Fidelity

"At the root of every form of fidelity is a commitment. Whether it's friendship or love - marital fidelity is a typical example here - or in the oath of allegiance of a vassal to his lord, one only can strictly say that a person is faithful, or unfaithful, if this person has previously committed to a promise or a certain consistency. It may be that this commitment is implied, such as friendship, which can also be a source of misunderstanding.

The fidelity commits to the future, so it may take the form of a promise or an explicit oath, that is to say things which by definition may be, as we say, betrayed. Note carefully that this is not a secondary characteristic or "accidental" fidelity: it is precisely because we can never be absolutely sure that it will respected that the commitment of fidelity have its own meaning. Fidelity is constantly to be confirmed and can permanently, or at least regularly, be broken, and one misstep is enough here: fidelity is total or is not.

Therefore, fidelity in its original form, that is to say when there's fidelity to a person, is based on thetrust of this person and, as trust, is usually reciprocal, at least "officially". Some push it very far actually : in the New Testament, Jesus says that "whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed in his heart, adultery with her. "(Gospel of Matthew, 5, 28). In another sense, the so-called "faithful" to a particular religion commits himself, to himself that he considers as a person to what he regards as a person, except that the "person" in question is a deity. Note that "infidelity" takes a peculiar shape.

It is therefore required, to be faithful to what we pledged. Some couples - some would say modern, depraved would say others - agree on a mutual consent of adultery, a sort of "polygamy" mutually consented, and no one can be therefore be described as infidel, whatever that we also think of their conduct. There is infidelity if there's a break-up of commitment, and a betrayal of trust given by the person to whom it has been promised to be faithful.

It's different for the second form of fidelity: the one which is not wpmmited to a person but to values, morals or politics, for example. What, then, in this case, the infidelity? It can be either the recognition of a mistake or of a bad choice in the initial commitment of fidelity, and sometimes is done in favor of a commitment towards new values, either a "lurch" which should then be regretted. The first case can be illustrated by the political activist who leaves his party for another, the second by an ecologist who, through laziness and for once, throws his glass in a bin not provided for this purpose. If this second case can be compared to someone's infidelity, although perhaps less severe, the first shows that there is little sense to commit to be faithful forever to a cause or values. That would mean to give up the freedom to think - and more specifically to change mind - and if one wants to be faithful no matter what happens, the risk of one day being so, without sincerity: if one must be consistent in his values, not because they committed in the past to be faithful to them, but because they are worthy of being followed.

We can then note that "being faithful to ourselves" may not really mean anything else than having a life, a behavior entirely coherent with his thoughts, even if, because of changes of mind, coherence involves changes in life or behavior, including frequent. Thus the member of a sect that, in an unguarded moment, or after careful consideration, has pledged to be faithful to his guru forever and who, become lucid, regrets and breaks this commitment can be considered unfaithful to this guru, but not to himself, on the contrary, it's by staying faithful to his guru that he would have become unfaithless to himself. Here appears again the delicate problem of the relationship between fidelity and freedom: how to commit to be faithful, in any way, without abdicating freedom? Who can say he will never think that the commitment of allegiance he took was a mistake, even a "mistaken identity"? But if we admit that we are wrong about people as on values to whom we have pledged to be faithful, can we not conclude that the only fidelity that we should engage to, and the only one actually, is fidelity to ourselves? "

From http://philo.pourtous.free.fr/index.htm MA

"At the root of every form of fidelity is a commitment. Whether it's friendship or love - marital fidelity is a typical example here - or in the oath of allegiance of a vassal to his lord, one only can strictly say that a person is faithful, or unfaithful, if this person has previously committed to a promise or a certain consistency. It may be that this commitment is implied, such as friendship, which can also be a source of misunderstanding.

The fidelity commits to the future, so it may take the form of a promise or an explicit oath, that is to say things which by definition may be, as we say, betrayed. Note carefully that this is not a secondary characteristic or "accidental" fidelity: it is precisely because we can never be absolutely sure that it will respected that the commitment of fidelity have its own meaning. Fidelity is constantly to be confirmed and can permanently, or at least regularly, be broken, and one misstep is enough here: fidelity is total or is not.

Therefore, fidelity in its original form, that is to say when there's fidelity to a person, is based on thetrust of this person and, as trust, is usually reciprocal, at least "officially". Some push it very far actually : in the New Testament, Jesus says that "whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed in his heart, adultery with her. "(Gospel of Matthew, 5, 28). In another sense, the so-called "faithful" to a particular religion commits himself, to himself that he considers as a person to what he regards as a person, except that the "person" in question is a deity. Note that "infidelity" takes a peculiar shape.

It is therefore required, to be faithful to what we pledged. Some couples - some would say modern, depraved would say others - agree on a mutual consent of adultery, a sort of "polygamy" mutually consented, and no one can be therefore be described as infidel, whatever that we also think of their conduct. There is infidelity if there's a break-up of commitment, and a betrayal of trust given by the person to whom it has been promised to be faithful.

It's different for the second form of fidelity: the one which is not wpmmited to a person but to values, morals or politics, for example. What, then, in this case, the infidelity? It can be either the recognition of a mistake or of a bad choice in the initial commitment of fidelity, and sometimes is done in favor of a commitment towards new values, either a "lurch" which should then be regretted. The first case can be illustrated by the political activist who leaves his party for another, the second by an ecologist who, through laziness and for once, throws his glass in a bin not provided for this purpose. If this second case can be compared to someone's infidelity, although perhaps less severe, the first shows that there is little sense to commit to be faithful forever to a cause or values. That would mean to give up the freedom to think - and more specifically to change mind - and if one wants to be faithful no matter what happens, the risk of one day being so, without sincerity: if one must be consistent in his values, not because they committed in the past to be faithful to them, but because they are worthy of being followed.

We can then note that "being faithful to ourselves" may not really mean anything else than having a life, a behavior entirely coherent with his thoughts, even if, because of changes of mind, coherence involves changes in life or behavior, including frequent. Thus the member of a sect that, in an unguarded moment, or after careful consideration, has pledged to be faithful to his guru forever and who, become lucid, regrets and breaks this commitment can be considered unfaithful to this guru, but not to himself, on the contrary, it's by staying faithful to his guru that he would have become unfaithless to himself. Here appears again the delicate problem of the relationship between fidelity and freedom: how to commit to be faithful, in any way, without abdicating freedom? Who can say he will never think that the commitment of allegiance he took was a mistake, even a "mistaken identity"? But if we admit that we are wrong about people as on values to whom we have pledged to be faithful, can we not conclude that the only fidelity that we should engage to, and the only one actually, is fidelity to ourselves? "

From http://philo.pourtous.free.fr/index.htm MA