For late-night lulz

"Love all, trust few, do harm to none." -Shakespeare

Look man, I know we can't all be Shakespeare, but you're pushing it with this one.

I wish you were still around to explain to me how a human being has ever managed to employ two of these three principles at the same time, let alone all three. As I interpret the maxim above, it is written as a paradox. To break it down into digestible possibilities, I have fashioned this chart-thing:

1. Love All	+ Trust Few	= Impossible
2. Love All	+ Do Harm to None	= Impossible
3. Trust Few	+ Do Harm to None	= Impossible

From the top...

1. Love All + Trust Few = Nope.

For the sake of communication, I shall assume "Love" is meant in the purest capacity, which exclusively implies unwavering "Trust." If one were to "Love All," he actually must "Trust All." If he doesn't "Trust All," then he cannot "Love All."

2. Love All + Do Harm to None = Nope.

Let me explain how it could work, for the sake of all the good in the world. If every human being followed Shakespeare's suggestions, it could work. However, Shakespeare himself pieced together a fictional embodiment of why everyone cannot live by this advice. I present Exhibit A, a quote from Shakespeare's Iago in Othello:

"He hath a daily beauty in his life

That makes me ugly..."

Still taking "Love" at maximum capacity, Shakespeare is asking us to simultaneously "Love All" (read as "Trust All") while doing "Harm to None." Let's just think about that for a second. If you were to "Trust All," the one being harmed is You. Why? Because people who "Love All" yet "Trust Few" are generally  possessive folks, and if you go around loving and trusting everyone blindly in a monogamy-centric society, you will eventually piss off an insecure asshole enough for him or her to go full-stabby on your blessed, bloody heart.

Not saying I wish it weren't this way, but the whole "be the change you want to see" thing doesn't get you very far when you're the victim of a crime of passion. Which leads me to...

3. Trust Few + Do Harm to None = Nope.

 If you "Trust Few," you damn well can't expect to "Do Harm to None." Again, for the sake of communication, I'm taking "Trust" at full capacity, which includes all the juicy, subconscious trappings that people rarely think about when that word leaves their lips. For example, everybody claims to believe in the ultimate "Good" of a fellow human being, until that human being signs up for welfare. After that, half of the country doesn't trust that the human being will only use that money until they can find a job in an earnest search. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, because we're talking about "Trust" here -- the inherent lack of trust given out by you and I, as a matter of fact. 

Getting back to the philosophy here: "Trust Few" implies "Love Few," as Love and Trust cannot have conditions that oppose each other. In that regard, if one were to "Trust Few," they would also "Love Few," which inherently cannot result in "Do Harm to None." Those who "Trust Few" are the jealous, insecure assholes like Iago who can't live a complete existence if they're not comparing themselves to other, more desirable pieces of ass.

So! How could we make Shakespeare's statement into good advice? All we'd have to change is one tiny word. Laws of logic shall carry us from here:

If "Love All" then "Trust All"

If "Love All" and "Trust All" then "Do Harm to None"

And then Tah-Dah, World Peace. But until Mr. 'Speare rises up from the grave (or better yet -- proves that he actually existed as the notable, mis-quotable William) to edit his own logical fallacy, people are gonna keep holding onto their "Love All" while going cheap on the Trust, still wondering where the fuck all this Harm is coming from.