I've been a bit absent here lately and the only excuse I can offer is that I have been busy. As I have said numerous times before, the paying job must come first. Things in that arena are starting to balance out again so, hopefully, I will have more time to pay attention to this one in a manner I would prefer.
I have noticed from my comments and emails that I am gaining readers here that I did not have before (another reason I would like to be able to pay more attention to this project) and so I thought I would take some time to give a little more insight into me and how I think. I have an entire series if posts that I have planned to do in that regard but, of course, they require time to do them properly. The posts I do on a regular basis do give a good amount of insight but they can also give an unbalanced view if one does not fully understand the context. For example, the sheer number of anti-Left or anti-liberal (whichever you prefer - I have stated my preference many times) posts I make might confuse someone who does not know better into believing that I align myself with the Right or with conservative thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I can be very conservative in some areas, I am also very progressive in other areas. My personal litmus test is not conservative versus liberal but rather what works and does not work in the context of conforming to reality and living a good and free life. I am neither Republican nor Democrat and, in truth, I have no use whatsoever for either party.
To improve the readers' understanding of this writer's point of view, I have put together a list of the iron-clad rules by which I run my own life. I have jokingly referred to them as The 10 Commandments of Me but that is mostly for the artistic purpose of having a catchy headline. In truth, there is a lot of overlap in this list and I had to sit down with a pen and paper to actually think out the separate entires in the list because I do not consciously think of all of them in this way. Still, they are all rules that are very important to me and that I put a great deal of effort into never breaking.
Due to my desire to not put you, the reader, through book-length entries in any one post, I will give only a short description of each rule here. I will expand on these rules as I feel the need (and have the time) in later posts. Of course, and as always, if there is any confusion, just leave a comment stating so and that will certainly point me in a direction of where clarification is necessary.
And now, the list.
1. Mind Your Own Business
I cannot state emphatically enough how intentional it is that I list this rule first. I firmly believe that most of my problems with politics and society at large would vanish if more people lived by this ideal. You have no business trying to control someone else's life if what they are doing or not doing cannot cause harm to you or yours. It just doesn't make sense. This isn't to say that you should require only direct affects before you become involved, but logical extensions should be necessary. If someone in Mississippi were stalking and assaulting bloggers it would have no direct affect on me because I am not in Mississippi, but I can certainly (and logically) decide that not speaking against such behavior would set a precedent that could have disastrous results for me. Yes, such a nuanced understanding of this rule requires some complex thought, but isn't complex thought supposed to be one of those things that defines being human?
2. Be Responsible
Most people will only see the negative statement of the first rule - stay out if it doesn't involve you - but there is a positive statement as well: if it does involve you, you have a moral obligation to do something about it. Know your responsibilities and fulfill them. Of course, if more people lived by this rule, they wouldn't have time to break the first one.
3. Do What Must Be Done
Most people don't like going to work, but we prefer it to the alternative of being homeless and starving. If something has to be done, then do it. Don't equivocate; don't sit around waiting for someone else to do it; and certainly don't pontificate on the right or wrong of it. If it actually must be done then it must be right to do it. Of course, this requires that complex thought again in order to truly define "must" but, welcome to being human.
4. Do Not Fake Reality
You will never accomplish any of the complex thoughts required by these rules if you make a habit of pretending that reality is something other than what it is. Reality will not conform to your whims or desires. It will go on being reality and steamroller right over your best (or worst) intentions if you try to behave otherwise.
5. Words Have Meaning
I have used this phrase often enough that I thought it would be counterproductive to reword the phrase to make it a command. The command is implied in the statement. If words have meaning then you must know what they mean and mean what you say. The purpose of language is to reveal and clarify, not to obfuscate and distort. If you use words in a false or misleading manner then you are either faking reality or trying to get someone else to fake reality. The end result is the same either way: things get worse instead of better because reality wins every time.
6. Learn From Mistakes
No one is perfect. This is a true statement but it is also the most over-used excuse in the human bag of tricks. You are going to make mistakes but if you keep making the same mistake over and over again, it is no longer a mistake. It then becomes intentional behavior and quite possibly a sign of insanity (repeating the same behavior expecting different results is a clinical definition of insanity). Learn from your mistakes and try to not make the same mistake twice. That is how you get better.
7. Do Not Reward Failure
I am stating this one in the negative because most of us grasp the positive. We understand that it is a good thing to hand out gold stars to those who do well. What we do not seem to understand, however, is that handing out gold stars to those who do poorly just encourages them to not correct their mistakes. There is a place for both positive and negative reinforcement and we would do well to remember that.
8. Make No Demands You Have Not Earned
We have become an entitlement society. We vilify the person who demands what he has earned and pity the person who demands what has not been earned. How does this make sense?
9. Treat Others As They Deserve
I'm not quite nice enough to use the tired old "treat others as you want to be treated". I believe that the old adage is a great starting point, but it is not always a great ending point. I try my best to do my best and want (even expect) to be treated accordingly. If, however, I treat every person I meet as though he or she is doing the same then I am, in fact, often rewarding failure. There are far too many people out there who do not make the effort and do not deserve to be treated as though they were. If you want to be treated well, though, it is usually a good idea to err on the side of treating well. Remember that you do not know everything and it is often easier to correct a positive mistake than to correct a negative mistake.
10. Live Your Life!!
You might notice that this is the only rule I bothered to punctuate. It is your life to live, not your neighbor's, not your father's, not the city council's, etc. If you are not living your life then what are you accomplishing? The rest of this list becomes pretty useless without this final statement.
I realize that many of these descriptions are pretty vague but I hope I have at least gotten the basic point across. And, as I said at the beginning, I am certainly willing to clarify where necessary. This list isn't perfect by any means, but it gives you an idea of what is important to me and that gives you an idea of where I am coming from when I write what I write. The point of language is to reveal and clarify, so I occasionally step out of my normal commenting structure in an attempt to do just that. Expect more clarifications as we move forward.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Truth In Advertising
I have a question that has puzzled me for quite some time and if any of you even think you might have an answer, I would be much obliged for the input. Why is it that those people who claim to be delivering moral messages do not feel bound by any notion of truth or honesty? I'm sure I've commented on this more than once at various times in the past and concerning various groups and messages, but it has dawned on me that it is a trend that is more than a little alarming.
One of the most obvious examples is that organization that goes by the misnomer of truth.com. Not only do they fail the basic manners test (Does anyone know of an advertiser who tries harder to be rude, disgusting, and tasteless?) but they make a double mockery by calling themselves "truth" while spouting constant lies. I'm sure there are those of you (especially the non-smokers) who are just sputtering at me right now. "They point out that smoking kills! That is not a lie!" No, that is not a lie. I, a smoker, freely state that. Why, then, do they abandon this honest high ground with their hyperbolic commercials? If you think I am exagerating, start jotting down their death numbers whenever you see one of their commercials. It shouldn't take long at all to realize that not one of those commercials agrees with another when it comes to numbers. The reason for this is simplicity itself: there are no hard numbers. Medical research has failed to reach any consensus on exactly what role smoking plays in "smoking-related" deaths and no one has any real clue how many people a year die as a result of smoking. The fact of the matter is that most of those "smoking-related" deaths also include so many other poor health or bad risk factors that no true numbers are even possible. That doesn't stop the good people at truth.com from throwing out those numbers as though they alone had the hard facts.
Environmentalist are another group of moral preachers who have a less than favorable relationship with the truth. This is another area where there is so much research and so little hard consensus that you would think anyone with a rational commitment to morality could not possibly utter any more direct statement than "we do some things that we should not do but we do not know exactly what impact those things have." Instead, we have prophets of doom who want to tell us exactly what we are doing wrong and exactly what we must do to fix it. Again these people do begin with a moral high ground. There are things that we are doing wrong - Poluting the planet makes no more sense than fouling your own bed! - and there are things that we know that we could do better. There are many things that we do not know, however. Take Global Warming, for instance (and while you're doing so, please do not overlook the fact that they have craftily changed the name to "global climate change"). Thirty years ago the boogyman was the next ice age (we were, according to the same so-called scientific consensus that the press is throwing around today, long overdue) but now, in such a short amount of time, we are cooking the planet through our own behavior. Short of all-out thermonuclear war, I am hard pressed to conceive of any way that we could change the entire planet in so short an amount of time. Never mind that the actual predictions are a measly 5-10 degrees over 100 years. Never mind that even those numbers do not account for continuing scientific advancement that may or may not offset such changes. [For comparison purposes, it was widely believed in the 70's by certain people in the scientific community that we would be seeing global famine and catastrophe by the 1990's caused by overpopulation if we did not take drastic steps immediately. Not only did we not take those drastic steps, our population actually increased faster than those people feared and yet, no global famine or catastrophe occured. The reason for this is that our scientific advancement progressed at the same accelerated rate and we became able to feed people at more and more efficient rates. The same principle could quite likely apply to the current "imminent crisis".] Never mind the fact that those numbers are coming from the very same people who cannot accurately be depended upon to predict tomorrow's weather! According to the loudest voices in the environmental movements, we are all doomed (and evil to boot) if we do not take exactly the steps they decree immediately.
I will let one more example stand for the whole.
If you receive email forwards as often as I do, you have no doubt seen the dire warnings of the removal of religious liberties from public places. They are removing God from our schools (never mind the long list of federal laws expressly protecting religious liberties on school campuses, from equal access to church related student groups to religious exceptions to various school activities). They are removing God from the public square (never mind the federal laws that expressly require equal access there either). They are removing God from our politics (never mind the religious litmus test that every president we have ever elected has had to pass). They are removing God from television (never mind the fact that TV stations are privately owned and can show almost anything they want assuming there are enough viewers to secure advertising and that the programs do not violate certain decency standards, standards that have been established by the same religion groups passing these emails, oddly enough). I do not deny that there have been over-zealous individuals who have done (or tried to do) every one of these things but they have been slapped down in every case by the same laws that these emails claim are removing your liberties. If you are Christian, there is no concerted effort to remove your religious liberties and, in this country at least, never has been.
This is a small list of examples to which I am sure we could all add many, many more. Most of the people who pass around these falsehoods are honest people who simply believe what people they trust have told them to believe. The fact that lies are being spread by honest people does not, however, stop them from being lies. It only means that honest people need to be more diligent in the efforts to verify the information they pass along as fact.
One of the most obvious examples is that organization that goes by the misnomer of truth.com. Not only do they fail the basic manners test (Does anyone know of an advertiser who tries harder to be rude, disgusting, and tasteless?) but they make a double mockery by calling themselves "truth" while spouting constant lies. I'm sure there are those of you (especially the non-smokers) who are just sputtering at me right now. "They point out that smoking kills! That is not a lie!" No, that is not a lie. I, a smoker, freely state that. Why, then, do they abandon this honest high ground with their hyperbolic commercials? If you think I am exagerating, start jotting down their death numbers whenever you see one of their commercials. It shouldn't take long at all to realize that not one of those commercials agrees with another when it comes to numbers. The reason for this is simplicity itself: there are no hard numbers. Medical research has failed to reach any consensus on exactly what role smoking plays in "smoking-related" deaths and no one has any real clue how many people a year die as a result of smoking. The fact of the matter is that most of those "smoking-related" deaths also include so many other poor health or bad risk factors that no true numbers are even possible. That doesn't stop the good people at truth.com from throwing out those numbers as though they alone had the hard facts.
Environmentalist are another group of moral preachers who have a less than favorable relationship with the truth. This is another area where there is so much research and so little hard consensus that you would think anyone with a rational commitment to morality could not possibly utter any more direct statement than "we do some things that we should not do but we do not know exactly what impact those things have." Instead, we have prophets of doom who want to tell us exactly what we are doing wrong and exactly what we must do to fix it. Again these people do begin with a moral high ground. There are things that we are doing wrong - Poluting the planet makes no more sense than fouling your own bed! - and there are things that we know that we could do better. There are many things that we do not know, however. Take Global Warming, for instance (and while you're doing so, please do not overlook the fact that they have craftily changed the name to "global climate change"). Thirty years ago the boogyman was the next ice age (we were, according to the same so-called scientific consensus that the press is throwing around today, long overdue) but now, in such a short amount of time, we are cooking the planet through our own behavior. Short of all-out thermonuclear war, I am hard pressed to conceive of any way that we could change the entire planet in so short an amount of time. Never mind that the actual predictions are a measly 5-10 degrees over 100 years. Never mind that even those numbers do not account for continuing scientific advancement that may or may not offset such changes. [For comparison purposes, it was widely believed in the 70's by certain people in the scientific community that we would be seeing global famine and catastrophe by the 1990's caused by overpopulation if we did not take drastic steps immediately. Not only did we not take those drastic steps, our population actually increased faster than those people feared and yet, no global famine or catastrophe occured. The reason for this is that our scientific advancement progressed at the same accelerated rate and we became able to feed people at more and more efficient rates. The same principle could quite likely apply to the current "imminent crisis".] Never mind the fact that those numbers are coming from the very same people who cannot accurately be depended upon to predict tomorrow's weather! According to the loudest voices in the environmental movements, we are all doomed (and evil to boot) if we do not take exactly the steps they decree immediately.
I will let one more example stand for the whole.
If you receive email forwards as often as I do, you have no doubt seen the dire warnings of the removal of religious liberties from public places. They are removing God from our schools (never mind the long list of federal laws expressly protecting religious liberties on school campuses, from equal access to church related student groups to religious exceptions to various school activities). They are removing God from the public square (never mind the federal laws that expressly require equal access there either). They are removing God from our politics (never mind the religious litmus test that every president we have ever elected has had to pass). They are removing God from television (never mind the fact that TV stations are privately owned and can show almost anything they want assuming there are enough viewers to secure advertising and that the programs do not violate certain decency standards, standards that have been established by the same religion groups passing these emails, oddly enough). I do not deny that there have been over-zealous individuals who have done (or tried to do) every one of these things but they have been slapped down in every case by the same laws that these emails claim are removing your liberties. If you are Christian, there is no concerted effort to remove your religious liberties and, in this country at least, never has been.
This is a small list of examples to which I am sure we could all add many, many more. Most of the people who pass around these falsehoods are honest people who simply believe what people they trust have told them to believe. The fact that lies are being spread by honest people does not, however, stop them from being lies. It only means that honest people need to be more diligent in the efforts to verify the information they pass along as fact.
Friday, January 2, 2009
And A Happy New Year
We have come to a new year and, hopefully, new hope. I must admit that I am not exactly holding my breath but then that is not exactly my nature. I am not a breath holder.
If you were to divide the world into optimists and pessimists, I would have to sit on the outside and watch. I am neither optimist nor pessimist but I am also not what most people call a realist, since that is usually just a cynical way of saying pessimist. Optimists are easily cut down when the world inevitably throws a curveball and pessimists couldn't build a better world if you handed them an instruction manual with full-color, three dimensional illustrations. If we are to truly ever have a chance of making one year better than the one that preceded it, we must put aside the ideas of Do Gooders and Doom Sayers alike.
On the one hand, we must be willing to admit when something is bad, when something is wrong, when something is contrary to our ideal. Note I did not say different from our ideal. Different and contrary are not necessarily the same. If we are going to improve anything we must first recognize that something needs to be improved then we must be willing to do the improving. We cannot expect that everything we do "for the good" will actually result in the good. We cannot assume that because someone says they are for the good then what they do is good. We must be willing and able to see things as they are and work accordingly. There has never been a utopia on this earth and there has never been reason to believe that would be otherwise.
On the other hand, we cannot dismiss every possibility as failure before it has even begun. We have to be willing and able to recognize that things can improve and can be done right. The world is not going to hell in a handbasket and, despite centuries upon centuries of prophets of doom, we are no closer to destroying the world than ever before.
Our world is not great and it is not terrible. There are great spots and there are terrible spots, but spots do not make a whole. Take those spots that are great and use them as examples of what to do. Take those spots that are terrible and use them as examples of what not to do.
I said I was not a realist as the term is commonly used, but I am a realist as the word itself implies. Reality, what is, is the best teacher and reality teaches that everything can change and that change can go in virtually any direction. It is a new year but whether or not it is a happy new year depends on what we choose to do with it. We can waste time by denying reality through foolish optimism or destructive pessimism or we can face reality head-on and do what it dictates to make a happy new year.
If you were to divide the world into optimists and pessimists, I would have to sit on the outside and watch. I am neither optimist nor pessimist but I am also not what most people call a realist, since that is usually just a cynical way of saying pessimist. Optimists are easily cut down when the world inevitably throws a curveball and pessimists couldn't build a better world if you handed them an instruction manual with full-color, three dimensional illustrations. If we are to truly ever have a chance of making one year better than the one that preceded it, we must put aside the ideas of Do Gooders and Doom Sayers alike.
On the one hand, we must be willing to admit when something is bad, when something is wrong, when something is contrary to our ideal. Note I did not say different from our ideal. Different and contrary are not necessarily the same. If we are going to improve anything we must first recognize that something needs to be improved then we must be willing to do the improving. We cannot expect that everything we do "for the good" will actually result in the good. We cannot assume that because someone says they are for the good then what they do is good. We must be willing and able to see things as they are and work accordingly. There has never been a utopia on this earth and there has never been reason to believe that would be otherwise.
On the other hand, we cannot dismiss every possibility as failure before it has even begun. We have to be willing and able to recognize that things can improve and can be done right. The world is not going to hell in a handbasket and, despite centuries upon centuries of prophets of doom, we are no closer to destroying the world than ever before.
Our world is not great and it is not terrible. There are great spots and there are terrible spots, but spots do not make a whole. Take those spots that are great and use them as examples of what to do. Take those spots that are terrible and use them as examples of what not to do.
I said I was not a realist as the term is commonly used, but I am a realist as the word itself implies. Reality, what is, is the best teacher and reality teaches that everything can change and that change can go in virtually any direction. It is a new year but whether or not it is a happy new year depends on what we choose to do with it. We can waste time by denying reality through foolish optimism or destructive pessimism or we can face reality head-on and do what it dictates to make a happy new year.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Taking Things A Bit Too Far
Iraq war veteran Kevin Murray, with the support of the Thomas More Law Center and on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, has filed a lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve claiming that the recent federal bailout of the American International Group is helping promote Shariah law. The reason for this claim is that AIG will be offering Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance policies, known as takaful, to U.S. customers through one of its subsidiaries. For those who do not know, Shariah is the legal application of the Islamic religion.
Now I must say, there are plenty of reasons to be grumpy about the AIG bailout and there are more than plenty of reasons to be apprehensive about the applications of Shariah law, but this particular lawsuit is stretching things just a bit. AIG is not converting to all takaful policies nor is it requiring anyone to buy takaful policies. It is only offering them as an option to those who want them. It seems to me that, rather than being an establishment or even an endorcement of religion, this is exactly what the First Amendment's religion clause is all about: allowing open and equal access to various religious groups.
It is a long road from this to England's recent decision to allow Shariah law to have a say in certain civil courts. I'm not saying that people shouldn't keep an eye on things to make certain there isn't any encroachment, but there is a difference between guarding against abuse and outright paranoia.
To be honest, though, I do not actually believe that paranoia has anything to do with this one. The Thomas More Law Center is a non-profit law firm that promotes conservative Christian values. Anyone care to place any bets on what their agenda is in this?
This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at discrimination and it shouldn't fly here any better than it would were the religion involved Christianity. Most legal scholars seem to be of the opinion that it won't since the prevailing opinion is that what AIG is doing is an open access business policy and not an establishment or endorcement of religion. The fact that it won't fly, however, does not mean that the Thomas More Law Center shouldn't be slapped down for trying. In fact, the people who should be slapping the hardest are those Christians who are concerned about religious freedoms.
I cannot state often enough or emphatically enough, you cannot defend liberty by removing it from someone else. Every time you aprove of the removal of one liberty, you set a precedent for the removal of others. If you give government the power to curtail liberties in one field, you are giving them the power to curtail liberties in all fields. Once the rule is established, it takes no effort at all to change the word "Islam" to "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Buddhist" or pick your flavor.
Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows that I am not a fan of Islam. I am fully aware of the dangerous tendencies inherent in that religion. I am also aware, however, that there are many Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to those dangerous tendencies, just as there were many Christians who were not psychotic murderers during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Pick your battles, but pick them wisely lest the battle you pick wind up being against yourself.
Now I must say, there are plenty of reasons to be grumpy about the AIG bailout and there are more than plenty of reasons to be apprehensive about the applications of Shariah law, but this particular lawsuit is stretching things just a bit. AIG is not converting to all takaful policies nor is it requiring anyone to buy takaful policies. It is only offering them as an option to those who want them. It seems to me that, rather than being an establishment or even an endorcement of religion, this is exactly what the First Amendment's religion clause is all about: allowing open and equal access to various religious groups.
It is a long road from this to England's recent decision to allow Shariah law to have a say in certain civil courts. I'm not saying that people shouldn't keep an eye on things to make certain there isn't any encroachment, but there is a difference between guarding against abuse and outright paranoia.
To be honest, though, I do not actually believe that paranoia has anything to do with this one. The Thomas More Law Center is a non-profit law firm that promotes conservative Christian values. Anyone care to place any bets on what their agenda is in this?
This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at discrimination and it shouldn't fly here any better than it would were the religion involved Christianity. Most legal scholars seem to be of the opinion that it won't since the prevailing opinion is that what AIG is doing is an open access business policy and not an establishment or endorcement of religion. The fact that it won't fly, however, does not mean that the Thomas More Law Center shouldn't be slapped down for trying. In fact, the people who should be slapping the hardest are those Christians who are concerned about religious freedoms.
I cannot state often enough or emphatically enough, you cannot defend liberty by removing it from someone else. Every time you aprove of the removal of one liberty, you set a precedent for the removal of others. If you give government the power to curtail liberties in one field, you are giving them the power to curtail liberties in all fields. Once the rule is established, it takes no effort at all to change the word "Islam" to "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Buddhist" or pick your flavor.
Anyone who has read my posts in the past knows that I am not a fan of Islam. I am fully aware of the dangerous tendencies inherent in that religion. I am also aware, however, that there are many Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to those dangerous tendencies, just as there were many Christians who were not psychotic murderers during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Pick your battles, but pick them wisely lest the battle you pick wind up being against yourself.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Manners Should Be Taught Before Speech
I sometimes believe that an appalling lack of manners is my biggest complaint against the modern Left. Don't get me wrong, they have policies and beliefs I abhor. They, in fact, have policies and beliefs I would fight to the death (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) to oppose. They don't have a monopoly on that, though. The Right has just as many terrifying and tyranical beliefs. Neither side has a corner on the market of stupid ideas. The biggest difference seems to be that the Right will at least usually be polite while stabbing you in the back.
While it is true that you can wind up dead either way, the difference matters for those times when you survive.
I commented yesterday on the affair of the President and the Shoe and, despite my obvious irritation with the event, my ability to describe it in a humorous fashion should demonstrate that I can see the potential humor. Such an incident would pay a comedian for a week and I have no problem with that. The best humor comes from the absurdities in life and I definitely appreciate that.
There is a difference, however, between seeing the humor in a situation and cheering or supporting bad behavior. Bad behavior should never be tolerated. That only encourages more bad behavior. The modern Left have completely lost any concept of this rule.
Why do I say this? Take a stroll through the comments section of any site that is discussing this incident. In fact, in some cases, take a look at the sites doing the discussing. If you have any sense of decorum, what you find should disgust you.
I understand that many people dislike Bush. I would never be mistaken for Left-leaning and I dislike Bush. I completely understand that, for those on the Left, my dislike almost seems like puppy love. Disliking a person does not excuse cheering when a member of a respected profession behaves in a childish manner toward a political leader. The identities of neither the reporter nor the leader make the least difference. Childish behavior in a professional setting is inexcusable! Supporting such behavior to the detriment of your own home is a negative for which I do not even have a term.
This is your home. I have never supported the "love it or leave it" mentality and I never will. If you are unhappy with your home, work to make it better. Do not go out of your way to make it worse. If that is your mentality then it is time to apply the "leave it" idea.
The only thing worse than the ungrateful people abroad who abuse us as reward for our generosity is the ungrateful brats living right here who are too lazy and spoiled to do anything positive with their dissatisfaction. A nation of children cannot be a great nation. If you want us to be great again then grow up. You might start by applying some of the manners you should have been taught while you were still in diapers.
While it is true that you can wind up dead either way, the difference matters for those times when you survive.
I commented yesterday on the affair of the President and the Shoe and, despite my obvious irritation with the event, my ability to describe it in a humorous fashion should demonstrate that I can see the potential humor. Such an incident would pay a comedian for a week and I have no problem with that. The best humor comes from the absurdities in life and I definitely appreciate that.
There is a difference, however, between seeing the humor in a situation and cheering or supporting bad behavior. Bad behavior should never be tolerated. That only encourages more bad behavior. The modern Left have completely lost any concept of this rule.
Why do I say this? Take a stroll through the comments section of any site that is discussing this incident. In fact, in some cases, take a look at the sites doing the discussing. If you have any sense of decorum, what you find should disgust you.
I understand that many people dislike Bush. I would never be mistaken for Left-leaning and I dislike Bush. I completely understand that, for those on the Left, my dislike almost seems like puppy love. Disliking a person does not excuse cheering when a member of a respected profession behaves in a childish manner toward a political leader. The identities of neither the reporter nor the leader make the least difference. Childish behavior in a professional setting is inexcusable! Supporting such behavior to the detriment of your own home is a negative for which I do not even have a term.
This is your home. I have never supported the "love it or leave it" mentality and I never will. If you are unhappy with your home, work to make it better. Do not go out of your way to make it worse. If that is your mentality then it is time to apply the "leave it" idea.
The only thing worse than the ungrateful people abroad who abuse us as reward for our generosity is the ungrateful brats living right here who are too lazy and spoiled to do anything positive with their dissatisfaction. A nation of children cannot be a great nation. If you want us to be great again then grow up. You might start by applying some of the manners you should have been taught while you were still in diapers.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
On The Concept And Nature Of Rights - Part Two
We have established an axiom - Rights are Inherent to Sentient Beings - and we have established a corollary to that axiom - if rights are inherent to sentient beings then rights must be naturally occuring and must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being. We have also established the reverse of that corollary - if it is not naturally occuring and/or cannot exist in the presence of any one sentient being, it cannot be a right. Through this process we have eliminated a whole host of things people often claim as rights and have narrowed down the possibilities of what might actually be a right. Now we will see if we can find a more definite answer to what is a right.
If we examine what we have already established we will see that there are three required components of a right.
1. A right must be naturally occurring.
2. A right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being.
3. A right must not interfere with a right of another sentient being.
The first two are explicitly stated in the corollary while the third is implied both through the corollary and through the basic definitions of "rights" and "inherent". A right is what is naturally owed due to the meeting of certain conditions. The rights we are discussing are naturally owed - or inherent - due to the condition of being a living, thinking being. If a right is naturally owed then it cannot be taken away except through violation. Because a right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being, there cannot be a right to violate another right. That would require the presence and/or participation of another sentient being, which violates the corollary.
We could stop right there if we wanted to. You have the right to do anything you choose that can be done naturally, can be done alone, and does not interfere with the rights of another. If an action meets those three requirements then there would be no reason for anyone else to intervene because the action would have nothing to do with anyone else. It would only be the human tendency to want to control the actions of others that would cause interferance, but controling the actions of another is certainly not a right. It does not even come close to satisfying the requirements. Right trumps non-right.
I said we could stop there but we will not because we can take it one step further. Why are rights inherent? Why is anything inherent? If we look at what is inherent in any living thing, we find that these inherent attributes serve the twin purposes of survival and prosperity. Whether it be legs for mobility, claws for hunting and defense, or the ability to reason between a good choice and a bad one, all of these things serve to not only keep a thing alive but also to help improve its life. It seems evident, then, that this is the reason for inherent attributes.
That being the case, rights - being inherent - would serve the same twin purposes: survival and prosperity, staying alive and improving life.
The defining difference between a sentient being and all other living things is the self-aware thought process. Because we are sentient, and because all sentient beings that we currently know about lack such things as claws and fangs, our ability to think and act upon our thoughts is our most critical tool for both survival and prosperity. Even our idea of rights (and of right and wrong in general) stems from this one point. Thus a right, to be properly inherent, would serve the purpose of staying alive and/or improving life.
Your right to hold your own belief improves your life because there is no faster way to misery than to oppose your own will. Your right to defend yourself obviously helps you stay alive. Your right to speak your mind might convince others to believe as you do, thus gaining you friends (we are social creatures) and improving your social interactions. Your right to walk away from someone who is speaking his mind can definitely improve your own peace of mind.
All of these rights, of course, stop at the point of requiring participation from another person. Your right to hold your own belief is not a right to compel another to follow your belief. Your right to defend yourself does not compel someone else to provide you with a weapon. Your right to speak your mind does not require someone else to listen or even to provide you with a location from which to speak.
So we have added a fourth requirement and defined a definite positive for human rights. If it occurs naturally among sentient beings, can exist in the presence of any one sentient being, does not interfere with the rights of another sentient being, and serves the purposes of survival and prosperity then it is a right. Put simply, if it could help you stay alive or improve your life while you were naked and alone in an empty universe then it is your inherent right and any attempt to remove it from you would be a violation of that right. If it doesn't meet that definition then it is not a right. That isn't to say that it isn't a good thing, just that it isn't an automatic.
We have now defined what a right is not and we have defined what a right is. If anyone is still following along, tomorrow we might go into practical application. I'm not promising that Part Three though. It isn't as required as Part Two was and something else may come up that needs to be addressed. Besides, Part Two was difficult to write. Attempting to break down what seems obvious to me is never easy. I'm always afraid that I will forget to say something that needed to be said just because it is so obvious to me that I don't think about it. Try thinking about every biological step involved in breathing sometime and see if you don't have to start over once or twice because you forgot something.
At any rate, come back tomorrow and we will see what we see.
If we examine what we have already established we will see that there are three required components of a right.
1. A right must be naturally occurring.
2. A right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being.
3. A right must not interfere with a right of another sentient being.
The first two are explicitly stated in the corollary while the third is implied both through the corollary and through the basic definitions of "rights" and "inherent". A right is what is naturally owed due to the meeting of certain conditions. The rights we are discussing are naturally owed - or inherent - due to the condition of being a living, thinking being. If a right is naturally owed then it cannot be taken away except through violation. Because a right must be able to exist in the presence of any one sentient being, there cannot be a right to violate another right. That would require the presence and/or participation of another sentient being, which violates the corollary.
We could stop right there if we wanted to. You have the right to do anything you choose that can be done naturally, can be done alone, and does not interfere with the rights of another. If an action meets those three requirements then there would be no reason for anyone else to intervene because the action would have nothing to do with anyone else. It would only be the human tendency to want to control the actions of others that would cause interferance, but controling the actions of another is certainly not a right. It does not even come close to satisfying the requirements. Right trumps non-right.
I said we could stop there but we will not because we can take it one step further. Why are rights inherent? Why is anything inherent? If we look at what is inherent in any living thing, we find that these inherent attributes serve the twin purposes of survival and prosperity. Whether it be legs for mobility, claws for hunting and defense, or the ability to reason between a good choice and a bad one, all of these things serve to not only keep a thing alive but also to help improve its life. It seems evident, then, that this is the reason for inherent attributes.
That being the case, rights - being inherent - would serve the same twin purposes: survival and prosperity, staying alive and improving life.
The defining difference between a sentient being and all other living things is the self-aware thought process. Because we are sentient, and because all sentient beings that we currently know about lack such things as claws and fangs, our ability to think and act upon our thoughts is our most critical tool for both survival and prosperity. Even our idea of rights (and of right and wrong in general) stems from this one point. Thus a right, to be properly inherent, would serve the purpose of staying alive and/or improving life.
Your right to hold your own belief improves your life because there is no faster way to misery than to oppose your own will. Your right to defend yourself obviously helps you stay alive. Your right to speak your mind might convince others to believe as you do, thus gaining you friends (we are social creatures) and improving your social interactions. Your right to walk away from someone who is speaking his mind can definitely improve your own peace of mind.
All of these rights, of course, stop at the point of requiring participation from another person. Your right to hold your own belief is not a right to compel another to follow your belief. Your right to defend yourself does not compel someone else to provide you with a weapon. Your right to speak your mind does not require someone else to listen or even to provide you with a location from which to speak.
So we have added a fourth requirement and defined a definite positive for human rights. If it occurs naturally among sentient beings, can exist in the presence of any one sentient being, does not interfere with the rights of another sentient being, and serves the purposes of survival and prosperity then it is a right. Put simply, if it could help you stay alive or improve your life while you were naked and alone in an empty universe then it is your inherent right and any attempt to remove it from you would be a violation of that right. If it doesn't meet that definition then it is not a right. That isn't to say that it isn't a good thing, just that it isn't an automatic.
We have now defined what a right is not and we have defined what a right is. If anyone is still following along, tomorrow we might go into practical application. I'm not promising that Part Three though. It isn't as required as Part Two was and something else may come up that needs to be addressed. Besides, Part Two was difficult to write. Attempting to break down what seems obvious to me is never easy. I'm always afraid that I will forget to say something that needed to be said just because it is so obvious to me that I don't think about it. Try thinking about every biological step involved in breathing sometime and see if you don't have to start over once or twice because you forgot something.
At any rate, come back tomorrow and we will see what we see.
Friday, December 12, 2008
A Note On Certain Posts
The primary purpose of A Is A is to discuss certain events in the news - whether they be political, absurd, or entertaining - and especially when those events contradict the basic premise of this blog, that reality is real. There are times, however, when I must make points more clear by expanding on certain core philosophies of my own. If philosophical discussion for its own sake does not interest you then you should probably skip those posts. They will usually be fairly evident from the beginning. I promise that I will not turn this blog into nothing but a preaching soapbox but I hope that these philosophical digressions will be interesting enough in their own right that you will follow along with them as well.
There will be times when I think something is obvious while others disagree. I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes and this is probably one of my most common. You can believe that Heather will point out to me when she feels that I have made this mistake and I would like you to feel free to do so as well. I am always open to comments and questions and will always try to honestly answer any honestly asked question. Fair warning, though: I do not subscribe to the notion that there are no foolish questions. Dishonest questions, questions that have been plainly answered, and questions asked purely for the sake of arguing are prime examples of foolish questions. So long as we keep this in mind, I am always open to discussion.
There will be times when I think something is obvious while others disagree. I will be the first to admit that I make mistakes and this is probably one of my most common. You can believe that Heather will point out to me when she feels that I have made this mistake and I would like you to feel free to do so as well. I am always open to comments and questions and will always try to honestly answer any honestly asked question. Fair warning, though: I do not subscribe to the notion that there are no foolish questions. Dishonest questions, questions that have been plainly answered, and questions asked purely for the sake of arguing are prime examples of foolish questions. So long as we keep this in mind, I am always open to discussion.
On The Concept And Nature Of Rights - Part One
I made a comment in passing yesterday that may have left some readers confused, concerning human rights, so I have decided to elaborate today. Many people consider this to be a complicated subject but there is no reason for it to be so. If the root of human rights is treated as axiomatic then the rest becomes obvious. The axiom is one that most people recognize but few people (or at least, not nearly enough) pause to consider the details.
The axiom is this, that what we call human rights is a condition inherent in sentient beings. Whether you consider them to be inherent from God or inherent by nature is irrelevant to this particular discussion. What matters is that they are inextricably contained within living, thinking beings.
Allow me to digress for just a moment to explain why I am using a formal phrase instead of simply saying "people" or "human beings". As of yet there is no credible evidence that there are any other sentient beings either on this planet or within the greater universe. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence and it may be (it also may not be - please do not read in more than I am actually saying) that we will one day discover or be discovered by other sentient beings. If you are a fan of science or science fiction (as I am of both) then you are already aware that much thought has gone into how such beings should be treated or what rights they might possess if we ever do meet them. I use the phrase "sentient beings" in my axiom instead of "people" to demonstrate that the question is already answered. If they are sentient beings then their rights are as inherent as our own and for the same reason: the simple fact that they are sentient beings.
With that out of the way, let us return to the axiom. An axiom is a truth taken for granted because it is self-evident or is the first cause of other truths that are derived from it. If you do not believe that Rights Are Inherent To Sentient Beings is an axiom then you do not want to keep reading. We do not speak the same language and cannot come to an agreement. Rights are not granted by government or document and, while they can be abridged through force, such abridgment does not remove them, it violates them. Be very clear on and careful of the difference.
If we take our axiom as true then human rights are a natural occurance and, therefore, must occur in nature and must be able to occur in all cases where the required condition applies. Our axiom has only one condition - the existance of a sentient being - and therefore human rights must be naturally occuring to sentient beings and must be able to coexist with any one or more sentient being(s). To put it quite simply, if you can do a thing naturally and by yourself, it is possibly a human right. If you cannot do it naturally and by yourself, it cannot meet the basic definition of a human right. To think, to speak your mind, to arm yourself against possible danger, to believe what you believe and to practice this belief (in any manner that does not require the presence or participation of another person), to keep your thoughts to yourself. While certainly not an all-inclusive list, all of these things meet the basic definition and so can possibly be considered a human right. Color television, indoor plumbing, assault against another person, human sacrifice, a high paying job in someone else's business. None of these things meet the basic definition and so they cannot be human rights.
But there are people who cannot speak (or express themselves in some way) because of physical limitations and there are people who can, by themselves, build a color television or create indoor plumbing! I can hear this argument as plainly as though you were sitting in the room with me. But consider: Communication is a natural part of the human being (ask any biologist or anthropologist) and those who cannot do so are so rare as to come very close to statistical nonexistance. Conversely, those who can create or build entire structures (of almost any type) are almost as rare. In both cases, the rarity of the objection makes them the exception that proves the rule The person who has lost a basic right through physical inability should certainly be pitied but the person who has gained a right to a television (for himself and himself alone) by being able to build that television single-handedly should be greatly admired. Anyone who can add to rights is certainly a kind of hero.
So we have defined, based on our starting axiom, what rights cannot be and what rights can be. We have not, however, defined what rights are. We have only narrowed the field. We have found a definite negative but, on the positive, only a maybe. Is there a way, by drawing corollaries from our axiom, that we can narrow the field even further so that we might arrive at a definite positive?
I believe that there is and I have given a hint of what I believe through the examples I have chosen to provide. You will note, though, that the headline of this post contained the phrase "Part One", making clear that there will be a Part Two. I cannot discuss rights without getting long winded and I would not ask you to sit through all of that at one time, so we will take up Part Two tomorrow when I will attempt to demonstrate that there can be a definite positive to go along with the definite negative on rights. I hope you will join me.
The axiom is this, that what we call human rights is a condition inherent in sentient beings. Whether you consider them to be inherent from God or inherent by nature is irrelevant to this particular discussion. What matters is that they are inextricably contained within living, thinking beings.
Allow me to digress for just a moment to explain why I am using a formal phrase instead of simply saying "people" or "human beings". As of yet there is no credible evidence that there are any other sentient beings either on this planet or within the greater universe. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence and it may be (it also may not be - please do not read in more than I am actually saying) that we will one day discover or be discovered by other sentient beings. If you are a fan of science or science fiction (as I am of both) then you are already aware that much thought has gone into how such beings should be treated or what rights they might possess if we ever do meet them. I use the phrase "sentient beings" in my axiom instead of "people" to demonstrate that the question is already answered. If they are sentient beings then their rights are as inherent as our own and for the same reason: the simple fact that they are sentient beings.
With that out of the way, let us return to the axiom. An axiom is a truth taken for granted because it is self-evident or is the first cause of other truths that are derived from it. If you do not believe that Rights Are Inherent To Sentient Beings is an axiom then you do not want to keep reading. We do not speak the same language and cannot come to an agreement. Rights are not granted by government or document and, while they can be abridged through force, such abridgment does not remove them, it violates them. Be very clear on and careful of the difference.
If we take our axiom as true then human rights are a natural occurance and, therefore, must occur in nature and must be able to occur in all cases where the required condition applies. Our axiom has only one condition - the existance of a sentient being - and therefore human rights must be naturally occuring to sentient beings and must be able to coexist with any one or more sentient being(s). To put it quite simply, if you can do a thing naturally and by yourself, it is possibly a human right. If you cannot do it naturally and by yourself, it cannot meet the basic definition of a human right. To think, to speak your mind, to arm yourself against possible danger, to believe what you believe and to practice this belief (in any manner that does not require the presence or participation of another person), to keep your thoughts to yourself. While certainly not an all-inclusive list, all of these things meet the basic definition and so can possibly be considered a human right. Color television, indoor plumbing, assault against another person, human sacrifice, a high paying job in someone else's business. None of these things meet the basic definition and so they cannot be human rights.
But there are people who cannot speak (or express themselves in some way) because of physical limitations and there are people who can, by themselves, build a color television or create indoor plumbing! I can hear this argument as plainly as though you were sitting in the room with me. But consider: Communication is a natural part of the human being (ask any biologist or anthropologist) and those who cannot do so are so rare as to come very close to statistical nonexistance. Conversely, those who can create or build entire structures (of almost any type) are almost as rare. In both cases, the rarity of the objection makes them the exception that proves the rule The person who has lost a basic right through physical inability should certainly be pitied but the person who has gained a right to a television (for himself and himself alone) by being able to build that television single-handedly should be greatly admired. Anyone who can add to rights is certainly a kind of hero.
So we have defined, based on our starting axiom, what rights cannot be and what rights can be. We have not, however, defined what rights are. We have only narrowed the field. We have found a definite negative but, on the positive, only a maybe. Is there a way, by drawing corollaries from our axiom, that we can narrow the field even further so that we might arrive at a definite positive?
I believe that there is and I have given a hint of what I believe through the examples I have chosen to provide. You will note, though, that the headline of this post contained the phrase "Part One", making clear that there will be a Part Two. I cannot discuss rights without getting long winded and I would not ask you to sit through all of that at one time, so we will take up Part Two tomorrow when I will attempt to demonstrate that there can be a definite positive to go along with the definite negative on rights. I hope you will join me.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Rhea Is Rhea
I have warned you about the untidy state of unpacking going on around here. I have given you some indication of what to expect from this blog. Now I suppose you may want to know a little about your host.
As I have previously stated, my name is Rhea Jones and, as has also been previously stated, I have been writing for a long time. I have, in fact, been writing in some form or another just about since I could first properly shape letters with a pencil. I have been writing political philosophy and things of that sort online for a little over ten years now. Before that, I was writing in the more traditional form (that would be putting words on paper and mailing them to people, if you are unsure), though I usually did so purely for my own enjoyment. In short, I have been practicing this writing thing for quite some time so I hope that I have come close to getting it right and that you will actually enjoy the results.
I must warn you in advance that, while I have been writing for many years, my typing is only mediocre at best. I try to proofread and catch my typoes, but they will occasionally slip through. I apologise if that is a distraction and I will try very hard to keep it to a minimum.
So what should you know about me in advance? The details will come through over the course of posting, but I assume you might want to know something before you invest that kind of time.
I have told you that I write political philosophy, so it would be natural for you to wonder about my own political leanings. The now traditional expression of that is either liberal or conservative so I must warn you that I am neither. Sorry, I know that doesn't clear up a thing. I suppose you could call me a centrist, but that actually implies more compromise than I truly believe in. I am definitely an independent, having a pretty low opinion of both ruling parties in American politics. I will often speak out more against the policies of liberals but that is simply more because I consider their policies to be more dangerous in modern politics. Most of those policies that I would dislike in conservative movements are those that don't have much traction in the first place. They are fairly safe just because most people dislike them. The exact opposite, unfortunately, is true of liberal policies. Many of their most popular ideas and themes are those I consider to be the most dangerous. Therefore, it is the squeaky wheel adage. Liberals make the most noise (as in, have the most people screaming support for their horrendous ideas) so they get the most of my attention. Please do not allow this to lead you to the false conclusion that I am a conservative.
So what are some positive statements I can make to help you understand my political philosophy? I believe that the natural state of life is freedom and anything that infringes upon that should be viewed with suspicion at best. I believe that the natural rights possessed by all living people cannot be summed up in any declaration of rights but that those rights do not extend to an all-encompassing free for all. I believe that reality is real and that the fastest way to fail is to forget that fact. I believe that life is about action and action involves both choice and responsibility. I believe that common courtesy has become ridiculously uncommon and I believe that that fact has made our lives much more difficult than they need to be. I believe that the common expression of the Golden Rule gets the idea backward: how you treat others defines what you demonstrate to be acceptable therefore defines how you should be treated.
I could do this all day, but that should give you an idea. As I said, the point will become more clear through the course of my writing, but now you have some idea of what to expect.
I am me. That is not the cop out that most people use it as. It is not a statement of excuse for who I am. I do not believe I need an excuse. I am happy with who I am. You do not have to be, but that is up to you. Maybe we will find some common ground or maybe we will simply enjoy debating ideas (which is, itself, a form of common ground). We will have to see how it goes as we travel down this road.
As I have previously stated, my name is Rhea Jones and, as has also been previously stated, I have been writing for a long time. I have, in fact, been writing in some form or another just about since I could first properly shape letters with a pencil. I have been writing political philosophy and things of that sort online for a little over ten years now. Before that, I was writing in the more traditional form (that would be putting words on paper and mailing them to people, if you are unsure), though I usually did so purely for my own enjoyment. In short, I have been practicing this writing thing for quite some time so I hope that I have come close to getting it right and that you will actually enjoy the results.
I must warn you in advance that, while I have been writing for many years, my typing is only mediocre at best. I try to proofread and catch my typoes, but they will occasionally slip through. I apologise if that is a distraction and I will try very hard to keep it to a minimum.
So what should you know about me in advance? The details will come through over the course of posting, but I assume you might want to know something before you invest that kind of time.
I have told you that I write political philosophy, so it would be natural for you to wonder about my own political leanings. The now traditional expression of that is either liberal or conservative so I must warn you that I am neither. Sorry, I know that doesn't clear up a thing. I suppose you could call me a centrist, but that actually implies more compromise than I truly believe in. I am definitely an independent, having a pretty low opinion of both ruling parties in American politics. I will often speak out more against the policies of liberals but that is simply more because I consider their policies to be more dangerous in modern politics. Most of those policies that I would dislike in conservative movements are those that don't have much traction in the first place. They are fairly safe just because most people dislike them. The exact opposite, unfortunately, is true of liberal policies. Many of their most popular ideas and themes are those I consider to be the most dangerous. Therefore, it is the squeaky wheel adage. Liberals make the most noise (as in, have the most people screaming support for their horrendous ideas) so they get the most of my attention. Please do not allow this to lead you to the false conclusion that I am a conservative.
So what are some positive statements I can make to help you understand my political philosophy? I believe that the natural state of life is freedom and anything that infringes upon that should be viewed with suspicion at best. I believe that the natural rights possessed by all living people cannot be summed up in any declaration of rights but that those rights do not extend to an all-encompassing free for all. I believe that reality is real and that the fastest way to fail is to forget that fact. I believe that life is about action and action involves both choice and responsibility. I believe that common courtesy has become ridiculously uncommon and I believe that that fact has made our lives much more difficult than they need to be. I believe that the common expression of the Golden Rule gets the idea backward: how you treat others defines what you demonstrate to be acceptable therefore defines how you should be treated.
I could do this all day, but that should give you an idea. As I said, the point will become more clear through the course of my writing, but now you have some idea of what to expect.
I am me. That is not the cop out that most people use it as. It is not a statement of excuse for who I am. I do not believe I need an excuse. I am happy with who I am. You do not have to be, but that is up to you. Maybe we will find some common ground or maybe we will simply enjoy debating ideas (which is, itself, a form of common ground). We will have to see how it goes as we travel down this road.
A Is A
The title I have chosen for this blog should give you some small idea of the perspective that will determine most everything I write here. A is A. Reality is real. A thing is itself. This is hardly a new philosophy. It was, in fact, first codified by one of histories greatest philosophers a little over 2000 years ago. As the age of this venerable statement advances, though, it seems that we come closer and closer to forgetting it completely. Far too many people appear to have forgotten it already.
The simplified and classic definition of insanity is to repeat the same action or behavior while expecting different results. This has become the world as we know it. Mass insanity. We, as a whole, routinely expect things to turn out differently than history has proven possible. We expect to get what we want through the sheer act of wish fulfillment, rather than through doing what is necessary to achieve the desired result. We expect A to be not-A and then we complain that life is not fair when A insists on being A.
This blog is a statement to the fact that reality is real. As a corollary to that, reality does not care what you or I think about it. It is incapable of doing so. Reality is a great engine chugging along, doing only what it is capable of doing and not doing what it is incapable of doing. What we do within this reality and how we respond to this reality is the complete definition of who we are and how happy we are with who we are. If your happiness is dependant upon rain falling up, you are going to be one seriously depressed individual.
While this makes for a great philosophical statement, most of us do not have time for abstract theory. What we need are practical demonstrations. Well, if you are like most people and need those practical demonstrations, you are in luck. The modern press is overflowing with them. The greatest challenge is narrowing down the list to a manageable number.
Which brings us (Do I hear you saying "finally"?) to the actual point of this blog. News of the Absurd, Political News, and what we can only call Celebrity Mayhem will be the most common themes of this blog. Because I have a variety of interests, we will occasionally slide into other topics just for the fun or amusement of them, but you can expect those three subjects to dominate. I have found, over time, that those three subjects are where A Is A most needs to be demonstrated. If that sounds potentially interesting to you, I hope you will come along for the ride. Story time will begin soon. I hope to see you there.
The simplified and classic definition of insanity is to repeat the same action or behavior while expecting different results. This has become the world as we know it. Mass insanity. We, as a whole, routinely expect things to turn out differently than history has proven possible. We expect to get what we want through the sheer act of wish fulfillment, rather than through doing what is necessary to achieve the desired result. We expect A to be not-A and then we complain that life is not fair when A insists on being A.
This blog is a statement to the fact that reality is real. As a corollary to that, reality does not care what you or I think about it. It is incapable of doing so. Reality is a great engine chugging along, doing only what it is capable of doing and not doing what it is incapable of doing. What we do within this reality and how we respond to this reality is the complete definition of who we are and how happy we are with who we are. If your happiness is dependant upon rain falling up, you are going to be one seriously depressed individual.
While this makes for a great philosophical statement, most of us do not have time for abstract theory. What we need are practical demonstrations. Well, if you are like most people and need those practical demonstrations, you are in luck. The modern press is overflowing with them. The greatest challenge is narrowing down the list to a manageable number.
Which brings us (Do I hear you saying "finally"?) to the actual point of this blog. News of the Absurd, Political News, and what we can only call Celebrity Mayhem will be the most common themes of this blog. Because I have a variety of interests, we will occasionally slide into other topics just for the fun or amusement of them, but you can expect those three subjects to dominate. I have found, over time, that those three subjects are where A Is A most needs to be demonstrated. If that sounds potentially interesting to you, I hope you will come along for the ride. Story time will begin soon. I hope to see you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)