I am leaving for the next two months and will not be posting very often during that time. Expect possibly one post every week or two.
I will continue with regular posts upon my return.
WHILE I'M AWAY
If there are any requests for topics of posts, please leave them in a comment, and I will post regardging your requests as soon as possible.
God Bless.
June 28, 2008
The Western Version of Religion
This will be a brief post due to a lack of time, but I hope to get my point across none the less.
I recently traveled to Rome, stayed for 8 days and lost count of how many churches I entered. I also attended 3 or 4 masses, including a Papal mass (mass done by the Pope, this one happened to be in memory of Pope John Paul II). During my time there, I was really able to appreciate the differences between religion where it was founded and what has become the Western version of that same religion.
Here religion is bland. There is no avoiding it. Going to church is something people around here do because they feel it is an obligation, or because it has simply been worked into their weekly routine. I've gotten to the point where I attend masses for Christmas and Easter, and that's it. Some may think that is because we are straying away from religion, but I'd argue instead that religion is straying from itself. It is not what it originally was, it cannot be expected to ever be what it originally was. As times change so must the church, but have times become boring in order for the church to match them?
In all the church's I entered in Rome, you would enter and there would be an immediate rush of emotion in relation to the church. I would walk in and, before anything else, be left in complete awe due to the absolute beauty of the church. Everything there is marble and gold, statues of various religious figures are everywhere. The aisle from the second you walk in seems to go on for miles. The churches there are absolutely beautiful. We do not get that same experience here. It is almost a disgrace that the older churches are so stunning and the churches that we build today, with all the modern technology and the massive surplus of money we all posess, are so incredibly bland. It seems that we have forgotten the beauty in religion back here.
If you ever get the chance, I advise you to no end to visit Rome and go from church to church, whether you are a devoted member of a parish or not, you will be stunned.
It is not only the physical beauty of the church that differs so much from what we are used to, it is an emotional beauty. From the moment you step in the doors of those churches, you feel different. The masses which I attended filled me with the same feeling, to a greater extent. While a mass is in progress, you feel a true sense of community in the church. There is no disrespect (with exception of the few tourists who do not understand that the churches are more than just good places to take pictures) and you feel a true sense of belonging to the religion. I have honestly never felt that same belonging in the parish that I've been going to since I was born (although I do only go twice a year). The priests present true emotion and belief when they read or speak, they do not simply read a script which they had written in their minds before the mass. They honestly seem to convey some higher message, as if they know they have words to pass on, and they do so with the greatest of enthusiasm.
While in Rome, I also had the opportunity to visit the Catacombs. These were the underground burrial graves for the martyred catholics in ancient Rome. I'll admit it was an eerie feeling that left me completely uneased, it was very strange. But to experience those sights is astounding. How can you see with your own eyes the thousands of graves (not to mention the thousands more that I did not see) of catholics who died in the name of their religion and still manage to deny religion? People do not die without reason, and the masses do not die by dillusion.
I realize I am sounding preachy at this point, but until you experience the churches in Europe, it is difficult to understand where I am coming from. When I got back from Rome, I had just seen the Pope, I had seen all these magnificent churches (St. Peter's Basilica, the Pantheon, etc.) and I was (dare I say?) excited about my religion. That very quickly wore off once I was re-introduced to the Western lifestyle to which I am accustomed.
Making a side note from the religious aspect of Rome for a moment, I'd suggest to anybody that, even if you are not religious or do not wish the seek religion in any form, visit Rome. It is an experience that will change your life. They do not live as we do. The cities were beautiful, well taken care of, everything has history. There are honestly no words to describe the feeling you get when you are there.
I recently traveled to Rome, stayed for 8 days and lost count of how many churches I entered. I also attended 3 or 4 masses, including a Papal mass (mass done by the Pope, this one happened to be in memory of Pope John Paul II). During my time there, I was really able to appreciate the differences between religion where it was founded and what has become the Western version of that same religion.
Here religion is bland. There is no avoiding it. Going to church is something people around here do because they feel it is an obligation, or because it has simply been worked into their weekly routine. I've gotten to the point where I attend masses for Christmas and Easter, and that's it. Some may think that is because we are straying away from religion, but I'd argue instead that religion is straying from itself. It is not what it originally was, it cannot be expected to ever be what it originally was. As times change so must the church, but have times become boring in order for the church to match them?
In all the church's I entered in Rome, you would enter and there would be an immediate rush of emotion in relation to the church. I would walk in and, before anything else, be left in complete awe due to the absolute beauty of the church. Everything there is marble and gold, statues of various religious figures are everywhere. The aisle from the second you walk in seems to go on for miles. The churches there are absolutely beautiful. We do not get that same experience here. It is almost a disgrace that the older churches are so stunning and the churches that we build today, with all the modern technology and the massive surplus of money we all posess, are so incredibly bland. It seems that we have forgotten the beauty in religion back here.
If you ever get the chance, I advise you to no end to visit Rome and go from church to church, whether you are a devoted member of a parish or not, you will be stunned.
It is not only the physical beauty of the church that differs so much from what we are used to, it is an emotional beauty. From the moment you step in the doors of those churches, you feel different. The masses which I attended filled me with the same feeling, to a greater extent. While a mass is in progress, you feel a true sense of community in the church. There is no disrespect (with exception of the few tourists who do not understand that the churches are more than just good places to take pictures) and you feel a true sense of belonging to the religion. I have honestly never felt that same belonging in the parish that I've been going to since I was born (although I do only go twice a year). The priests present true emotion and belief when they read or speak, they do not simply read a script which they had written in their minds before the mass. They honestly seem to convey some higher message, as if they know they have words to pass on, and they do so with the greatest of enthusiasm.
While in Rome, I also had the opportunity to visit the Catacombs. These were the underground burrial graves for the martyred catholics in ancient Rome. I'll admit it was an eerie feeling that left me completely uneased, it was very strange. But to experience those sights is astounding. How can you see with your own eyes the thousands of graves (not to mention the thousands more that I did not see) of catholics who died in the name of their religion and still manage to deny religion? People do not die without reason, and the masses do not die by dillusion.
I realize I am sounding preachy at this point, but until you experience the churches in Europe, it is difficult to understand where I am coming from. When I got back from Rome, I had just seen the Pope, I had seen all these magnificent churches (St. Peter's Basilica, the Pantheon, etc.) and I was (dare I say?) excited about my religion. That very quickly wore off once I was re-introduced to the Western lifestyle to which I am accustomed.
Making a side note from the religious aspect of Rome for a moment, I'd suggest to anybody that, even if you are not religious or do not wish the seek religion in any form, visit Rome. It is an experience that will change your life. They do not live as we do. The cities were beautiful, well taken care of, everything has history. There are honestly no words to describe the feeling you get when you are there.
June 27, 2008
Ernest Hemingway- The Silver Tongued Devil
Ernest Hemingway was an American novelist of the early 20th century, I believe that his first publicized novel was written in 1925 (if not that exact year, somewhere close to it), I am also almost positive that his final novel was released in 1999 (although he died in 1961). I'll start by saying (and I regret to say) that I have not read a ton of Hemingway, simply because his books do take some time to get through. I have read The Old Man and the Sea as well as some of his poetry and short stories. There are obviously more that I wish to read (For Whom the Bell Tolls in particular) but I will shape the following opinions on what I do know about the man, and from what I have read by him. I may not have read much by him, but I have studied the man quite a bit and find him to be endlessly interesting. However, I will only give a breif introduction to his life in order to support my later comments: over the past year I have heard many attacks in Hemingway's direction, I simply wish to relieve some of the battering placed upon him. (I apologize if any of the dates I give, or some of the information is not exact, I am writing off of memory from a short biography of his life that I recently read).
Hemingway was, to say the very least, a man's man. Using The Old Man and the Sea as an example (which is conveniently probably his most well known novel), his novels revolved around the pure aggression and intincts that lie within a man. He referred to these steriotypical men he created as "grace under pressure" which is interesting. His writing style may convey a sense of grace, but the men in question do not act as such. Rippling muscles draw blood in times of pressure, this does not convey grace in my eyes. However, I do not criticize how he may see his creations because I do believe they are beautiful and maybe it is simply the world that I live in that has lead me to believe his characters are more barbarian than graceful. He is often attacked for having such pessimistic writings with such pessimistic, almost crude characters. This is because people do not understand where he comes from (I do not claim to either). He grew up in a different time than the one we live in, we do not understand the same pain he experienced. His father committed suicide when he was only 29 years old by shooting himself. Hemingway was a catholic man and believed very clearly that, although he loved his father, his father would be going to Hell for having committed suicide. Christian teachings refer to suicide as a sin; God gave you a body and you are to respect it, not doing so is against God's will. In addition to that, Hemingway was a member of the Red Cross corps in World War I (he wanted to fight, but had some sort of health problem that did not allow him to do so, I cannot remember exactly what at the moment). It is said that he loved being close to the front lines of battle. His first day in the war, an ammunitions factory was blown up and he was part of the group asked to tend to the injured. He wrote about this and having to sort through the dead, and severed limbs in his novel A Natural History of the Dead, on which I have seen a documentary, but have not been fortunate enough to read. Later in his life, Ernest Hemingway participated in the Navy during World War II.
I am sure that there are more situations in his life that contributed to his brutal characters, but the previously mentioned are those that I am aware of, and I am sure that they are enough to cause pessimism and brutality in any man.
Not only is he criticized for his negative connotations of the human conditions (some of which I share), he is also seen as a death to beauty in writing. He wrote at the same time that some great English writers wrote, as an American writer, his writing did not hold the same beauty and flow as the European novels. His writing is done in more of a short, choppy fashion that conveyed his point without hesitation and without beating around the bush. He is accused of being somewhat responsible for the literature that exists today: the novel's story may be great, but the writing is terrible compared to the beauty of the 20th century.
The one thing I will openly criticize in relation to Hemingway's life is ironically his death. He committed suicide on his 62nd birthday. It is believed that much of his family suffered from a hereditary disease, which caused many problems including manic depression (much of his family committed suicide, including his father, two siblings and a grand-daughter). We know now that Hemingway was also bi-polar. Two reasons are given for his death:
1. He had received electro-shock therapy as treatment for bi-polar disease. He blamed the treatment for his rapid memory loss and slow course to senility. He did not want to live long enough to become fully senile.
2. In effect of the first reason, he believed that he was no longer a man. He could no longer protect the ones he loved or himself, age had taken away his physical and mental strength and he did not want to be known as anything less than a completely ideal man. He therefore took his own life, being in control for one last time.
Both theories are possible as they connect to each other, I strongly believe the second point was mainly responsible for his death. The only reason I criticise this death is due to the fact that he was so afraid of being seen as a coward or as anything less than a man, that he reverted to suicide. This causes a direct paradox to his reason for death.
I believe that all writers work their personal opinions and views into all of their writing. For this reason, I've always found that the ending to The Old Man and the Sea to be very interesting. (SPOILER)
He succeeds in capturing this great beast of a swordfish and although he has captured nature he loses it to another source of nature. A skeleton lies on the beach from the capture that should have existed and yet Santiago decides to sleep and revert back to his normal life. He completely disregards the loss of his success. Yet Hemmingway commits suicide before failure even comes.
Hemingway was, to say the very least, a man's man. Using The Old Man and the Sea as an example (which is conveniently probably his most well known novel), his novels revolved around the pure aggression and intincts that lie within a man. He referred to these steriotypical men he created as "grace under pressure" which is interesting. His writing style may convey a sense of grace, but the men in question do not act as such. Rippling muscles draw blood in times of pressure, this does not convey grace in my eyes. However, I do not criticize how he may see his creations because I do believe they are beautiful and maybe it is simply the world that I live in that has lead me to believe his characters are more barbarian than graceful. He is often attacked for having such pessimistic writings with such pessimistic, almost crude characters. This is because people do not understand where he comes from (I do not claim to either). He grew up in a different time than the one we live in, we do not understand the same pain he experienced. His father committed suicide when he was only 29 years old by shooting himself. Hemingway was a catholic man and believed very clearly that, although he loved his father, his father would be going to Hell for having committed suicide. Christian teachings refer to suicide as a sin; God gave you a body and you are to respect it, not doing so is against God's will. In addition to that, Hemingway was a member of the Red Cross corps in World War I (he wanted to fight, but had some sort of health problem that did not allow him to do so, I cannot remember exactly what at the moment). It is said that he loved being close to the front lines of battle. His first day in the war, an ammunitions factory was blown up and he was part of the group asked to tend to the injured. He wrote about this and having to sort through the dead, and severed limbs in his novel A Natural History of the Dead, on which I have seen a documentary, but have not been fortunate enough to read. Later in his life, Ernest Hemingway participated in the Navy during World War II.
I am sure that there are more situations in his life that contributed to his brutal characters, but the previously mentioned are those that I am aware of, and I am sure that they are enough to cause pessimism and brutality in any man.
Not only is he criticized for his negative connotations of the human conditions (some of which I share), he is also seen as a death to beauty in writing. He wrote at the same time that some great English writers wrote, as an American writer, his writing did not hold the same beauty and flow as the European novels. His writing is done in more of a short, choppy fashion that conveyed his point without hesitation and without beating around the bush. He is accused of being somewhat responsible for the literature that exists today: the novel's story may be great, but the writing is terrible compared to the beauty of the 20th century.
The one thing I will openly criticize in relation to Hemingway's life is ironically his death. He committed suicide on his 62nd birthday. It is believed that much of his family suffered from a hereditary disease, which caused many problems including manic depression (much of his family committed suicide, including his father, two siblings and a grand-daughter). We know now that Hemingway was also bi-polar. Two reasons are given for his death:
1. He had received electro-shock therapy as treatment for bi-polar disease. He blamed the treatment for his rapid memory loss and slow course to senility. He did not want to live long enough to become fully senile.
2. In effect of the first reason, he believed that he was no longer a man. He could no longer protect the ones he loved or himself, age had taken away his physical and mental strength and he did not want to be known as anything less than a completely ideal man. He therefore took his own life, being in control for one last time.
Both theories are possible as they connect to each other, I strongly believe the second point was mainly responsible for his death. The only reason I criticise this death is due to the fact that he was so afraid of being seen as a coward or as anything less than a man, that he reverted to suicide. This causes a direct paradox to his reason for death.
I believe that all writers work their personal opinions and views into all of their writing. For this reason, I've always found that the ending to The Old Man and the Sea to be very interesting. (SPOILER)
He succeeds in capturing this great beast of a swordfish and although he has captured nature he loses it to another source of nature. A skeleton lies on the beach from the capture that should have existed and yet Santiago decides to sleep and revert back to his normal life. He completely disregards the loss of his success. Yet Hemmingway commits suicide before failure even comes.
June 25, 2008
Today's word is Existentialism
And so the great debate of existentialism is brought to the table. Oh how I have looked forward to this rant.
First off, I'll explain the basics of existentialism which I choose to argue.
Existentialism argues, first and foremost, that we are essentially free as human beings. We make our own decisions and form our own conscious (yes that is mispelled). Because we are free and do make our own decisions, we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences of those actions. There is no form of universal karma, there is only the theory that our actions produce consequences, whether positive or negative. These consequences do not come as a form of karma, simply as an action-reaction form of living. BECAUSE we create our own future, destiny or fate cannot logically exist (you can extrapolate from this point). This would also argue that we create our own meaning to our lives and are not directed by any necessary higher power. (Existentialism is easily related to Nihilism in this sense). It would argue against seeking some universal order or universal meaning and focus on the individual as opposed to the entirety of humanity.
This leads to the next major point focusing directly upon human existence (hence the name existentialism). An existentialist point of view would argue that there is no core to our existence, no true meaning to our lives. They would argue that by rejecting nothingness, they can better embrace or appreciate existence. This also supports their theory of "I think therefore I am". This theory basically states that there is no breathing room for illusions or false appearance. We are brought into a concrete world and see concrete sights.
The last point I choose to outline in relation to existentialism is as follows:
Humans are not essentially rational beings. This counters so much of so many other philosophies. It would argue in favor of a fascist point of view that humans react upon emotion and not reason. The pessimism is outstanding!
That was just my quick outline of the very basics of existentialism.
Now the fun part: arguing.
Although this part is amusing to me, it is also very complicated because existentialism touches base with so many points that it is almost impossible to take a stand against everything the philosophy argues.
I would gladly agree in favor of its point of all humans being essentially free. We are given free will (because I argue that we are given free will, I obviously believe in some higher power giving us the free will in question) and we act upon our own decisions. At the same time, I believe that some form of karma exists. If a man kills another man and escapes without ever being caught, he will still receive consequences. I do not believe that the murderer would ever be able to live a free, normal life. He would, in my opinion, experience, at the very least, psycological distress leading to abnormal tendencies. This counters the existentialist theory of a completely concrete world. "I think therefore I am"; what if the thoughts are corrupted or irrational? A murderer may act on instinct, not on thought, does this mean he does not exist? A free murderer may have an exceedingly corrupted mind, does this mean he only partially exists? One theory does not support the other.
I choose only to directly argue one other point because I find that by arguing one point, I end up arguing two or three at the same time.
Existentialism states that we do not have a core to our existence or any true meaning to our lives. There is no evidence supporting this or denying it, so an argument based on fact is very difficult to have. I instead rely on opinion based on no more than opinion: If we do, in fact, live without meaning, then why do we live?
I believe that much of life is based on faith, and we must follow through with that faith. I am not necessarily talking about faith in relation to religion, faith means to have trust. We have faith in human goodness; we trust human goodness (I am not saying I necessarily have faith in human goodness, it was just an example). Because we base so many of our thoughts and opinions on faith, we have to accept that there is not always a need for concrete evidence or proof of somethings existence. Simply because we do not know the meaning of life, does not mean that there is no such meaning. I believe that life would be very hollow without meaning.
Comments please.
First off, I'll explain the basics of existentialism which I choose to argue.
Existentialism argues, first and foremost, that we are essentially free as human beings. We make our own decisions and form our own conscious (yes that is mispelled). Because we are free and do make our own decisions, we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences of those actions. There is no form of universal karma, there is only the theory that our actions produce consequences, whether positive or negative. These consequences do not come as a form of karma, simply as an action-reaction form of living. BECAUSE we create our own future, destiny or fate cannot logically exist (you can extrapolate from this point). This would also argue that we create our own meaning to our lives and are not directed by any necessary higher power. (Existentialism is easily related to Nihilism in this sense). It would argue against seeking some universal order or universal meaning and focus on the individual as opposed to the entirety of humanity.
This leads to the next major point focusing directly upon human existence (hence the name existentialism). An existentialist point of view would argue that there is no core to our existence, no true meaning to our lives. They would argue that by rejecting nothingness, they can better embrace or appreciate existence. This also supports their theory of "I think therefore I am". This theory basically states that there is no breathing room for illusions or false appearance. We are brought into a concrete world and see concrete sights.
The last point I choose to outline in relation to existentialism is as follows:
Humans are not essentially rational beings. This counters so much of so many other philosophies. It would argue in favor of a fascist point of view that humans react upon emotion and not reason. The pessimism is outstanding!
That was just my quick outline of the very basics of existentialism.
Now the fun part: arguing.
Although this part is amusing to me, it is also very complicated because existentialism touches base with so many points that it is almost impossible to take a stand against everything the philosophy argues.
I would gladly agree in favor of its point of all humans being essentially free. We are given free will (because I argue that we are given free will, I obviously believe in some higher power giving us the free will in question) and we act upon our own decisions. At the same time, I believe that some form of karma exists. If a man kills another man and escapes without ever being caught, he will still receive consequences. I do not believe that the murderer would ever be able to live a free, normal life. He would, in my opinion, experience, at the very least, psycological distress leading to abnormal tendencies. This counters the existentialist theory of a completely concrete world. "I think therefore I am"; what if the thoughts are corrupted or irrational? A murderer may act on instinct, not on thought, does this mean he does not exist? A free murderer may have an exceedingly corrupted mind, does this mean he only partially exists? One theory does not support the other.
I choose only to directly argue one other point because I find that by arguing one point, I end up arguing two or three at the same time.
Existentialism states that we do not have a core to our existence or any true meaning to our lives. There is no evidence supporting this or denying it, so an argument based on fact is very difficult to have. I instead rely on opinion based on no more than opinion: If we do, in fact, live without meaning, then why do we live?
I believe that much of life is based on faith, and we must follow through with that faith. I am not necessarily talking about faith in relation to religion, faith means to have trust. We have faith in human goodness; we trust human goodness (I am not saying I necessarily have faith in human goodness, it was just an example). Because we base so many of our thoughts and opinions on faith, we have to accept that there is not always a need for concrete evidence or proof of somethings existence. Simply because we do not know the meaning of life, does not mean that there is no such meaning. I believe that life would be very hollow without meaning.
Comments please.
June 21, 2008
End of the World Party
I believe strongly that we live in a world of karma. That karma may not come through instant delivery, but it does one day catch up to us.
To lead up to my actual argument, I will rely on the story of Noah's Ark:
I will not elaborate further than necessary to prove my point. The story's basic premis is that humanity failed. Everybody sins. So God came down, drowned the entire planet with the exception of one man and his wife, in addition to 2 of every animal. Assuming the animals are saved because we know that animals lack any free will and rely on instincts, they cannot be inherintly evil or corrupted. Animals cannot truly sin. So the world was wiped of sin by some higher power controlling our deaths. It was promised, at the end of this story, that the Lord would never impose such death upon the world again.
Since then, we have imposed enough death upon ourselves that it is not necessary for God to intervene.
This is my sagway to the fact that I truly believe there will be another plague in our lifetime, and I believe it will be the consequence of human actions.
In the 1820s, the first plague emerged. This plague was created by man's attempted disrespect towards its environment and its natural carelessness towards the planet that we walk on. A buildup of gargbage and substantial pollution over the years (basically a lack of hygene) introduced the first plague. After all the deaths, we simply rebuilt over our mistakes. In certain places in Europe right now they are exploring under current roads and finding old roads and villages that were destroyed by the plague.
Around a hundred years later, just after World War 1, the world was hit with the second universal epidemic: the influenza.
I'd argue that this would not be so much a direct consequence of our physical actions, but I would argue that it was a direct consequence of our intentions. We based our world on a world war. We used it as a crutch to support the economy and as a weapon wielded over words. In consequence to our pride and stupidity we were hit with a disease that wiped out more than the war itself did. I do no believe it was a coincidence that one was consecutive to the other. God stated that he would not unleash such a natural disaster on the world as the great flood, but I do believe he had some influence on the plagues.
So here we are: NEARLY 100 years later, and I do expect another plague. I, however, do not expect it to be a random disease or a natural disaster. I believe it will be a direct consequence of our age of technology and of our want to play God. Stephen King, I believe, agreed with this theory, having written The Stand and The Mist (both motion pictures, The Mist being a new release). This theory would also be portrayed by the relatively new movie: I am Legend. I suggest strongly that you at least see The Mist and I am Legend, but do watch The Stand if you are ever able to find it. Basically, I agree with these movies, assuming that our military advancements or technological advancements would destroy us all. This could branch off in two directions:
1. If something were to happen to our world, directly focused on our reliance on technology, the world would simply fall apart. Think about it, if all technology seized to fail, we would be left with nothing. I'm not only talking about electronics, I am also referring to the oil industry. So we are left with no electronics, or motor vehicles. The world that we live in would not know how to survive and chaos would being to rule our planet. I strongly believe that ultimate chaos could lead to man's ultimate destruction.
2. It is, in my opinion, even more likely that we become greedy with our research and advancements. This could be a new biological disease meant for war or for research that breaks loose. Seeing as it were hypothetically unlike all other strands of diseases, or assuming the disease were able to mutate as to not be affected by the anti-bodies we possess, it is easily assumable that nearly the entire human population (if not all) would be wiped out by this disease.
It could also be looked at as a cure to a disease causing ultimate death. We rely on our antibodies to protect us, and what they cannot do quickly enough, we use antibiotics to take care of. What if a cure was found for diseases such as cancer or AIDS. It has to be assumed that, with time, the disease would mutate to no longer be affected by the "cure". Assuming this were true, our body would not be able to fight the disease off any better than the medication could, causing death.
(The third man-made reason for the destruction of humanity would be World War 3. With our modern military technology and biological weapons, no human would survive. However, because this could not be considered a BIOLOGICAL plague, it does not merrit elaboration. I would argue, however, that it would still be humanity's ultimate plague.)
And so, as much as I would like to believe in human goodness, I can only rely on humans being the cause of our destruction. They think they are doing what is right by reducing Global Warming (and I would agree that it does need to be taken into some consideration), but they are forgetting that, before our environment should be saved from pollution, so must the human mind.
The Bible states that the world will end by the rath of God punishing us for our sins. I do not think that will be a physical rath; natural disasters will not be our end. I believe the rath comes in the form of karma. Before the end of my days, I expect to see humanity's ultimate failure.
To lead up to my actual argument, I will rely on the story of Noah's Ark:
I will not elaborate further than necessary to prove my point. The story's basic premis is that humanity failed. Everybody sins. So God came down, drowned the entire planet with the exception of one man and his wife, in addition to 2 of every animal. Assuming the animals are saved because we know that animals lack any free will and rely on instincts, they cannot be inherintly evil or corrupted. Animals cannot truly sin. So the world was wiped of sin by some higher power controlling our deaths. It was promised, at the end of this story, that the Lord would never impose such death upon the world again.
Since then, we have imposed enough death upon ourselves that it is not necessary for God to intervene.
This is my sagway to the fact that I truly believe there will be another plague in our lifetime, and I believe it will be the consequence of human actions.
In the 1820s, the first plague emerged. This plague was created by man's attempted disrespect towards its environment and its natural carelessness towards the planet that we walk on. A buildup of gargbage and substantial pollution over the years (basically a lack of hygene) introduced the first plague. After all the deaths, we simply rebuilt over our mistakes. In certain places in Europe right now they are exploring under current roads and finding old roads and villages that were destroyed by the plague.
Around a hundred years later, just after World War 1, the world was hit with the second universal epidemic: the influenza.
I'd argue that this would not be so much a direct consequence of our physical actions, but I would argue that it was a direct consequence of our intentions. We based our world on a world war. We used it as a crutch to support the economy and as a weapon wielded over words. In consequence to our pride and stupidity we were hit with a disease that wiped out more than the war itself did. I do no believe it was a coincidence that one was consecutive to the other. God stated that he would not unleash such a natural disaster on the world as the great flood, but I do believe he had some influence on the plagues.
So here we are: NEARLY 100 years later, and I do expect another plague. I, however, do not expect it to be a random disease or a natural disaster. I believe it will be a direct consequence of our age of technology and of our want to play God. Stephen King, I believe, agreed with this theory, having written The Stand and The Mist (both motion pictures, The Mist being a new release). This theory would also be portrayed by the relatively new movie: I am Legend. I suggest strongly that you at least see The Mist and I am Legend, but do watch The Stand if you are ever able to find it. Basically, I agree with these movies, assuming that our military advancements or technological advancements would destroy us all. This could branch off in two directions:
1. If something were to happen to our world, directly focused on our reliance on technology, the world would simply fall apart. Think about it, if all technology seized to fail, we would be left with nothing. I'm not only talking about electronics, I am also referring to the oil industry. So we are left with no electronics, or motor vehicles. The world that we live in would not know how to survive and chaos would being to rule our planet. I strongly believe that ultimate chaos could lead to man's ultimate destruction.
2. It is, in my opinion, even more likely that we become greedy with our research and advancements. This could be a new biological disease meant for war or for research that breaks loose. Seeing as it were hypothetically unlike all other strands of diseases, or assuming the disease were able to mutate as to not be affected by the anti-bodies we possess, it is easily assumable that nearly the entire human population (if not all) would be wiped out by this disease.
It could also be looked at as a cure to a disease causing ultimate death. We rely on our antibodies to protect us, and what they cannot do quickly enough, we use antibiotics to take care of. What if a cure was found for diseases such as cancer or AIDS. It has to be assumed that, with time, the disease would mutate to no longer be affected by the "cure". Assuming this were true, our body would not be able to fight the disease off any better than the medication could, causing death.
(The third man-made reason for the destruction of humanity would be World War 3. With our modern military technology and biological weapons, no human would survive. However, because this could not be considered a BIOLOGICAL plague, it does not merrit elaboration. I would argue, however, that it would still be humanity's ultimate plague.)
And so, as much as I would like to believe in human goodness, I can only rely on humans being the cause of our destruction. They think they are doing what is right by reducing Global Warming (and I would agree that it does need to be taken into some consideration), but they are forgetting that, before our environment should be saved from pollution, so must the human mind.
The Bible states that the world will end by the rath of God punishing us for our sins. I do not think that will be a physical rath; natural disasters will not be our end. I believe the rath comes in the form of karma. Before the end of my days, I expect to see humanity's ultimate failure.
June 20, 2008
The Day the Music Died
I like to think of myself as a dedicated musician. My music will, by no means, ever make a life for me but I enjoy playing my guitars without reason. This leads me to my latest thoughts of society's failure:
The evolution of music!
Music is simply not what it used to be. In the past, music was about the lyrics. The lyrics connected to people on personal levels, lead them into a state of imagination or a new world, perhaps it even gave them a false reality or a better view of a true reality. But the fact is, music was designed based on its lyrics. I'd say that today's version of music is much less about the purity of the lyrics or the connection to the lyrics. I'd instead argue that it revolves around intensity, pumping up its listeners, or, worse than any other reason: being catchy.
Oh how I hate those catchy songs where the lyrics have no true value... and sometimes lack any meaning, but they do stick in your head like that annoying little wasp that won't leave but you can't seem to swat fast enough.
For these reasons, I listen to a lot of older stuff, old and new blues, old and new jazz and country. I went through a long stage of heavy metal, rock, all that good stuff. I still listen to Metallica just as much as I ever did, and Avenged Sevenfold fills my blood with what can only be defined as pure awesomeness (it's enough of a word to count). I enjoy going to metal concerts, I enjoy the heavy, brutal nature of the music and I enjoy the moshpits which leave me in so much pain the next day, but were so worth it the night before. Having said that, I do not sit at home moshing by myself. Instead, I like to turn on some BB King or some classic John Coltrane and I like to let the music guide my thoughts. I listen to music such as Metallica or Avenged Sevenfold, and sure, it gets me pumped and I'm ready to play sports or workout or have a good time, but I can't think things over while listening to them. If I want to think, I've found that the best remedy is Explosions in the Sky (which I realize is modern music, but instrumentals never lose their feel) or a bit of Medeski, Martin & Wood. And you can never go wrong with a good dose of Johnny Cash to ease the mind.
Don't get me wrong, I do listen to current music. I love stuff like Jack Johnson, Johnny Reid and I love the Foo Fighters. But if you listen to their lyrics, they hold more substance than new, catchy tunes do. I would, however, still argue that they do not hold the same meaning that an old Bob Dylan or a Velvet Underground song would.
I guess music, like so many other things, relies on the time. Our world today is one of technology, speed, we're reverting back to drugs and alcohol without falling into a state of hippy-likeness. We live in a world where we don't like to beat around the bush but we do enjoy having things spoon fed to us; screw metaphors and similes, just tell me whats going on. I guess I'd rather live in an older day, every now and then. Our world is falling apart... hell, it's been falling apart for decades. But I'd rather be at the start of our destruction than at the end.
Don Maclean was right about one thing:
The music died.
What he didn't know was that the day the music died lasted over a span of many years. We've successfully completed the destruction the day that Nirvana no longer existed, and New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys tickets sell out in mere minutes.
The evolution of music!
Music is simply not what it used to be. In the past, music was about the lyrics. The lyrics connected to people on personal levels, lead them into a state of imagination or a new world, perhaps it even gave them a false reality or a better view of a true reality. But the fact is, music was designed based on its lyrics. I'd say that today's version of music is much less about the purity of the lyrics or the connection to the lyrics. I'd instead argue that it revolves around intensity, pumping up its listeners, or, worse than any other reason: being catchy.
Oh how I hate those catchy songs where the lyrics have no true value... and sometimes lack any meaning, but they do stick in your head like that annoying little wasp that won't leave but you can't seem to swat fast enough.
For these reasons, I listen to a lot of older stuff, old and new blues, old and new jazz and country. I went through a long stage of heavy metal, rock, all that good stuff. I still listen to Metallica just as much as I ever did, and Avenged Sevenfold fills my blood with what can only be defined as pure awesomeness (it's enough of a word to count). I enjoy going to metal concerts, I enjoy the heavy, brutal nature of the music and I enjoy the moshpits which leave me in so much pain the next day, but were so worth it the night before. Having said that, I do not sit at home moshing by myself. Instead, I like to turn on some BB King or some classic John Coltrane and I like to let the music guide my thoughts. I listen to music such as Metallica or Avenged Sevenfold, and sure, it gets me pumped and I'm ready to play sports or workout or have a good time, but I can't think things over while listening to them. If I want to think, I've found that the best remedy is Explosions in the Sky (which I realize is modern music, but instrumentals never lose their feel) or a bit of Medeski, Martin & Wood. And you can never go wrong with a good dose of Johnny Cash to ease the mind.
Don't get me wrong, I do listen to current music. I love stuff like Jack Johnson, Johnny Reid and I love the Foo Fighters. But if you listen to their lyrics, they hold more substance than new, catchy tunes do. I would, however, still argue that they do not hold the same meaning that an old Bob Dylan or a Velvet Underground song would.
I guess music, like so many other things, relies on the time. Our world today is one of technology, speed, we're reverting back to drugs and alcohol without falling into a state of hippy-likeness. We live in a world where we don't like to beat around the bush but we do enjoy having things spoon fed to us; screw metaphors and similes, just tell me whats going on. I guess I'd rather live in an older day, every now and then. Our world is falling apart... hell, it's been falling apart for decades. But I'd rather be at the start of our destruction than at the end.
Don Maclean was right about one thing:
The music died.
What he didn't know was that the day the music died lasted over a span of many years. We've successfully completed the destruction the day that Nirvana no longer existed, and New Kids on the Block and Backstreet Boys tickets sell out in mere minutes.
June 19, 2008
The Sound of Silence
"Speak when you are angry, and you will make the best speech you will ever regret"
-Dr. Laurence J. Peter
-Dr. Laurence J. Peter
June 18, 2008
Another State of Mind
All humans are inherently evil. Cynical, perhaps, but it can not be more true than I will prove it to be. Man is flawed from the moment he exits the womb. This defeats, once again, the philosophy of existentialism (which is a philosophical point of view that I will question in a later post).
William Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers of all time, although I’d reasonably argue that G.K. Chesterton was (and should continue to be) the most influential in all of history. However, I’d like to use Shakespeare to prove my point. All of his tragedies have tragic heroes along with those who die in passing. Most people read the plays and enjoy them for their beauty and genius, at the same time it is very easily arguable that its true genius is not always understood. Men who died in the plays that Shakespeare wrote died at their own faults, ESPECIALLY his tragic heroes. They die due to their greed, arrogance, rashness, their ignorance or due to other flaws that they possessed. What most people don’t understand is that, although these traits are said to be learned over time, they are all inherent, instinctual traits within mankind. Now, I’m not implying in any way that all men are arrogant or selfish, nor that the men who do possess those traits deserve to fail due to their instinctual flaws. What I am arguing is that, while not every man shares the same combination of initial flaws, all men are born with inherent evil.
Some would say that this would defeat the concept that God gave us free will to control our own lives and be who we want to be. I'd say the exact opposite, I'd say instead that it promotes the theory that we are given free will. We are born with these initial flaws and it is our job to grow out of them, to recognize our flaws and to change ourselves to be better people, to eventually reflect the image of God.
Along the same lines, some would argue that this theory defeats the thought that we are all created in the image of God. However, I do not believe that everything written in the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, the Garden of Eden: I do not take it completely literally. I believe, instead, that the Garden of Eden would support my theory that all humans are inherently evil. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and I believe they were born in a type of Utopian world without any type of pain. But I believe the moral of the story is more important than the literal translation of the story. I'd argue that it implies that we are all born to live free and without sin, just as we are born flawed. If we choose to surpress the flaws and resist temptation, then we will continue to live free. If we choose to indulge in the temptations and present our flaws, then our lives become restricted. I seem to have strayed from my original point that centered around being created in the image of God:
I'd say that, because I do not take everything in the Bible as being literal, that we are all created with the intention of being in the image of God. This would imply that we are created with the capacity to live without sin, to repress our flaws and live as the Bible tells us to. Of course, this isn't easy to do, and being human, it isn't too common either.
Another argument against my theory would be the simple human want of optimism. Although flowers and rainbows are pretty and fun to look at, we must remember that they thrive best after the worst of storms. These same people would say that we are born good and pure and it is the world that turns us to sin. My previous opinions obviously counter this theory and there is no point in repeating them.
For my opinions, I can guarantee that I am seen as a pessimist. I do not believe this is true in all cases. I see my opinions on initial human flaw as being somewhat optimistic, trusting in humans, against the negative connotation of the human condition, to avoid temptation and to better themselves.
I do, however, welcome all opinions!
William Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers of all time, although I’d reasonably argue that G.K. Chesterton was (and should continue to be) the most influential in all of history. However, I’d like to use Shakespeare to prove my point. All of his tragedies have tragic heroes along with those who die in passing. Most people read the plays and enjoy them for their beauty and genius, at the same time it is very easily arguable that its true genius is not always understood. Men who died in the plays that Shakespeare wrote died at their own faults, ESPECIALLY his tragic heroes. They die due to their greed, arrogance, rashness, their ignorance or due to other flaws that they possessed. What most people don’t understand is that, although these traits are said to be learned over time, they are all inherent, instinctual traits within mankind. Now, I’m not implying in any way that all men are arrogant or selfish, nor that the men who do possess those traits deserve to fail due to their instinctual flaws. What I am arguing is that, while not every man shares the same combination of initial flaws, all men are born with inherent evil.
Some would say that this would defeat the concept that God gave us free will to control our own lives and be who we want to be. I'd say the exact opposite, I'd say instead that it promotes the theory that we are given free will. We are born with these initial flaws and it is our job to grow out of them, to recognize our flaws and to change ourselves to be better people, to eventually reflect the image of God.
Along the same lines, some would argue that this theory defeats the thought that we are all created in the image of God. However, I do not believe that everything written in the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, the Garden of Eden: I do not take it completely literally. I believe, instead, that the Garden of Eden would support my theory that all humans are inherently evil. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and I believe they were born in a type of Utopian world without any type of pain. But I believe the moral of the story is more important than the literal translation of the story. I'd argue that it implies that we are all born to live free and without sin, just as we are born flawed. If we choose to surpress the flaws and resist temptation, then we will continue to live free. If we choose to indulge in the temptations and present our flaws, then our lives become restricted. I seem to have strayed from my original point that centered around being created in the image of God:
I'd say that, because I do not take everything in the Bible as being literal, that we are all created with the intention of being in the image of God. This would imply that we are created with the capacity to live without sin, to repress our flaws and live as the Bible tells us to. Of course, this isn't easy to do, and being human, it isn't too common either.
Another argument against my theory would be the simple human want of optimism. Although flowers and rainbows are pretty and fun to look at, we must remember that they thrive best after the worst of storms. These same people would say that we are born good and pure and it is the world that turns us to sin. My previous opinions obviously counter this theory and there is no point in repeating them.
For my opinions, I can guarantee that I am seen as a pessimist. I do not believe this is true in all cases. I see my opinions on initial human flaw as being somewhat optimistic, trusting in humans, against the negative connotation of the human condition, to avoid temptation and to better themselves.
I do, however, welcome all opinions!
June 17, 2008
Remember me as a Time of Day
Again, possibly not as insightful as these posts are meant to be, but the way I see it, this is just me writing what's on my mind. So whether you believe my thoughts are insightful or not, they're still there. And now they're here:
The way I see it, everybody wants to be remembered for something. Playing on the possibility that I'm wrong about this, whether they want to be or not, everybody WILL be remembered for something. Good or bad, that memory is there. So I'm just going to play on that theory for a while in regards to the current Bush administration. (Yes this will be a long post.)
Didn't see that coming eh?
We live in the world that we have created. There is no avoiding our mistakes and there is no hope to change the past. I’d argue without hesitation that we have destroyed the world that was pure at the dawn of our existence. I’d also gladly argue that, even know we are the only creature who does not live upon instinct and who has the power of free will, we have not learned from the mistakes caused by that free will. We believe that we are above any higher power that may or may not exist and yet we tend to be cockroaches. We live as if there is no tomorrow and then resort to endless scapegoating once this lifestyle leaves the next generation with the consequences. Should we not begin to depend on a higher source of power to correct what man has caused, but what man can not defend nor reverse? This would seem to be common sense to most individuals, but when individuals regroup, we tend to forget any reason or common sense. To be human is to be flawed, there is no avoiding our mistakes, it is however what we learn from these mistakes that decides whether we are truly evolved, or whether we are simply Neanderthals living in a world of technology. I think it’s about time that we stop defending our faults, and instead embrace them as lessons.
George W. Bush would not agree with a damn word I say. The man has invaded a country run by dictatorship without reason and without apology. He says he intends to impose democracy upon a beaten people. In reality he intends to force an unknown government upon people who, for the most part, live peaceful lives without need for change (although I do believe Saddam Hussein had to go). Of course, once this “democracy” is forced upon the Iraqi people, Bush will gladly rape them of their natural resources and of their sovereignty. He has stated that he intends to successfully place democracy on the shoulders of the Iraqi people and watch them gain their freedom. I’d say freedom isn’t worth anything except pain. I am not arguing against freedom by any means, I am in fact encouraging it, but put into proper context, freedom is not free and there lies the irony in the world that we have created. Please, call me a cynic and I will gladly agree. Cynicism belongs to those who do not conform to the ideas of age, I’d say it belongs to the young hearted with the power to change things, not necessarily the pessimists. Freedom is not something that can be forced upon a nation. Wouldn’t that defeat the entire purpose of freedom? It is, instead, something that a nation has to want and has to strive for, possibly with many failures along the way. Freedom is something each individual country has to shape, has to define upon their own terms. Still, the Bush Administration seems to believe that they have cured world stupidity. I’d say that the Bush Administration is the single largest failure and flaw of American history.
The United States of America must be respected. I’d even go as far as to applaud them. They have more than successfully freed themselves from the crown (something that I still feel Canada needs to do in order to fully be a sovereign nation) and were the first to establish a fiscally democratic system. My hat tips to the forefathers of American history. My fist rises just as easily against the current establishment. I am not a man of anarchy by any means. Anarchy is a demand for chaos. It is a simple fact, proven throughout history, that when men are not rallied to oppose or to rise with one single purpose, men in general fail. They attempt to pursue their own interests and there lies chaos.
Every previous American president is remembered for their victories, not their failures. As presidents are no more than men with the expected capacity to point a country in the right direction, they too are going to fail now and then. The difference with George W. Bush and the previous American presidents is that he will only be remembered for his failures. This is due to the sad fact the they overshadow his victories.
The current Bush Administration, I'd argue, is a failure in an oh-so bright technological world.
Maybe I'm just ranting because I'm still too young to know what I want to be remembered for...
The way I see it, everybody wants to be remembered for something. Playing on the possibility that I'm wrong about this, whether they want to be or not, everybody WILL be remembered for something. Good or bad, that memory is there. So I'm just going to play on that theory for a while in regards to the current Bush administration. (Yes this will be a long post.)
Didn't see that coming eh?
We live in the world that we have created. There is no avoiding our mistakes and there is no hope to change the past. I’d argue without hesitation that we have destroyed the world that was pure at the dawn of our existence. I’d also gladly argue that, even know we are the only creature who does not live upon instinct and who has the power of free will, we have not learned from the mistakes caused by that free will. We believe that we are above any higher power that may or may not exist and yet we tend to be cockroaches. We live as if there is no tomorrow and then resort to endless scapegoating once this lifestyle leaves the next generation with the consequences. Should we not begin to depend on a higher source of power to correct what man has caused, but what man can not defend nor reverse? This would seem to be common sense to most individuals, but when individuals regroup, we tend to forget any reason or common sense. To be human is to be flawed, there is no avoiding our mistakes, it is however what we learn from these mistakes that decides whether we are truly evolved, or whether we are simply Neanderthals living in a world of technology. I think it’s about time that we stop defending our faults, and instead embrace them as lessons.
George W. Bush would not agree with a damn word I say. The man has invaded a country run by dictatorship without reason and without apology. He says he intends to impose democracy upon a beaten people. In reality he intends to force an unknown government upon people who, for the most part, live peaceful lives without need for change (although I do believe Saddam Hussein had to go). Of course, once this “democracy” is forced upon the Iraqi people, Bush will gladly rape them of their natural resources and of their sovereignty. He has stated that he intends to successfully place democracy on the shoulders of the Iraqi people and watch them gain their freedom. I’d say freedom isn’t worth anything except pain. I am not arguing against freedom by any means, I am in fact encouraging it, but put into proper context, freedom is not free and there lies the irony in the world that we have created. Please, call me a cynic and I will gladly agree. Cynicism belongs to those who do not conform to the ideas of age, I’d say it belongs to the young hearted with the power to change things, not necessarily the pessimists. Freedom is not something that can be forced upon a nation. Wouldn’t that defeat the entire purpose of freedom? It is, instead, something that a nation has to want and has to strive for, possibly with many failures along the way. Freedom is something each individual country has to shape, has to define upon their own terms. Still, the Bush Administration seems to believe that they have cured world stupidity. I’d say that the Bush Administration is the single largest failure and flaw of American history.
The United States of America must be respected. I’d even go as far as to applaud them. They have more than successfully freed themselves from the crown (something that I still feel Canada needs to do in order to fully be a sovereign nation) and were the first to establish a fiscally democratic system. My hat tips to the forefathers of American history. My fist rises just as easily against the current establishment. I am not a man of anarchy by any means. Anarchy is a demand for chaos. It is a simple fact, proven throughout history, that when men are not rallied to oppose or to rise with one single purpose, men in general fail. They attempt to pursue their own interests and there lies chaos.
Every previous American president is remembered for their victories, not their failures. As presidents are no more than men with the expected capacity to point a country in the right direction, they too are going to fail now and then. The difference with George W. Bush and the previous American presidents is that he will only be remembered for his failures. This is due to the sad fact the they overshadow his victories.
The current Bush Administration, I'd argue, is a failure in an oh-so bright technological world.
Maybe I'm just ranting because I'm still too young to know what I want to be remembered for...
June 16, 2008
I Wanna Feel Something
So my first post isn't as insightful as the ones that will follow it, but I figure there are certain things on my mind right now that I believe need to be addressed.
The simple fact of the matter is that society has become immune to pain. I'm not talking about physical pain, I mean general emotional pain, on a non-personal level, has disappeared. The news is littered with stories of murder, of rape, of abandonment and of accidents. Yet, we watch at home, sitting on a leather couch, drinking an expensive glass of wine. We see these sad stories and respond with:
"That's sad." or "Thats terrible."
Then the phone rings and we forget all about it, or even better, we realize there's something more entertaining on a different station. Funny how our world works, isn't it? We pretend to be so perfect, pretending to be what we cannot be, but hey, at least we can't say we're striving to be what we cannot be.
In reality, every person should be morally outraged by the world we live in. But it seems that as the cigarettes fill the median or the empty bottles fill the void in our souls, we become immune to pain. I'm not saying that the entire world's population is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, but I will gladly assume that everybody is addicted to something. The steriotypical connotation of addiction would refer to drugs, nicotine, alcohol, gambling, whatever it may be. I'd say that, along with those things, I would gladly place human conditions under the category of addiction. I believe ignorance is a subconcious addiction. I believe arrogance and pride are addictions. I believe all sin, pain, feelings of sitting on a non-meritted high horse, all human flaws are addictions. We are not given a personality and are told to deal with it, we are given life, a fresh aisle, and we decide to paint it black. So I'd argue that it is our own fault that our world is desensitized. Blame it on the media if you'd like, but do not forget that it is people who control that same media. Blame it on corporations, I know I do, then I remember that it is poisoned humans who control these same corporations. Hell, blame it on the corrupt governments that intervene far too often in a free market enterprise controlled by a free market world. Just remember who voted for the PEOPLE in charge of the corruption.
So yes, we are to blame!
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to pessimism! Care to join?
The simple fact of the matter is that society has become immune to pain. I'm not talking about physical pain, I mean general emotional pain, on a non-personal level, has disappeared. The news is littered with stories of murder, of rape, of abandonment and of accidents. Yet, we watch at home, sitting on a leather couch, drinking an expensive glass of wine. We see these sad stories and respond with:
"That's sad." or "Thats terrible."
Then the phone rings and we forget all about it, or even better, we realize there's something more entertaining on a different station. Funny how our world works, isn't it? We pretend to be so perfect, pretending to be what we cannot be, but hey, at least we can't say we're striving to be what we cannot be.
In reality, every person should be morally outraged by the world we live in. But it seems that as the cigarettes fill the median or the empty bottles fill the void in our souls, we become immune to pain. I'm not saying that the entire world's population is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, but I will gladly assume that everybody is addicted to something. The steriotypical connotation of addiction would refer to drugs, nicotine, alcohol, gambling, whatever it may be. I'd say that, along with those things, I would gladly place human conditions under the category of addiction. I believe ignorance is a subconcious addiction. I believe arrogance and pride are addictions. I believe all sin, pain, feelings of sitting on a non-meritted high horse, all human flaws are addictions. We are not given a personality and are told to deal with it, we are given life, a fresh aisle, and we decide to paint it black. So I'd argue that it is our own fault that our world is desensitized. Blame it on the media if you'd like, but do not forget that it is people who control that same media. Blame it on corporations, I know I do, then I remember that it is poisoned humans who control these same corporations. Hell, blame it on the corrupt governments that intervene far too often in a free market enterprise controlled by a free market world. Just remember who voted for the PEOPLE in charge of the corruption.
So yes, we are to blame!
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to pessimism! Care to join?
First Breath After a Coma
Welcome to the beginning of a beautiful world.
I figured I have a lot of a ideas, so why not share some of them. I won't write every day but the way I see it, if I've got something to say, I'll say it on here, which should work well. (Those who know me know I have a lot to say).
Feel free to comment on anything I post, I just ask that there's some respect in the comments.
Please do not leave any anonymous comments.
Enjoy!
I figured I have a lot of a ideas, so why not share some of them. I won't write every day but the way I see it, if I've got something to say, I'll say it on here, which should work well. (Those who know me know I have a lot to say).
Feel free to comment on anything I post, I just ask that there's some respect in the comments.
Please do not leave any anonymous comments.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)