.png)
 |
| Evan Clark ('20) |
Prior to my travels in China with my fellow McConnell Scholars, I predicted the planned visit to the site of the terracotta warriors near Xi’an would be one of the most captivating of the trip. When my friends and I finally toured the pits in which the terracotta warriors stand, the sights exceeded my expectations wonderfully. The attention to detail in the armor of the terracotta warriors, their meticulous system of ranks, and the painstaking work of the archaeologists who labor over the course of months and years to reconstruct broken warriors impressed me tremendously. Above all, I noticed the stunning qualities and arrangements of the terracotta warriors as works of art and windows into ancient history took precedence over the role of Qin Shi Huang as their commissioner. Qin Shi Huang, the first ruler to unite all of the warring Chinese states of the third century B.C. and the first emperor of China, had commissioned that the terracotta army be built to defend him against his enemies in the afterlife. Construction of the terracotta warriors continued throughout Qin Shi Huang’s life and even a few years after his death, as the warriors were placed along the routes to the emperor’s massive mausoleum so they could defend it from Qin Shi Huang’s deceased foes. Thus, the first Chinese emperor intended for the terracotta warriors to serve his purposes only, and he envisioned himself as the sole originator and object of the terracotta warriors’ benefits. Yet when I visited the site of the terracotta warriors, I focused much more on the terracotta warriors’ qualities as artistic marvels and as insights into the Qin military organization than on Qin Shi Huang’s role in their creation. Tourists from around the globe visit the terracotta warriors in droves, countless millions of other individuals have surely heard of the terracotta warriors, but I would expect that a vast number of these individuals either have not heard of Qin Shi Huang or have heard of him but care little about him. Therefore, I discerned a profound irony in the story of the terracotta warriors – they were constructed to serve one powerful man, yet today they are known and admired the world over for the characteristics that inspire diverse masses, not for the emperor who commissioned them.
This irony brought to mind an idea I found while reading Robert Louis Stevenson’s essay “Aes Triplex” for one of the Mecosta Circle discussions in the McConnell Center. According to Stevenson, people do not just love life for its own sake, but for the valuable experiences, connections, and joys they gain during their lives. Likewise, those who admire the monuments, writings, and achievements of great minds do so primarily because the objects of their study speak to them in some profound way. Any glorification or remembrance of the creators of those works comes second to the value the works bring to those who read them, read about them, or view them. Qin Shi Huang may have intended for his terracotta army to serve the sole purpose of his defense in the afterlife. However, the millions of tourists who come to see the terracotta soldiers each year do not intend to glorify Qin Shi Huang or even to appreciate the terracotta warriors as ends in themselves. Rather, tourists seek out the terracotta soldiers because the soldiers’ awe-dropping detail and fascinating history captivate the visitors’ imaginations. Many historians, likewise, value the terracotta warriors as one of the greatest archaeological finds of the twentieth century because they have provided invaluable insight into the organization and logistics of the Qin Shi Huang’s military. Tourists who prioritize taking photos of the terracotta warriors may hope to use the photos as social capital that will impress their friends and co-workers and make themselves appear to be cultured and well-traveled. In all of these cases, tourists and historians laud the terracotta warriors because of what the warriors mean to them, not because they appreciate the terracotta warriors for their own sake.
As I reflected on this concept, I realized individuals apply this mentality to every aspect of life, just as Stevenson noted. Whenever someone argues a particular value or ideal, such as love, harmony, happiness, pleasure, joy, fulfillment, or self-actualization, should be the supreme human goal, their affections are not for that value itself, but what they hope to obtain through that value. If an individual says they love or appreciate someone, he or she loves or appreciates that person for the characteristics and actions he or she displays and pursues. Individuals’ care for others is intertwined with their appreciation of the words, deeds, and attributes they bring to interpersonal relationships. In other words, the values people hold most dear are not ends, but means to other ends, just as great works of art and literature and feats of leadership are also means to greater ends. Stevenson did not write “Aes Triplex” because he hoped his readers would admire the essay for its own sake, but because he wanted them to use the essay as a means to end. Great literary classics throughout history, from the Iliad to The Lord of the Rings, have captivated the imaginations of millions and have remained popular for decades, centuries, or millennia because they speak to diverse individuals in different ways and are open to myriad interpretations. They are not, and have never been, written so people would love them for their own sake. Appeals to convince someone of a point, particularly pathos, ethos, and logos, illustrate this concept further. To effectively win over someone to a certain point of view, the person making an argument should tailor the argument to satisfy specific audiences’ strong responses to emotional messages, respect for authoritative figures’ perspectives, or desires for logic. These three well-known strategies for persuading an audience reveal people value ideas and objects that fulfill what they seek or align with what they find desirable. People do not accept points of view for their own sake, but for those perspectives’ alignment with how they think, what they want, or how they feel. Again, individuals respond to concepts and objects in large part because of the meaning or benefits people draw from them, not for the sake of the concepts and objects themselves.
These considerations reminded me of a practice debate from the McConnell Center’s Debate Society meetings earlier this year, in which two McConnell Scholars argued whether people are capable of complete altruism. The Scholar who argued people cannot display complete altruism implied that individuals do good to others in part because they always expect some kind of internal or external reward for their actions. She also claimed scientific studies have shown individuals feel good about themselves when they do good to others, even if they are not consciously aware of this process. While I believe it is possible for someone to not contemplate self-centered motives when doing good to others, it is rare for individuals to act altruistically without any consideration for self-benefit. Also, the rush of positive feeling one receives upon doing good to others, even if he or she does not realize it, demonstrates total altruism eludes individuals. Thus, for the most part people do good deeds in part to obtain certain benefits for themselves, performing such actions for the sake of what they could obtain from them rather than for the sake of doing good or for the recipients’ sakes only. Despite the pervasiveness of selfish motives behind apparently altruistic actions, individuals can still strive to direct their conscious rationales for their actions to the benefits they will provide others. When pursuing altruistic aims, individuals should always grow in their efforts to relegate considerations of self-benefit to the unconscious mind, recognizing humbly that they can still center their minds and acts on the benefit of others. As I conclude my trip to China and prepare to embark on Russian immersion studies in Los Angeles, I am determined to apply these considerations to my daily life, seeking ways to focus on how my words, actions, and attitudes can serve others’ needs and interests and striving to follow the path of altruism over considerations of self-benefit.