you do your what? Regardless, if there is no congruence between who you are and what you do, then you are, minimally, conflicted.
We all have control over how we act and react, when and where, when we accept responsibility for ourselves. No one really has control over us unless we give it to them. The questions: how much are we willing to pay to allow others to define us or allow what we do to define us? The answers are never lightly determined nor accepted. But they are equally unavoidable. We must look at what we do as how we define who we are (and no one said this would be simple.)
No choice? Nonsense. We always have choices. We may not like being put in the position of having to choose, of having to act on what we believe. It isn’t simple and it isn’t automatic. In some areas of our lives what we do is a deliberate determination. If ‘what’ is not ‘who’ you want to be remembered then consider your epitaph – how would you want to be remembered. The words that will be remembered are those that define your character. If what is not who you want to be then it is in your hands to change.
