While they might seem the complete product of circumstance, there is always one basis for any love triangle: poor timing.

There are two basic scenarios:

If a girl and a boy are (ostensibly) in love and have just committed to each other, but the boy meets another girl and (unintentionally, against his best efforts) falls head-over-heels for her, there may be a love-triangle.

Similarly, if a boy meets a girl and falls in love with her but cannot at that moment stay with her, or believes he will never see her again, and returns home or moves to meet a new girl, his closest match since the first, whom he commits to, only to consistently run into the first girl again, there may be a love-triangle.

The question that then arises to any author is, which is more valuable, love or commitment?

If commitment is the foundation of love, one may well err with commitment. But if love is not an ephemeral concept, not a mere spark but a Vestal hearth which burns regardless of will, commitment only serves as a chain to bind.

Certainly, one cannot undervalue commitment – without it there would be no monogamy, no lives together. But commitment is often just another tool to create obligations on behalf of the hero, another way to test his integrity.

But is choosing to remain with one you love (but less) integrity? Or is choosing to betray commitment at society’s behest to pursue a stronger love integrity?

Perhaps it depends on the situation. The hero who is choosing to look for a greater love is never sacrificing just himself. There are often others, perhaps even beyond the one he is originally committed to, who will suffer because of his decision. In the end, his joy must outweigh their despair, or regardless of his desire, he must stay with his original lover.

On the other hand, failure to discern the appropriate reaction (if one reaction clearly outweighs the other) can be considered a tragic flaw. The hero who walks away from his family and children for another woman, or who chooses a lusty and evanescent affair over his wife might be viewed through such a lens.

In some instances, there simply is no correct reaction. Choosing to stay with the first love in light of the second is false, but choosing to go with the second despite the first is hurtful. Both persons are lovable, both persons are loved, both persons could create happiness. In such a situation one could reason both that to switch from a successful, happy relationship to an unfounded, potentially happy relationship is a pointless risk, and conversely, that if such a chance is not taken, it will be regretted for as long as the hero lives.

Which side erred on and the complexities of the choice are critical to the development and depth of all characters involved.

Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big – Theodore Roosevelt.

When F.D.R. took office, the nation was ailing. Unemployment was at a historic peak, the banking system was faltering, and most were wanting for food. He spent his first one-hundred days in office proscribing policies that were to be the cure –ambitiously developing his New Deal, a clever and desperate ploy to revive the inert economy. The hundreds of agencies started by his administration provided relief, reform, and recovery. Several, including the FDIC and the SSS (questionable though it is), still do.

Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure – Confucius.

The same forethought that allowed F.D.R. to deal so aptly with domestic and economic reform propelled him to instate the first peace-time draft and to start lend-lease programs with the Allies. His fear of an inevitable war with domineering aggressor nations prepared the U.S. for the day Japan struck Pearl Harbor – the military was already in training.

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing – Socrates.

Aware of his inadequacies and lack of omniscience, Roosevelt encouraged advice from the most competent minds in the nation, his “brain trust”, using the specific wisdom of professionals to custom-tailor his plans.

The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness- Niels Bohr.

The fire-side chats were brilliant, reassuring and coaxing an anxious nation through the power of personal contact. Roosevelt worked with the press, not against them, to form an alliance that the people could rely on. With an easy-going, informal living-room manner, he won over the people’s support, and kept them well-informed of his policies.

In a leadership position, I too shall seek to be open to audit, prepared for the worst, and aware of the people’s will.
Like Roosevelt, I shall attempt to take quick, deliberate action against pre-existing problems, prevent future problems, maintain intimacy and honesty with those I represent, and solve international problems multilaterally.
Yet, with respect to Roosevelt’s august achievements, I will not actively emulate any leader. Modern circumstances call for innovation, not duplication; recognition, not worship.
The words of many leaders can provide a guidebook, and the actions of many individuals can form a historical outline, but it is the responsibility of self to discern the imperatives of the present.

I am a proponent of Judeo-Christian values, they provide a much appreciated moral framework from which believers base decisions – and the church regularly reminds constituents of their spiritual obligations.
Further, the idea of a Jesus – a theoretically perfect man: selfless, compassionate, infinitely forgiving, and omnipotent – gives Christians clear security and goals.
Other religious figureheads are similar – a means to show disciples, ancient and modern alike, how to live peacefully with one another; they are role-models given mythic status to incur the wrath of divinity on rule-breakers and non-believers.
This makes historical and psychological sense: before the advent of heavy reason and scientific inquiry, mere subsistence imposed violent hardships, and the mystic nature of even the simplest phenomena left the wisest soothsayers in awe. Hence, belief in the grandiose was less uncommon and of greater necessity.
Yet, there is backlash to the pristine obedience such religions command – a reason to depart from them and to move towards an individual enforcement of moral values: the carrot-stick mentality of an afterlife, while good for reinforcing moral standards, causes much tension among worried mortals. As grace and salvation are limited to singular and conflicting groups of people whose memberships are primarily composed of ‘God’s chosen’ – the culturally and environmentally pre-disposed – holy wars are the naturally resultant invalidation attempts waged by one religion on another.

So, are there other routes to the peace religions profess to defend, without the animosity which they inspire?

There are the Lockian ideals: life, liberty and property, and Nozick’s Libertarian vision of moral side-constraints – no action should be taken that will violate another’s rights; no harm should be done to another. If somewhat religiously inspired, they nourish no need for resentment.
Even more primal, however, there is the common human trait and ability of empathy – best summed up in the ‘Golden Rule’: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Blending this premise with Descartes, I am able to affirm that if I think and, therefore am, then others think and are as well. If I do not wish to be harmed or persecuted, others too, will not wish to be harmed or persecuted. If I would want food, water and shelter, then I will work to ensure others have those necessities. While the argument can be made that this is forcing westernization onto the world, that argument is defeated through pure Darwinian self-preservation: all humans wish to survive, and wishing to survive, they wish to excel, in order to be best placed for the propagation of their own genes. Therefore, they will accept any means of advancement. Further, the need to avoid harm and pain is a universal value, not simply a Western one, as all races grimace when tortured, and only the psychotic, emo, or especially kinky deliberately engage in masochism.

The only reason left to pursue religion in a progressive era, in an age yearning for peace, is personal contact with the divine. And yet, even among the most devout, there is never an absolute answer in prayer, only an innate knowledge of what should be done – a knowledge derived not from ‘conversation’ but from the forced focus on, and weighing of, morality. There is simply meditation with self and self’s own code of being, where “God” exists solely to impose an imperative on this routine self-acknowledgment of goals and wrongs done. Selfless and global, in retrospect, pious resolutions are clearly correct all-along, but put-off until there is such an audit.

If empathy can proscribe morality, and inner-peace is brought by honest reflection, what need is there for the intolerances of religion, which betray their own cause?