I am just about to finish reading a book called "Indecision," by Benjamin Kunkel. It's about this guy named Dwight who has a serious problem with indecision, to the point where he sometimes has to flip a coin in order to make up his mind about something. Having gone through his life so far without hope for finding a cure, Dwight suddenly hears from one of his friends that a new drug called Abulinix, which supposedly cures indecision, is being tested. The bulk of the story thereafter is about Dwight trying the drug and suddenly (and very much on a hunch) pursuing a jungle escapade to Ecuador's jungles with a Belgian girl named Brigid. Basically, it's a very funny book, and a good treadmill read, so to speak.
My question, however, is this: Is it acceptable to treat a characteristic such as indecision as outside of someone's control and potential improvement (through conscious and painstaking effort, nevertheless), and should one settle for a drug to do the job and create a more artificial and ephemeral sense of being able to decide?
Another question that I have is whether people consider the picking of a "correct" choice in practically any decision vital to the coming of an eventually positive outcome? That is, how truly important are the major decisions that we make, when looked at not just in retrospect but also at that time?
Some food for thought...
Crito
No comments:
Post a Comment