Here's the deal, I should be writing on some current event or taking a stance on some philosophical point of view. Instead I choose to manipulate the negative connotation of the human condition and extend it in an effort to prove my point. So yes, this is an entry that is being written for no other reason than to satisfy my own ego. I guess that in and of itself leans on the human condition in relation to the posession of any ego. But let's face it, human's are egotistical and human's are ignorant. Ignorance, my friends, is bliss.
I'd argue the simple point of view that we subconciously block the truth from our minds. We would rather believe a lie than accept that it is, in fact, a lie. I strongly believe that if our subconcious were somehow placed before a choice of truth or lie, it would choose the lie.
That can be brought to a higher context and stronger extent at the same time. Take for example the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. We know it's happening and many of us completely disagree with it. (I'm taking this opportunity to say that I do disagree with it simply for the fact that it is a war driven by corporatism. More on that later.) Although we do know it's happening, we are hidden from the details. When a soldier is murdered in the name of corporatism, we are informed of his death and given vague details relating to the cause of death. After this, the newscaster or next article will announce a story about a sports hero or something inspirational to lighten the mood. But let's face it, we are much happier this way. (Yes I do realize that this concept touches base with a previous post of mine, but I believe that it is an important concept.) We do not want to face the brutality that is war. We do not want to face the brutal fashion in which these soldiers' deaths took place. It would disturb our utopian minds, we don't want that. Are we necessarily accepting a lie? No. We are not, however, inviting the truth.
Lower the scale. In our own peronal lives, we would sooner accept a lie about one of our loved ones than accept the fact that they hurt us. If and when the pain is realized, denial is an immediate reaction.
No further exapmles are necessary and further explaination would be pointless. Let's face it, all of you who choose to read this will understand it and agree. This does not mean that you will accept it and try to appreciate it in your daily lifestyles, hoping to invite some truth and deny some lies. It simply means that you agree. The unfortunate part is that after reading this you will revert to your newsroom lives and turn to a lighter article or go do something that would lighten your mind. Accept that you are ignorant and some of your burden will be removed. We all carry the burden of human fault, it is our job to lessen the load and to relieve the load from existence.
Ignorance is bliss.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.
August 27, 2008
August 10, 2008
Catastrophe and the Cure: Nihilism
I've realized over the past couple of days that I originally planned to touch base on different philosophical point of views in an attempt to enlighten an often misinformed world. Reviewing my previous entries I've noticed that the only philosophy which I truly argued is Existentialism. I mentioned in that post that Existentialism can be very closely related to Nihilism through certain perspectives and relying, of course, on certain aspects of the philosophy. I do realize, however, that there was no true substance supporting that argument, so today's post will be an attempt to connect the two philosophies, as well as being an opportunity for my own personal opinions in relation to Nihilism.
I'll start by explaining the pure basics of Nihilism and how they can easily be connected to Existentialism:
Basically, the philosophy argues that no true human morality or sense of morality exists. No action is better or worse than another simply based upon objective morality. If we were to rely on this theory of a lack of morals, then it would be easy to reject any higher power, as nihilists do. The philosophy states that because there is no sense of morality, there can be no reasonable belief in a higher power or deity. It also argues that our lives have no true meaning or goal, which supports their theory of the lack of some higher force. It goes on to contradict itself (which I think is a way to cover all bases) by stating that if in fact some higher power does exist, we have no moral obligation to either worship or acknowledge its existence. Basically, the philosophy relies on the negative connotation of the human condition in unison with some general lack of meaning to our lives. It is essentially a pessimistic, depressing view of life.
The entire philosophy contradicts itself. It states that no truth can exist in the world we live in. We are all essentially liars and the order under which we live lacks any truth. If the statement of a lack of truth were correct, then that same statement would lack truth. This may sound confusing (and it would not surprise me if it did) but think of it this way:
If I were to say "Don't believe a word I say" then you would not be able to believe what I had just said, causing everything I would say following that order to be true and believable.
Nihilism states "There is no existence of truth". If this is true, then the statement that truth does not exist would be untrue.
This may seem like I'm picking the wrong battles against Nihilism, but I am simply trying to communicate the fact that the teachings of this philosophy doesn't even attempt to hide any contradiction of itself, it is plain and simple. The entire philosophy is a paradox.
A Nihilist may argue that the previous quote has been altered over time and would instead say that although truth may exist, it is strictly unattainable under human circumstances. If this were true, then how would the nihilist have deemed true the theory that human life lacks morality or truth. If we cannot find any truth under human constrictions then how would they deem their philosophy as true, and how can they be certain that we lack morality and truth?
Although Nihilism and Existentialism differ in many ways and existentialists and nihilists would be in disagreeance, the two philosophies have much pessimism in common. I'd argue against both in an attempt to save my own mind. I could not bare to live in a world where there is nothing to live for and no truth or level of morality on which to rely. I do believe that we create our own destinies and that we are in charge of our will, but at the same time I believe so only because God has given us the power to do so. We do not live under the constraints of any deity, but we do live under the guidelines. It is left as a choice whether or not we decide to follow the guidelines placed before us and whether or not we choose to live a life with meaning. Having said that, it is obvious that I believe all life has meaning, all life has an effect on the world and, whether the effect is good or bad, that person will be remembered in one way or another. I think of it as, if life were to lack all meaning, we would not mourne the dead, we would not reflect upon the past. We would not feel emotions such as guilt or emtional pain, we would not hope to affect any lives (whether positively or negatively).
This may be based upon my own thoughts, but I believe strongly that not only does Nihilism directly contradict itself, but it directly contradicts the world we live in.
I'll start by explaining the pure basics of Nihilism and how they can easily be connected to Existentialism:
Basically, the philosophy argues that no true human morality or sense of morality exists. No action is better or worse than another simply based upon objective morality. If we were to rely on this theory of a lack of morals, then it would be easy to reject any higher power, as nihilists do. The philosophy states that because there is no sense of morality, there can be no reasonable belief in a higher power or deity. It also argues that our lives have no true meaning or goal, which supports their theory of the lack of some higher force. It goes on to contradict itself (which I think is a way to cover all bases) by stating that if in fact some higher power does exist, we have no moral obligation to either worship or acknowledge its existence. Basically, the philosophy relies on the negative connotation of the human condition in unison with some general lack of meaning to our lives. It is essentially a pessimistic, depressing view of life.
The entire philosophy contradicts itself. It states that no truth can exist in the world we live in. We are all essentially liars and the order under which we live lacks any truth. If the statement of a lack of truth were correct, then that same statement would lack truth. This may sound confusing (and it would not surprise me if it did) but think of it this way:
If I were to say "Don't believe a word I say" then you would not be able to believe what I had just said, causing everything I would say following that order to be true and believable.
Nihilism states "There is no existence of truth". If this is true, then the statement that truth does not exist would be untrue.
This may seem like I'm picking the wrong battles against Nihilism, but I am simply trying to communicate the fact that the teachings of this philosophy doesn't even attempt to hide any contradiction of itself, it is plain and simple. The entire philosophy is a paradox.
A Nihilist may argue that the previous quote has been altered over time and would instead say that although truth may exist, it is strictly unattainable under human circumstances. If this were true, then how would the nihilist have deemed true the theory that human life lacks morality or truth. If we cannot find any truth under human constrictions then how would they deem their philosophy as true, and how can they be certain that we lack morality and truth?
Although Nihilism and Existentialism differ in many ways and existentialists and nihilists would be in disagreeance, the two philosophies have much pessimism in common. I'd argue against both in an attempt to save my own mind. I could not bare to live in a world where there is nothing to live for and no truth or level of morality on which to rely. I do believe that we create our own destinies and that we are in charge of our will, but at the same time I believe so only because God has given us the power to do so. We do not live under the constraints of any deity, but we do live under the guidelines. It is left as a choice whether or not we decide to follow the guidelines placed before us and whether or not we choose to live a life with meaning. Having said that, it is obvious that I believe all life has meaning, all life has an effect on the world and, whether the effect is good or bad, that person will be remembered in one way or another. I think of it as, if life were to lack all meaning, we would not mourne the dead, we would not reflect upon the past. We would not feel emotions such as guilt or emtional pain, we would not hope to affect any lives (whether positively or negatively).
This may be based upon my own thoughts, but I believe strongly that not only does Nihilism directly contradict itself, but it directly contradicts the world we live in.
August 9, 2008
We Have No Great War
" I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables—slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war . . . our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."
—Tyler Durden, Fight Club, 1999
Let's face it, it's true.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.
—Tyler Durden, Fight Club, 1999
Let's face it, it's true.
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.
August 2, 2008
Instant Karma
Let me start by saying that I am not an overly pessimistic person. My blog may reflect such a vision but that is simply because I use this blog as a means to release frustration on a world that begs for criticism. I, in reality, have much faith in human kind but I also believe that humans choose to reject their ability to be better than they are and they choose to remain in an endless cycle. This leads into, once again, a criticism towards the world we have claimed as our own...
I base the following rant on certain pieces and specifications of the human condition. It does not necessarily rely on pessimism such as Nihilism or, to a certain extent, Existentialism, but the points I choose to focus on today would support such a theory. This is because the "human condition" can almost be considered to be branching off into two directions: there is the positive or almost indifferent side of the human condition, there is also the more focus upon the connotation of the human condition. Allow me to proceed:
We are never happy. POINT BLANK.
The fact is, individuals can be generally content and will undoubtedly still have conflictions with the world they live in. On the other hand, the general human population is pessimistic and will unfortunately always rely on the need for the need for change. This may sound confusing at the moment, but what I am trying to get across is that it is impossible for the world we live in to be one of Utopia. I do not think the world was created with the intention of ever being a Utopian world. We were given a bright red apple and asked not to touch it, we touched it and are forever damned. Hence the beginning of our pain and suffering (mostly caused by our own actions). Because I do not expect our world to ever be pain free, I evidently do not think that the negative connotation of the human condition is necessarily false. I would argue, however, that it is endlessly painful. This has been a longer explanation than I thought it would be but I do believe it was necessary. We create our own pain, then blame any other scapegoat for our problems. We are inherently flawed (see previous posts) and rely on our flaws to be the base of our existence. We then complain that we are not perfect yet. Oh how human kind has "evolved".
All of this begs the question, is pessimism a sin? We created pessimism and pain by going against the greater will. I believe that this was the gunshot that started the race for pain. Now I ask myself the question: Is this the ultimate test of man's redemption? This may be our chance at returning to a Utopian state that is unattainable due to our own actions. We continue to rely on the pain and suffering that we created through the destruction of a perfect world. We are to blame for the lack of peace and we are to blame for the destruction of that same peace.
But think about it, if world peace ever existed, what would we do with our spare time...
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.
I base the following rant on certain pieces and specifications of the human condition. It does not necessarily rely on pessimism such as Nihilism or, to a certain extent, Existentialism, but the points I choose to focus on today would support such a theory. This is because the "human condition" can almost be considered to be branching off into two directions: there is the positive or almost indifferent side of the human condition, there is also the more focus upon the connotation of the human condition. Allow me to proceed:
We are never happy. POINT BLANK.
The fact is, individuals can be generally content and will undoubtedly still have conflictions with the world they live in. On the other hand, the general human population is pessimistic and will unfortunately always rely on the need for the need for change. This may sound confusing at the moment, but what I am trying to get across is that it is impossible for the world we live in to be one of Utopia. I do not think the world was created with the intention of ever being a Utopian world. We were given a bright red apple and asked not to touch it, we touched it and are forever damned. Hence the beginning of our pain and suffering (mostly caused by our own actions). Because I do not expect our world to ever be pain free, I evidently do not think that the negative connotation of the human condition is necessarily false. I would argue, however, that it is endlessly painful. This has been a longer explanation than I thought it would be but I do believe it was necessary. We create our own pain, then blame any other scapegoat for our problems. We are inherently flawed (see previous posts) and rely on our flaws to be the base of our existence. We then complain that we are not perfect yet. Oh how human kind has "evolved".
All of this begs the question, is pessimism a sin? We created pessimism and pain by going against the greater will. I believe that this was the gunshot that started the race for pain. Now I ask myself the question: Is this the ultimate test of man's redemption? This may be our chance at returning to a Utopian state that is unattainable due to our own actions. We continue to rely on the pain and suffering that we created through the destruction of a perfect world. We are to blame for the lack of peace and we are to blame for the destruction of that same peace.
But think about it, if world peace ever existed, what would we do with our spare time...
Kudos to mankind, we have failed.
July 24, 2008
But he couldn't elaborate...
This will be a very quick post as it is no more than an elaboration on a previous post (Gentlemen in Today's World). Enjoy!
I spoke earlier of the evolution of gentlemen and quickly touched upon manners and politeness, this post is an attempt to address the evolution of manners. While gentlemanry has evolved negatively, some would argue that manners have evolved for the better. They are an integral part of society and life on the planet that we live in. We are somehow disgusted when we are not given a proper thanking. And we should be, that is the world we were brought up in. The problem is, that is the world we were brought up in.
Manners no longer have full meaning. Please, thank yous and sorrys do, but it's the actions that no longer carry true effect. Handshakes used to be a sign that you come peacefully. Two men would shake eachothers hands using their dueling hands in indication that they do not plan to pull swords.
Saluting carries that same evolution: it was originally two knights raising their visors to show that they are not afraid to show who they are as they do not intend to kill.
The fact is that our "evolution" has lead us to lose the essense of what once existed.
This has to be the end of this particular post due to a lack of time but it's very easy to learn more on the topic, and I plan to address it again in a later post.
I spoke earlier of the evolution of gentlemen and quickly touched upon manners and politeness, this post is an attempt to address the evolution of manners. While gentlemanry has evolved negatively, some would argue that manners have evolved for the better. They are an integral part of society and life on the planet that we live in. We are somehow disgusted when we are not given a proper thanking. And we should be, that is the world we were brought up in. The problem is, that is the world we were brought up in.
Manners no longer have full meaning. Please, thank yous and sorrys do, but it's the actions that no longer carry true effect. Handshakes used to be a sign that you come peacefully. Two men would shake eachothers hands using their dueling hands in indication that they do not plan to pull swords.
Saluting carries that same evolution: it was originally two knights raising their visors to show that they are not afraid to show who they are as they do not intend to kill.
The fact is that our "evolution" has lead us to lose the essense of what once existed.
This has to be the end of this particular post due to a lack of time but it's very easy to learn more on the topic, and I plan to address it again in a later post.
July 8, 2008
Fight Club- Pop Culture's Most Misunderstood Child
As stated in the title, I truly believe that the novel (yes, NOVEL) Fight Club is one of the most misunderstood, beautiful creations in existence. Most people reading this will have only seen the movie as it is much more known than the novel (written by Chuck Polahniuk) but do not worry, the novel and the movie are similar enough that it should make no difference.
The thing is, the general population view Fight Club as a violent work. A product designed to disect an infected mind and to infect those of readers and viewers everywhere...
WRONG!
Fight Club is in no way a violent work, I would argue that it is, instead, a work of art and supports many of my ideals. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that no members of "Fight Club" or of "Project Mayhem" inflict any true pain on people. All those involved in the underground fight clubs do so at their own will and enjoy it just as much as the man they're fighting, they see it as a way to express themselves in a world where emotional drives are so negatively viewed. I do agree that society does not accept emotional guidance, but instead expects rationalisation at all times. This is simply not logical or human. "Project Mayhem" on the other hand inflicts pain upon corporations, but never upon the individuals within a corporation (directly). They blow up large corporate buildings and icons but never harm a human while doing so. I'd argue that this is almost noble in a world that is now run by corporatism and capitalism. I would say that the extent to which Chuck Polahniuk describes the necessary destruction of corporatism is a bit extreme, but the world we live in paints and extreme picture.
Even when Tyler Durden held a gun to a convenient store workers head, it was without the intention of death. Instead it encouraged the worker to pursue his dream of being a veteranarean (mispelled). Potential bad created great outcomes for one individual, with possible great effects.
There are only three true inflictions of pain:
1. The brutalization of a judge's manhood due to the fact that he was trying to shut down various fight clubs. Although the result was pain, those involved in the infliction saw it as necessary in order to cleanse the world.
2. Big Bob was shot in the back of the head... by the police. The establishment inflicted more death than those they considered criminals!
3. Tyler Durden... driven insane by the effects of a world gone to Hell.
I do not advocate such extreme action as that in the novel/ movie Fight Club but, as it is one of my favorites, I ask for a bit of understanding. Look past the initial violence that might be "clear" to the untamed eye, and look instead at the indications that corporations and capitalism will continue to take over our world unless we decide to take action against such a monstrosity.
The thing is, the general population view Fight Club as a violent work. A product designed to disect an infected mind and to infect those of readers and viewers everywhere...
WRONG!
Fight Club is in no way a violent work, I would argue that it is, instead, a work of art and supports many of my ideals. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that no members of "Fight Club" or of "Project Mayhem" inflict any true pain on people. All those involved in the underground fight clubs do so at their own will and enjoy it just as much as the man they're fighting, they see it as a way to express themselves in a world where emotional drives are so negatively viewed. I do agree that society does not accept emotional guidance, but instead expects rationalisation at all times. This is simply not logical or human. "Project Mayhem" on the other hand inflicts pain upon corporations, but never upon the individuals within a corporation (directly). They blow up large corporate buildings and icons but never harm a human while doing so. I'd argue that this is almost noble in a world that is now run by corporatism and capitalism. I would say that the extent to which Chuck Polahniuk describes the necessary destruction of corporatism is a bit extreme, but the world we live in paints and extreme picture.
Even when Tyler Durden held a gun to a convenient store workers head, it was without the intention of death. Instead it encouraged the worker to pursue his dream of being a veteranarean (mispelled). Potential bad created great outcomes for one individual, with possible great effects.
There are only three true inflictions of pain:
1. The brutalization of a judge's manhood due to the fact that he was trying to shut down various fight clubs. Although the result was pain, those involved in the infliction saw it as necessary in order to cleanse the world.
2. Big Bob was shot in the back of the head... by the police. The establishment inflicted more death than those they considered criminals!
3. Tyler Durden... driven insane by the effects of a world gone to Hell.
I do not advocate such extreme action as that in the novel/ movie Fight Club but, as it is one of my favorites, I ask for a bit of understanding. Look past the initial violence that might be "clear" to the untamed eye, and look instead at the indications that corporations and capitalism will continue to take over our world unless we decide to take action against such a monstrosity.
July 6, 2008
Gentlemen in Today's World
I will start by saying that I am insanely tired after a very long week of work and am falling asleep as I type. Having said that, if this post seems to make less sense than others or if I trail off every now and then, I blame my exhaustion.
I was forced to watch Brigette Jones' Diary today for the first time and it brought up a few interesting points in my mind. Not because of the movie itself but because of one of the characters in the movie: Mr. Darcy.
Darcy is a character who becamse Lizzy's love interest in Pride and Prejudice and who was evidentally viewed as the perfect gentleman, being used in Brigette Jones' Diary. I found this to be very interesting. Let me state very clearly that I thought Brigette Jones' was a terrible movie, and the second one (which I also, unfortunately, watched) was even worse. There was no true premise to the story except for a weak shadow of P&P (Pride and Prejudice).
So instead on elaborating specifically on the novel or terrible movie, I choose to elaborate on Mr. Darcy's character, and further extrapolate in order to relate it to our modern world.
Mr. Darcy is known as being the ideal gentlemen with obvious flaws. He respects women and all that good stuff, but unfortunately lacks a certain amount of manners that we would consider common today (and that would be considered common when the novel was written). This flaw is of course the reason that he does not initially succeed in his love interest.
Taking this information into consideration and applying the status of gentleman in today's world, his lack of manners would run his gentlemanly image into the ground. He was proven to be a fine man, willing to commit and to be everything a man should be, he simply lacked certain social skills. Let's apply that to todays world:
We are defined by the way in which we act. We can have the best intentions in the world but if we lack certain social skills (even just a certain few) then we are left on the side, disregarded as a gentleman. On the other hand, if a man's intentions are shallow and misleading, he can still be considered a gentleman and succeed in the world of "womanizing" if he is capable of wielding words.
This is all incredibly interesting to me because men in general now carry certain labels. A true gentleman in today's world may fall into the same category as a player simply because it is not common that ladies in today's world experience true gentlemen. Our world is based upon lies and manipulation, many guys choose to exploit that fact and THAT is why the good guy always loses, either being completely misunderstood or being disregarded as a true man.
I'm sure I could write more in regards to gentlemen in our world, and I plan to do so in a later post; however, my exhaustion leads me to sleep and so I'll cut this post short.
I was forced to watch Brigette Jones' Diary today for the first time and it brought up a few interesting points in my mind. Not because of the movie itself but because of one of the characters in the movie: Mr. Darcy.
Darcy is a character who becamse Lizzy's love interest in Pride and Prejudice and who was evidentally viewed as the perfect gentleman, being used in Brigette Jones' Diary. I found this to be very interesting. Let me state very clearly that I thought Brigette Jones' was a terrible movie, and the second one (which I also, unfortunately, watched) was even worse. There was no true premise to the story except for a weak shadow of P&P (Pride and Prejudice).
So instead on elaborating specifically on the novel or terrible movie, I choose to elaborate on Mr. Darcy's character, and further extrapolate in order to relate it to our modern world.
Mr. Darcy is known as being the ideal gentlemen with obvious flaws. He respects women and all that good stuff, but unfortunately lacks a certain amount of manners that we would consider common today (and that would be considered common when the novel was written). This flaw is of course the reason that he does not initially succeed in his love interest.
Taking this information into consideration and applying the status of gentleman in today's world, his lack of manners would run his gentlemanly image into the ground. He was proven to be a fine man, willing to commit and to be everything a man should be, he simply lacked certain social skills. Let's apply that to todays world:
We are defined by the way in which we act. We can have the best intentions in the world but if we lack certain social skills (even just a certain few) then we are left on the side, disregarded as a gentleman. On the other hand, if a man's intentions are shallow and misleading, he can still be considered a gentleman and succeed in the world of "womanizing" if he is capable of wielding words.
This is all incredibly interesting to me because men in general now carry certain labels. A true gentleman in today's world may fall into the same category as a player simply because it is not common that ladies in today's world experience true gentlemen. Our world is based upon lies and manipulation, many guys choose to exploit that fact and THAT is why the good guy always loses, either being completely misunderstood or being disregarded as a true man.
I'm sure I could write more in regards to gentlemen in our world, and I plan to do so in a later post; however, my exhaustion leads me to sleep and so I'll cut this post short.
June 28, 2008
All Summer Long
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)