Andrew Durant is perpetually surrounded by fellow military men, bureaucrats, and potential spies. He is constantly being evaluated and scrutinized for every syllable that leaves his mouth and every glance that me makes; however, Durant is doing the same thing to his peers, but he has a trump card, he is in the military and that means he is in control.
Durant is playing the role of a military man. At this point, Durant’s loyalty still lies with the Minute Men, but he has suggested that some Minute Men will have trouble letting go of power if revolution ever takes place, could he be referring to himself? I believe that people and their personalities are variable in nature, they both evolve as time goes on to better suit the situation at hand. Human beings always have a choice, whether it be what to eat or what to do in the infinitesimal moment before death. With this said, we have control over our personalities, so we adapt our personalities to do one of two things: satisfy ourselves or satisfy others.
This begs the question, what should we do? Adapt for ourselves or adapt for others? I think that the lighthearted and maybe even the feeble minded would say that we should only adapt for ourselves because we must “be ourselves” and sacrificing our beliefs is sacrificing ourselves, or something along those lines. Those who have no principals and no sense of self worth may adapt their personalities to please the people around them at any given opportunity. However, the pragmatists of the world would say that we should not bound ourselves to just one means of transformation, we should adapt in whichever way benefits us the most at any given time. Andrew Durant is a pragmatist. He is willing to do whatever it takes to reach his goal: freedom in America.
How long can someone sacrifice their own beliefs to assimilate with a cause to advance their own agenda though? Is there a point where a person loses their true identity? I think that a point like this exists, but it has an esoteric location that most people are not conscious of. Those who do not recognize this point are essentially lost at sea without a map. They cross this point, it relocates, and they cross it again without ever realizing it and in the process they gain nothing. However, those who recognize this point are those who are willing to lose their intrinsic self to achieve their goals. I don’t think that anything is wrong with this; they want something so desperately that they are willing to destroy part of their humanity by way of a conscious decision. In some ways this could be seen as admirable.
Andrew Durant is approaching this point, he is aware that he is changing, but he has not forgotten his ultimate goal. Yet as he gets closer and closer to this point and subsequently a freed America, he is becoming unsure of his work for he is not meant to exist upon the success of his work. Does Durant want freedom for all or freedom for himself?
Durant is playing the role of a military man. At this point, Durant’s loyalty still lies with the Minute Men, but he has suggested that some Minute Men will have trouble letting go of power if revolution ever takes place, could he be referring to himself? I believe that people and their personalities are variable in nature, they both evolve as time goes on to better suit the situation at hand. Human beings always have a choice, whether it be what to eat or what to do in the infinitesimal moment before death. With this said, we have control over our personalities, so we adapt our personalities to do one of two things: satisfy ourselves or satisfy others.
This begs the question, what should we do? Adapt for ourselves or adapt for others? I think that the lighthearted and maybe even the feeble minded would say that we should only adapt for ourselves because we must “be ourselves” and sacrificing our beliefs is sacrificing ourselves, or something along those lines. Those who have no principals and no sense of self worth may adapt their personalities to please the people around them at any given opportunity. However, the pragmatists of the world would say that we should not bound ourselves to just one means of transformation, we should adapt in whichever way benefits us the most at any given time. Andrew Durant is a pragmatist. He is willing to do whatever it takes to reach his goal: freedom in America.
How long can someone sacrifice their own beliefs to assimilate with a cause to advance their own agenda though? Is there a point where a person loses their true identity? I think that a point like this exists, but it has an esoteric location that most people are not conscious of. Those who do not recognize this point are essentially lost at sea without a map. They cross this point, it relocates, and they cross it again without ever realizing it and in the process they gain nothing. However, those who recognize this point are those who are willing to lose their intrinsic self to achieve their goals. I don’t think that anything is wrong with this; they want something so desperately that they are willing to destroy part of their humanity by way of a conscious decision. In some ways this could be seen as admirable.
Andrew Durant is approaching this point, he is aware that he is changing, but he has not forgotten his ultimate goal. Yet as he gets closer and closer to this point and subsequently a freed America, he is becoming unsure of his work for he is not meant to exist upon the success of his work. Does Durant want freedom for all or freedom for himself?