Language, the very thing that helps to us communicate. Some even call it alive, which I certainly agree.
Usage of language is crucial, the way one speaks can attract or repulse certain individuals. It can also point out one's personality or even the level of intelligence. It can give clues about social position, culture. Which is quite impressive because if you are a little analytic towards people, just by speaking to them you can get vast amounts of information about them. On vocabular basis; the more sophisticated the persona, the more sophisticated the language. Ofcourse the richness of words does not conclude this argument, they way one speaks is a crucial point too, after all speech is one of the most powerful forms of language.
However, language exists in an even more critical point, in our minds.
And just like Lacan, I too think language strongly effects the way we think, reckon, judge, cogitate or contemplate. Try thinking without words, if you can't (which is obvious), try to decrease it to a more primitive level, you can name objects 'this' and 'that', you can store their image in your memory and recall them by the way they look, but that only works to some point.
You can only think and reckon about the material and the concrete without the language, to go beyond that, which is the abstract, you need language to form your thoughts.
I don't think we are that different from the rest of the animals but, advanced form of language is the thing that separetes us from all of the other animals.
Although, there is one thing I do not understand completely and that is people whining about degeneration of their language. How the youth pollutes their language or how the minority dishonours it etc. As I mentioned before language is concept which is pretty much considered alive. Because is changes over time, even may become completely different than the way it was. Language too, just like organisms, evolves. And that change, that evolution can't and shouldn't be judged. We don't see animals complaining about the way they became, giraffes whining about their long necks or a platypus protesting it's awkwardness. But then again the discontent about the usage of language is a reality. And it's a reality because of the speed of change increased drastically in recent years.
But, if one has to judge this reality, and needs to point a finger to blame the other, one also has to be aware of it's the fault of previous, current generations. Ergo 'everyone's fault.
19/11/2008
On Manipulation of Our Nature (Intro)
We, humans or people, born in to different environments, habitats, societies and cultures and adapt to them. It's all about adaptation when it comes to the basics of life and survival. We adapt, and we adapt faster any creature on earth. We can now survive and live almost anywhere on the face of this planet. Regardless of the climate or other enviromental means.
But, an Eskimo in Kalahari Desert sure will have a hard time to adapt there, and even may not survive. Bushmen on the other hand, residents of the desert Kalahari is living and had lived for thousands of years. Both the Eskimo and the Bushmen have adapted to the extremes and survived successfuly.
However, if we are to investigate the social aspects of adaptation the process is much more different. First of all it's much more faster, if an Eskimo couple moves to New York, they'll sure have a hard time adapting such culture and social environment. But their child on the other hand, adapts quickly and becomes a New Yorker in no time. And we don't have to give extreme examples like Eskimo's. The Chineese minority in U.S is still a good example, so are the adaptation problems of the teenagers in high-school etc.
So we can say that we adapt to the conditions we were borned in to, accept them as the reality and move on. That is how easy it is for us to change and take shape, from birth.
What kind of environment we born into? And what does all this have to do with Manipulation of Our Nature?
But, an Eskimo in Kalahari Desert sure will have a hard time to adapt there, and even may not survive. Bushmen on the other hand, residents of the desert Kalahari is living and had lived for thousands of years. Both the Eskimo and the Bushmen have adapted to the extremes and survived successfuly.
However, if we are to investigate the social aspects of adaptation the process is much more different. First of all it's much more faster, if an Eskimo couple moves to New York, they'll sure have a hard time adapting such culture and social environment. But their child on the other hand, adapts quickly and becomes a New Yorker in no time. And we don't have to give extreme examples like Eskimo's. The Chineese minority in U.S is still a good example, so are the adaptation problems of the teenagers in high-school etc.
So we can say that we adapt to the conditions we were borned in to, accept them as the reality and move on. That is how easy it is for us to change and take shape, from birth.
What kind of environment we born into? And what does all this have to do with Manipulation of Our Nature?
29/10/2008
Political Power, Ideology and Society #2
I think that societies should be examined in two categories: those with and without classes. Some of you might feel the urge to point out how this is a simple and basic separation so on and so forth. Nevertheless, this will take on dire importance as we advance.
To put it simply, how do we determine the difference between a society with classes from one that doesn’t? For me, the answer to this question lies on the concept of “private property”. With this proposition we find ourselves in Rousseau’s territory:
“Le premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile. Que de crimes, que de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d'horreurs n'eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables: Gardez-vous d'écouter cet imposteur; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n'est à personne."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)
Here we can clearly observe that Rousseau considers the moment when private property was found as both the beginning of civil (modern) societies and the source of the inequality amongst men. For Rousseau, this is not a simple step that can be taken back, but more of an inevitable and horrible fate, a miserable prophecy upon all of mankind, a breaking point, a rupture.
I must point out that I do agree that private property is not a simple step that can be taken back, yet I disagree on the assumption that this is as though a prophecy upon mankind, an inevitable fate. However, I will stop talking of this subject for now, as I intend to write more on it later.
We can summarize the goal of this note as distinguishing societies with classes from those that don’t through the concept of private property, all the while emphasizing that there is a breaking point, a rupture if you would call it, on the moment where a society adopts the notion of private property, and that this breaking point or rupture is for me irreversible but not inevitable.
To put it simply, how do we determine the difference between a society with classes from one that doesn’t? For me, the answer to this question lies on the concept of “private property”. With this proposition we find ourselves in Rousseau’s territory:
“Le premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile. Que de crimes, que de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d'horreurs n'eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables: Gardez-vous d'écouter cet imposteur; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n'est à personne."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)
Here we can clearly observe that Rousseau considers the moment when private property was found as both the beginning of civil (modern) societies and the source of the inequality amongst men. For Rousseau, this is not a simple step that can be taken back, but more of an inevitable and horrible fate, a miserable prophecy upon all of mankind, a breaking point, a rupture.
I must point out that I do agree that private property is not a simple step that can be taken back, yet I disagree on the assumption that this is as though a prophecy upon mankind, an inevitable fate. However, I will stop talking of this subject for now, as I intend to write more on it later.
We can summarize the goal of this note as distinguishing societies with classes from those that don’t through the concept of private property, all the while emphasizing that there is a breaking point, a rupture if you would call it, on the moment where a society adopts the notion of private property, and that this breaking point or rupture is for me irreversible but not inevitable.
28/10/2008
A Small Step: Deconstruction of the concept 'Leader' (2)
After some critical thinking, I noticed it's mostly the fear of responsibility that creates the need of leaders. Carl Jung too studied the types of personalities, and it is quite obvious most of these types rather follow a conventional way to do their jobs/errands/projects generally. Rather than experimenting new ways or to try and see different aspects of different situations.
People who rather follow the methods they've got used to, are mostly the ones who choose following over leading too, so it's not so hard to see that they are relative facts. Leading and originality are more then parallel, because in the end, leading too means walking paths that has been never ever been walked before (in a way).
Although I do think people never completely comprehend the goals and the vision of their leaders most of the time, they choose to follow them, because it is the best option they have. They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader. Such as their unawareness about the leader's source of power; just like Samson gets his power from his hair, leaders get their power from their followers (numbers), and so if you eliminate that factor, no matter how strong the individual may be, individual will become utterly nothing in the eyes of the society.
As Montaigne too explains, most of the society can't burden theirselves with the responsibility of the others or others lives. Therefore it's only natural for a society contain few number of leaders, and even fewer number of them are (any) 'good'.
However, I think people who have such skill (Leading) care little about their responsibility to the others. They care, and they are responsible, but not in the exact way the followers think so. Ofcourse leaders care about their followers, ofcourse the state cares about the people/nation/community. But there are limits.
Such limits causing leaders to become aware of their need of followers, in order to sustain or increase power they have to make do everything in their power. But there are facts crossing those facts too. Such as greater good. In order to achieve the greater good, sacrifaces has to be made, sacrifaces can end up with a huge loss of influence. But when done properly, recovery is easy. In the end, if I have to quote myself, "Society: They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader."
So, as long as you give them what they want, and we all know they are after superficial benefits, they'll start loving you again, no matter how you offended them, they'll start giving you the power you need to do your bidding as you like again.
People who rather follow the methods they've got used to, are mostly the ones who choose following over leading too, so it's not so hard to see that they are relative facts. Leading and originality are more then parallel, because in the end, leading too means walking paths that has been never ever been walked before (in a way).
Although I do think people never completely comprehend the goals and the vision of their leaders most of the time, they choose to follow them, because it is the best option they have. They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader. Such as their unawareness about the leader's source of power; just like Samson gets his power from his hair, leaders get their power from their followers (numbers), and so if you eliminate that factor, no matter how strong the individual may be, individual will become utterly nothing in the eyes of the society.
As Montaigne too explains, most of the society can't burden theirselves with the responsibility of the others or others lives. Therefore it's only natural for a society contain few number of leaders, and even fewer number of them are (any) 'good'.
However, I think people who have such skill (Leading) care little about their responsibility to the others. They care, and they are responsible, but not in the exact way the followers think so. Ofcourse leaders care about their followers, ofcourse the state cares about the people/nation/community. But there are limits.
Such limits causing leaders to become aware of their need of followers, in order to sustain or increase power they have to make do everything in their power. But there are facts crossing those facts too. Such as greater good. In order to achieve the greater good, sacrifaces has to be made, sacrifaces can end up with a huge loss of influence. But when done properly, recovery is easy. In the end, if I have to quote myself, "Society: They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader."
So, as long as you give them what they want, and we all know they are after superficial benefits, they'll start loving you again, no matter how you offended them, they'll start giving you the power you need to do your bidding as you like again.
18/10/2008
A Small Step: Deconstruction of the concept 'Leader'
This will be a tiny entry for some ideas to spark.
Ask the right questions and you might be getting somewhere. Try questioning statues like: King/Queen, President/First Lady. Try questioning the immediate need for appointing a leader after ones fall.
Try questioning the T.V Series 'Lost', even though their plane crashes on a desolate island which is completely free of juristical concepts such as law, order and punishment. Which means they are completely free to do whatever they want. Leaders come up even before they are needed, and people start to follow them. Leaders clash with each other for power and for followers.
- There are over 5000 kinds of Mammals on Earth, most of them live in packs or families.
- Some of them are considered as 'Social Animals', such as gorillas, wolves, and humans.
- In the group, the 'Social Animals', always contains an 'Alpha Male'.
- The strongest, and perhaps the wisest of them can become an 'Alpha Male'.
- 'Alpha Pair', consists of the male and female Alpha.
- 'Alpha Female' is the choice of the 'Alpha Male'.
- Therefore, we can say 'Alpha Male' appoints the 'Alpha Female'.
- There is always a conflict between one Alpha and the other, not to mention the candidates.
- If an 'Alpha Male' dies, he gets replaced instantly.
- If he gets overpowered by other males, or gets defeated, he loses the statue of 'Alpha', and gets replaced.
- In some cases, after the defeat, the old 'Alpha Male' exiles himself.
- If he does not, the old 'Alpha Male' is forced to leave.
Ask the right questions and you might be getting somewhere. Try questioning statues like: King/Queen, President/First Lady. Try questioning the immediate need for appointing a leader after ones fall.
Try questioning the T.V Series 'Lost', even though their plane crashes on a desolate island which is completely free of juristical concepts such as law, order and punishment. Which means they are completely free to do whatever they want. Leaders come up even before they are needed, and people start to follow them. Leaders clash with each other for power and for followers.
13/10/2008
Political Power, Ideology and Society #1
When debating different forms of political power, we have the tendency to immediately assume that the State should be separated from the rest of them. This assumption could be argued to be well placed, if we were to separate different forms of political power according to the sovereignty problem.
The sovereignty problem is basically the question of where the political power claims its right to rule. Before the modern State that has its roots back in the fifteenth century, this problem was overcome with the notion of divinity: the political power (the ruler or the ruling class etc.) would claim that it is God(s) incarnate, or the son of God(s), or the messenger of God(s) or yet (s)he who speaks the Law of God(s). This would basically mean that the political power claims that the right to rule over the people belongs to some sort of divinity, and the political power represents that divinity whereas the modern State overcomes this problem with an idea that is much more appealing to our minds today: the society. The modern State claims that the people have the right to determine their own Law and that the political power represents the society.
In short, the difference between other forms of political power and the State is the mere difference of where the political power claims its right to rule from. This shift in the source of sovereignty, combined with the humanist thought that places man as a centre for all values brings forth one of the more basic problems with modern societies: what is the difference between the individual that placed his/her faith in religion and obeyed the so called Law of God(s) that was enforced by the political power and the individual that placed his/her faith in humanity and the people and obeyed the so called Law of the people that’s being enforced by today’s political powers?
The sovereignty problem is basically the question of where the political power claims its right to rule. Before the modern State that has its roots back in the fifteenth century, this problem was overcome with the notion of divinity: the political power (the ruler or the ruling class etc.) would claim that it is God(s) incarnate, or the son of God(s), or the messenger of God(s) or yet (s)he who speaks the Law of God(s). This would basically mean that the political power claims that the right to rule over the people belongs to some sort of divinity, and the political power represents that divinity whereas the modern State overcomes this problem with an idea that is much more appealing to our minds today: the society. The modern State claims that the people have the right to determine their own Law and that the political power represents the society.
In short, the difference between other forms of political power and the State is the mere difference of where the political power claims its right to rule from. This shift in the source of sovereignty, combined with the humanist thought that places man as a centre for all values brings forth one of the more basic problems with modern societies: what is the difference between the individual that placed his/her faith in religion and obeyed the so called Law of God(s) that was enforced by the political power and the individual that placed his/her faith in humanity and the people and obeyed the so called Law of the people that’s being enforced by today’s political powers?
Political Power, Ideology and Society
My general approach towards this blog will be writing down short and comprehensible (hopefully both) notes and publishing them, each note aiming at exposing how certain mechanisms within modern societies work, hoping to achieve a common understanding amongst the readers about the definitions of political power, ideology, the State etc. through the help of some of the thinkers that has had strong influences on myself.
I would than like to use these points of reference to try and analyze modern societies, politics and ideology, all the while emphasizing on the many conflicts we encounter as people in our every day lives. Although I am as sceptical as anyone could be as to whether these little notes and ideas would bring any clarity to anyone, I see no harm in trying.
This introductory note’s purpose is to let the reader know that I do not in any way, claim to be neither objective nor academic. These little notes are not to be confused with proper articles, as no references are made and the goal of achieving undisputable facts is not sought. Because of this, feel free to contribute by both making new arguments that support mine or ones that conflict mine to bring up new discussions.
Regards,
Ali Gören
I would than like to use these points of reference to try and analyze modern societies, politics and ideology, all the while emphasizing on the many conflicts we encounter as people in our every day lives. Although I am as sceptical as anyone could be as to whether these little notes and ideas would bring any clarity to anyone, I see no harm in trying.
This introductory note’s purpose is to let the reader know that I do not in any way, claim to be neither objective nor academic. These little notes are not to be confused with proper articles, as no references are made and the goal of achieving undisputable facts is not sought. Because of this, feel free to contribute by both making new arguments that support mine or ones that conflict mine to bring up new discussions.
Regards,
Ali Gören
12/10/2008
On Love
Love is...
...well, it's a comparative concept.
Scientifically, it's nothing but chemicals in your brain going crazy along with the hormones in your body. But, there must be a reason for this to occur. After all nothing happens without a rhyme or reason.
First of all, what is love? (Not related: ' Haddaway - What is Love')
It's a relapsing and recurring phenomenon. Most of us had a taste of it, some of us regretted it, some of us loved it.
I said "nothing happens without rhyme or reason" and that is completely true, but I believe the reasons for this particular phenomenon are hidden really really deep inside of us. And even if we were to see those reasons, we'd probably never accept them. Love may be a strong signal for us to reproduce. And it probably is.
However, rational persona always defames love. Simply because it confuses them. And it scrambles everything they rely on; logic, calm and calculated manners, the distance they keep, the poker-face they always carry proudly, the prideful needlessness of any kind of interaction, etc...
The same reason causing rational persona to defame love, is the exact same reason for unrational persona to deify it. They love it, because they like the sensations of it. The letting loose, loss of control, the unnecessariness of having solid reasons. It can even become an excuse for some behaviour they show.
Just like adrenaline junkies, there are people who chase this state too. Just like chasing a high, they chase love, and after sometime when they're finally sane and back to normal again, they become unhappy and move on to another one. They consume relationships, feelings, secrets, intimacy, personality, everything. They consume and they move on.
I won't criticize them for I can empathize them. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a choice.
However, theoretically, I do know a more precious form of love. The platonic love.
You can't consume it, you can't touch it, you can't do anything apart from feeling it. It can be painful, even maybe too painful to endure. But, then again, theoretically, I think it's the ultimate form love.
Personally I find it impossible to keep such strong feelings hidden for long periods of time, therefore I think it takes more than everything to be able to wilfully forbidding yourself of such thing. And I do think the only way to deal with it, regardless of who you are, is to find a proper way to consume it.
...well, it's a comparative concept.
Scientifically, it's nothing but chemicals in your brain going crazy along with the hormones in your body. But, there must be a reason for this to occur. After all nothing happens without a rhyme or reason.
First of all, what is love? (Not related: ' Haddaway - What is Love')
It's a relapsing and recurring phenomenon. Most of us had a taste of it, some of us regretted it, some of us loved it.
I said "nothing happens without rhyme or reason" and that is completely true, but I believe the reasons for this particular phenomenon are hidden really really deep inside of us. And even if we were to see those reasons, we'd probably never accept them. Love may be a strong signal for us to reproduce. And it probably is.
However, rational persona always defames love. Simply because it confuses them. And it scrambles everything they rely on; logic, calm and calculated manners, the distance they keep, the poker-face they always carry proudly, the prideful needlessness of any kind of interaction, etc...
The same reason causing rational persona to defame love, is the exact same reason for unrational persona to deify it. They love it, because they like the sensations of it. The letting loose, loss of control, the unnecessariness of having solid reasons. It can even become an excuse for some behaviour they show.
Just like adrenaline junkies, there are people who chase this state too. Just like chasing a high, they chase love, and after sometime when they're finally sane and back to normal again, they become unhappy and move on to another one. They consume relationships, feelings, secrets, intimacy, personality, everything. They consume and they move on.
I won't criticize them for I can empathize them. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a choice.
However, theoretically, I do know a more precious form of love. The platonic love.
You can't consume it, you can't touch it, you can't do anything apart from feeling it. It can be painful, even maybe too painful to endure. But, then again, theoretically, I think it's the ultimate form love.
Personally I find it impossible to keep such strong feelings hidden for long periods of time, therefore I think it takes more than everything to be able to wilfully forbidding yourself of such thing. And I do think the only way to deal with it, regardless of who you are, is to find a proper way to consume it.
27/09/2008
Advanced Civilization's Effects on Human Species
First few diagrams to support the oncoming discussion;
(source: Wikipedia)
Although I think with one look to the diagrams, any rational human being can comprehend the problem immediately, I wish to spare a few words on this certain matter;
We have evolved from scavenger societies to hunter-gatherer societies, after that we evolved a bit more, and after that we started to make tools the era I call 'Crazy Shit' took start. (Which is still present, going to outer space? to moon? bionic arms? Who'd have thought?)
With the Crazy Shit era, we started to isolate ourselves from the nature. With that I think we somehow altered the natural selection. How ;
So basically and in short, there's nothing to kill us. And not only that, death from natural causes are obstructed too. And we're still reproducing like there is no tommorow, regardless those facts. Don't get me wrong, reproduction is one of the major reasons to exist, when thought primitively.
That concludes the interpretation part I guess, now for the criticizing of the topic;
Andropause and menapause. Defined basically as 'the shutting down of reproduction systems', accompanied with a collapse of psychology. Reasons are obvious, you shouldn't have lived that long in the first place, you have evolved to stay alive under various conditions, conditions that are not present now. You should've been dead by that age. But you're not, why?
Because with the beginning of the Crazy Shit era, human species advanced so fast (not biologically but technologically), they altered natural selection and the system of evolution couldn't keep up with the pace.
Therefore; the concept of "WORLD IS COMING TO AN END" is non-sense, the planet itself can (take care of itself) regenerate via freezing and un-freezing every once in a while. 3 major ice-ages are recorded in the history of earth, all of them occured after a global warmth. So in exchange of that super-speed advancement, our planet is going to freeze our asses.2
1: Some force against us.
2: Super-Speed advancement and still no colonies on other planets to save our ass when the planet freezes. I guess we weren't so fast afterall.
(source: Wikipedia)
Although I think with one look to the diagrams, any rational human being can comprehend the problem immediately, I wish to spare a few words on this certain matter;
- We're overpopulating. (Like rabbits)
- We're keeping people alive. (Like zombies)
We have evolved from scavenger societies to hunter-gatherer societies, after that we evolved a bit more, and after that we started to make tools the era I call 'Crazy Shit' took start. (Which is still present, going to outer space? to moon? bionic arms? Who'd have thought?)
With the Crazy Shit era, we started to isolate ourselves from the nature. With that I think we somehow altered the natural selection. How ;
- No more predators to consume us.
- No more basic diseases to die from. (2000 B.C people died from a basic flu. Now we don't. That's why they1 came up with the idea of AIDS and Cancer.)
- Increase in average human life span. (From 33 to 82 (33 is still the average somewhere in Africa))
- Even a critical disease finds you, they still put you in a hospital and make you suffer or live a little longer.
- No more need to hunt, it's all an automated sequence.
- No more need for basic survival. (it's replaced with economical survival though)
So basically and in short, there's nothing to kill us. And not only that, death from natural causes are obstructed too. And we're still reproducing like there is no tommorow, regardless those facts. Don't get me wrong, reproduction is one of the major reasons to exist, when thought primitively.
That concludes the interpretation part I guess, now for the criticizing of the topic;
Andropause and menapause. Defined basically as 'the shutting down of reproduction systems', accompanied with a collapse of psychology. Reasons are obvious, you shouldn't have lived that long in the first place, you have evolved to stay alive under various conditions, conditions that are not present now. You should've been dead by that age. But you're not, why?
Because with the beginning of the Crazy Shit era, human species advanced so fast (not biologically but technologically), they altered natural selection and the system of evolution couldn't keep up with the pace.
Therefore; the concept of "WORLD IS COMING TO AN END" is non-sense, the planet itself can (take care of itself) regenerate via freezing and un-freezing every once in a while. 3 major ice-ages are recorded in the history of earth, all of them occured after a global warmth. So in exchange of that super-speed advancement, our planet is going to freeze our asses.2
1: Some force against us.
2: Super-Speed advancement and still no colonies on other planets to save our ass when the planet freezes. I guess we weren't so fast afterall.
On Meaning of/or in Life
Meaning of life is a long and widely debated topic, however I'm not going to discuss it under Absurdist or Nihilist perceptions, or any likes of them.
All human species create or seek purposes and meanings for their lives, which is perfectly understandable since they come to life without having any sense of it. One might even say human birth is a quite insignificant way to come to life, if ofcourse, you're the one that comes to life in that particular birth. (I certainly think birth is a perfect example in this matter)
Basically, unless you're the one giving the birth, there is nothing special about it. Giving birth to someone on the other hand, is generally a milestone in human life, and even may be a goal in their lives to achieve, which almost makes it a meaning of life. (if not only a part of it)
But then again, achieved goals are generally replaced with new ones. Even though that one particular goal was a big part of their lives, they recognize it only for a while, and when the other goal becomes more and more concrete, the previous one becomes more and more abstract.
Let's stop here for a second;
So one might say, the ones who are following the code of so called Carpe Diem, are the ones who are living the present, and therefore the most concrete part of their space-time contiuum.
And one might also say that the past's concreteness/abstractness can be in various amounts differing from one to the other. (Hence the expression: Living in the past)
Although I believe as people get old (60+) generally their past becomes more concrete then the present. That's a completely different topic which I'll discuss later on...
So, I presented the reader with an illustration. And as you can see the value of concreteness is full in the present, variable in the past, and null in the future.
I think I must add; the so-called 'future plans' of humans (which you might think that it could be effective on the concreteness of the future) are in fact abstract and most of the time protects it's capricious nature. (long awaited promotions and huge plans of success are failing people as life goes on)
So, stuck in the present, humans desperately seek for a/the meaning in/of life. Completely unaware of the fact that what they experienced before present is actually forming a great part of the meaning they are looking for. (Depending on age and life-span)
And since most of them don't know when they are going to die, which ends the sequence of life (or perhaps only the future and maybe the present), and therefore abstractness of it, they never really know how much of that meaning they managed to unfold.
So the exact moment the sequence ends, the sequence called life, they're at last free of abstractness of the future in their sequence, there is still a great amount of abstractness in their past, not to mention the end of the sequence pretty much makes the search for it's meaning absurd.
Which prooves that the meaning of the life sequence is actually capricious, always changing, never becoming stable. Even with the end of it, which stops the sequence and makes it stable, there is still a vast amount of abstractness in it. Eventually making the sequence only as concrete as a dream.
All human species create or seek purposes and meanings for their lives, which is perfectly understandable since they come to life without having any sense of it. One might even say human birth is a quite insignificant way to come to life, if ofcourse, you're the one that comes to life in that particular birth. (I certainly think birth is a perfect example in this matter)
Basically, unless you're the one giving the birth, there is nothing special about it. Giving birth to someone on the other hand, is generally a milestone in human life, and even may be a goal in their lives to achieve, which almost makes it a meaning of life. (if not only a part of it)
But then again, achieved goals are generally replaced with new ones. Even though that one particular goal was a big part of their lives, they recognize it only for a while, and when the other goal becomes more and more concrete, the previous one becomes more and more abstract.
Let's stop here for a second;
So one might say, the ones who are following the code of so called Carpe Diem, are the ones who are living the present, and therefore the most concrete part of their space-time contiuum.
And one might also say that the past's concreteness/abstractness can be in various amounts differing from one to the other. (Hence the expression: Living in the past)
Although I believe as people get old (60+) generally their past becomes more concrete then the present. That's a completely different topic which I'll discuss later on...
So, I presented the reader with an illustration. And as you can see the value of concreteness is full in the present, variable in the past, and null in the future.
I think I must add; the so-called 'future plans' of humans (which you might think that it could be effective on the concreteness of the future) are in fact abstract and most of the time protects it's capricious nature. (long awaited promotions and huge plans of success are failing people as life goes on)
So, stuck in the present, humans desperately seek for a/the meaning in/of life. Completely unaware of the fact that what they experienced before present is actually forming a great part of the meaning they are looking for. (Depending on age and life-span)
And since most of them don't know when they are going to die, which ends the sequence of life (or perhaps only the future and maybe the present), and therefore abstractness of it, they never really know how much of that meaning they managed to unfold.
So the exact moment the sequence ends, the sequence called life, they're at last free of abstractness of the future in their sequence, there is still a great amount of abstractness in their past, not to mention the end of the sequence pretty much makes the search for it's meaning absurd.
Which prooves that the meaning of the life sequence is actually capricious, always changing, never becoming stable. Even with the end of it, which stops the sequence and makes it stable, there is still a vast amount of abstractness in it. Eventually making the sequence only as concrete as a dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)