It is more harmful to compromise one’s own beliefs than to adhere to them

People are both highly influenced by the social norms, culture, and history and are at the
same time amalgam of what they make themselves out to be. We are in infinite struggle
between the two ladders, going back and found forth to figure out where we stand and how
we should further live by. It is therefore equally a persuasive position to argue for being
uncompromising and being flexible to different circumstances and situations.
Because we humans are terminal beings, whatever we make of are finite knowledge,
indicating that we cannot know everything about everything. Nuclear scientists in the two
world wars were considered geniuses in the science realm, but they were not politically and
socially analytical enough to consider the consequences of their ever so ingenuous and
innovative breathtaking research. Professors are experts in one particular field, but this
renders them having forsaking other fields of knowledge to earn a doctoral degree in the
other. You can easily witness a professor who is knowledgeable in American party politics in
the political science department, who, on the other hand have nothing to say about American
foreign policy. These examples renders our limitations and that eventually we ought to garner
humility about our knowledge to adhere to certain norms, standards, and at certain times even
our beliefs.
On the other end of the spectrum, however, is the imperative that our lives are particular and
distinct, which only ourselves can make of. Even with the same recipe, two people come up
with two entirely differently tasting dishes. Our stories are only possible because we are the
ones living it, building it, and remedying it. Hearing out others could give us advice, but they
do not take responsibility of our own actions. We are the ones that are supposed to take full
responsibility of our choices; to make the utmost of them. There is nothing more harmful is
one’s life than abiding by the standards of the society, a peer, a mentor, only to find that the
decision was not what the person wanted. By this state, it does not matter whether or not he
or she did not make decisions autonomously; they have to make amends for it anyway.
Living by this mode of life is threatening existentially because it rids out ones purpose in life.
Princess Diane, was the duchess of England, where she married into the royal family as price
Charles’s wife. Her life as a duchess was dreary, where she had to abide by traditional and
strict regal rules that neglected her autonomy and freedom. It chocked her inner soul. What’s
more, Prince Charles already had a love when they were married, and the duchess had to
listen her husband talk to his lover on the phone every single night, which led to depression.
She compromised her own freedom and happiness for the sake of the rules of the royal
family, believing that it truly was better to adhere to them. Unfortunately, what you are doing
is deceiving yourself that your own views, opinions, and objectives in life do not matter.
Prince Diane, after the final divorce in the year 1996, said that her life after divorce was the
most enlightening experience in an interview. This shows that you ought to live by your
priorities, beliefs, orientation in life and that compromising all these will hollow out your
mind and soul.
Building on to this point, it is worth mentioning that compromising one’s beliefs ultimately
leads to becoming more easily intellectually scapegoated by others. This means that if you
choose to merely abide by the powerful and majority, you may increasingly become inept to
the truth that may exist. This particular holds in the political sphere, where politicians, elites,
and the majority consistently pour in their own political agenda, one that may or may not be
consistent with one’s beliefs. It is entirely up to the person to decide if the political
foundations, arguments, and rhetoric fits with their own beliefs and interests. If you live with
the attitude that only absorbs what comes to you, it will become harder to see through your
own views and identity and judge upon such filtered information.
This is easily seen both young and advanced democracies, especially with the rise of
populism. If you adhere to the major views of the press, for instance, it is extremely easy to
fall into the trap that the migrants and refugees caused the economic meltdown. One would
adhere to this viewpoint and frame without any questions as to why refugees have come to
the continental Europe. If you attain your own mode of thought without easily compromising,
however, you will be able to see that the economic meltdown also comes from fiscal deficits,
decrease in trade, deindustrialization, and deflation. You could find that politicians have
framed an easy scapegoat of non-natives of refugees to escape the political repercussions of
economic downfall. For all of these factors to be visible, one ought to have the understanding
that they have their own distinct sets of viewpoints and will not be easily swept by the
rhetoric of the powerful.