To be or not to be? That really is the question...for today at least.

This day is getting even more confusing for me as it goes along.

I wake up realizing maybe depression isn't just like those ads on tv showing everyone sad. I am not necessarily sad, but I am progressively feeling more of a motivation to not have motivation. What a slippery slope. You don't feel like doing anything. So when confronted with something you should do, you try to figure out a way not to do it. But then not doing it makes you not want to do even more things. I don't think depression is just about being sad. Whether I am on that slippery slope because I am overwhelmed, frustrated, or stressed, I don't think I am sad. It is a really weird paradox. I have a desire to be engaged and not to be at the same time. And it is a war going on all in in my head.

I pull it together enough to get my kids off to school. Then a bit of being engaged wins over as I type one of my essays that was due for my English class, that I had previously decided I wasn't going to do because I didn't want to be engaged. Then I get myself to school and the to be or not to be doesn't end with being engaged or not. I have a realization in English class that we completely admire authors for knowing their audience, for being able to get their point across to that audience, and knowing how to appeal to their audience. Then it hits me. Why do we admire this as writing is concerned, but if a person has this as their natural ability, then they often are considered manipulative? Of course I am referring to myself. I have always had an easier time understanding people and knowing how to appeal to them in order to get what I need. Just like an author needs/wants an effective essay. Of course with everything there are exceptions. I know full well, especially when I am in the height of point making, that sometimes I don't do this. Sometimes, especially in heated discussions, I unfortunately get carried away with only my point. I also know I can be wrong because this skill is based on generalizations and as I said before there are always exceptions. What I am talking about is knowing more often then not, that if I want something I need to appeal to what is important to the other person. For example, if I ordered something at a restaurant that tasted horrible, I know I have much more of a chance getting something new if I am nice to the waiter then if I am a jerk. This does not mean I am being fake though. I am truly wanting to give the other person what they want. It really is genuine, not just to get what I want. So my question that plagues me in English class is why in writing is knowing your audience in order to get your point across admired, but in real life it can be considered bad? After a discussion with my professor during break, yes I am a brave soul to bother my professor with my philosophical questions, we concluded that in both instances it is a form of manipulation but one has to more clearly define what manipulation is. I am still left with not knowing if it is good to be or not to be this way.

Still in English class, we begin a discussion on comparing and contrasting. We have just read an essay about childhood differences in men and women that lead them to deal with emotions differently. Of course, this leads to a very wonderful discussion. I love to hear other peoples' opinions especially if they differ from mine. The essay wasn't the thing that brought up the next to be or not to be for me. It actually was the discussion. The discussion really felt interesting and amazing. I ask my professor if there are any jobs in philosophy, like during Socrate's times. To which he chuckled and said, "Nope." He also said, "However, were Socrates and Aristotle really just philosophers? Nope they were teachers." Uh oh! A teacher? I am on a track to be a nurse, not a teacher! I can't even figure out how I would support my family being a teacher and a single mom. (Which of course is a separate blog all together about frustration and anger associated with my life being dictated by someone else's free agency forcing me to be a single mom.) So what do I do now? Would being an RN be terrible? No, I am very nurturing and can definitely see getting enjoyment out of it. But, is being an RN what I REALLY want to be? Should I do it because that really is the fastest way to be able to provide for my family? Should I do something because it is the most logical path? Or do I do something that would be the most fulfilling for me? And what is that anyway? I am quite troubled that being an RN may not be what I really want. To be an RN or not to be. I've got to find that out and I no longer have the time to do that. I have to know now.

Confusion, chaos, uncertainty, unanswered questions, this is the sort of stuff that brings me full circle and I just want to hide and have no motivation to deal with it all. But at the same time I really don't want to hide. That just isn't living. I guess I have to just make a decision. "To be or not to be, that is the question." That is one of the most famous quotes of literature from Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet does give us thought provoking advice later in his soliloquy to this ultimate question. Yes, Hamlet is talking about life v. death but reading between the lines is the bigger advice given about the known v. the unknown. It is actually quite beautiful. It reads,

"The undiscover'd country from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,"

When faced with the unknown, we can so often choose to suffer because we don't have all the answers yet or we can choose to explore without

knowing everything. It is in the actual decision that we become paralyzed

by our own thoughts.

Oh dear Socrates, Aristotle, and Shakespeare, what do I do???