The Fate of the Mind.

Previously my top three Most Idiotic Ideas Ever Conceived consisted of luck, a theistic god and fate.

However over the course of the past week or two I've realised that I placed fate in the wrong list. It should be in the Top Ten Most Misunderstood Concepts of All Time.

You see, uncanny as it is to believe, I've come to realise that the whole concept of fate is actually based on some archaic form of psychology.

Allow me to elaborate; if one person had to suppress certain emotions one has time will very often bring these suppressed emotions to the surface.

An example; if say two friends are only friends to spare a third party's feelings they will eventually fight. They may become friends after the fight but the point still remains that these suppressed feelings had to surface themselves. Hence the conflict between the two was "meant to be" as they say in fate-orientated blabber.

Or alternatively; two friends suppress feeling of deeper affection for each other than they care to show. Eventually things will play out and these feelings will become known. Likewise the relationship which ensues was also "meant to be".

Now of course I'm cynical, proof-hungry and skeptic so I'm not going to make a claim without backing it up with some evidence.

And here it is: It is psychological fact that the human mind continues to develop all throughout a person's life. This happens because of changes in one's environment including school, work, friends, relationships, even one's own body (and I don't just means hormones- sickness can also change one's outlook on life).

Now couple with that fact this fact: Emotions- of both want and rejection- are triggered by situations one wants to add to or remove from one's life. This can go from the simplest things (such as wanting a chocolate) to the most life shattering things (like wanting a divorce) Both a chocolate snack and a divorce are different situations in one's life- and when one wants them one (obviously) experiences a want for them (likewise one could reject them). The point I'm trying to bring out here is that want and rejection are NOT related to particular objects but to the situations those objects bring with them.

And finally add this little theory (NOT fact); One's own mind knows how it needs to develop.

And we're left with this psycho-philosophical offspring;

When one's mind needs to develop in a particular way it will begin wanting to create a situation which would result in that necessary development.

And so one can see how when one suppresses feelings those feeling will most likely surface anyway; those feelings exist because the mind senses the situation which in needs to develop and so the mind will continue to persist for that situation to become reality so it can develop properly.

Of course- this is the "scientific" reasoning behind the basis of fate. The fate of horoscopes etc. is all just taking everything too far- once we're no longer talking about psychology- none of the above reasoning applies.

Heart-felt.

You can only know the shape of a labyrinth when you view it from above. Once you're inside, you can't tell what shape it has.

Some people say that love is the most powerful emotion. They're wrong. It is the most powerful pair of emotions.

When you love a person there are two sides to that love. Wanting them to be happy and wanting them to be with you.

And when their happiness can't exist when they're with you, you just have to ask - are you in love for that somebody else, or are you in love for you?

Then it's all down to selfishness.

The "Do" 's and "Don't" 's and why.

The whole "follow your heart" concept and the right/wrong question are (perhaps unfortunately) deeply linked.

The first thing one needs to realize is simple; nobody ever does anything they don't want to on purpose. Ever. It's literally impossible. The only reason somebody goes through the trouble of doing something is because they want it achieved. What you're doing may cause you a great amount of pain, but the fact that you're doing it shows that you want it done more than you want not to do it. Even if you eventually regret doing it and want it undone, still at that point in time you were doing it because you wanted it.

So the sad truth is, nobody does anything good for the sake of it being good. People will only do a good deed if they want to do it. You could hold a person at gunpoint and tell them to do something. They're still doing it because they want to do it- they want to do it not to get shot.

So that's the crux of the matter, the only way for a person to be a good person is if they want to be a good person.

And why would you want to be a good person? Being a good person gives you worth. Being a bad person makes you only a nuisance- and being an undecided crowd-follower (*cough* 99% of club-goers and DJ's *cough*) who is content with being 'nice' but not actually 'good', who fails to see the difference between cruelty and evil- well then you're not much of a person and more of a mammal.

Of course every human being has the potential of being a person. But unfortuantely most people never stop to take a good hard look at themselves and end up always wanting to "live" without knowing what life is.

Now the question is simple; do you want to be a person or a mammal?

P.S. To all those who view philosophy as irrelevant; know that philosophy is quite possibly the most useful tool in life- real life, not mammalian life- and is a priceless attribute I wish for all those who mean the most to me.

Justice

Man A and Man B carry out the exact same immoral deed but Man A's actions result in no major consequences while Man B ends up severely harming someone. Is one Man more at fault than the other?

How could one be more at fault when both of them carried out the same moral choices? And how can they be equally to blame if one's actions had no significant negative consequence while the other's did?

The only true resolution of the problem is the separation of "wrong" and "to blame". Both men have done equal wrong by carrying out the same immoral deed(e.g. they put somebody's health at risk) And for this, both must be made to understand why what they did was "wrong" (i.e. why they should not do it again)

As for Man B, he must make amends for the consequences of his actions. That is to say that he is to use his personal resources to reverse or compensate for the negative happenings which result directly from his actions (directly in the sense that they happened due to what he did and no one else - say a Man C- used what Man B did to bring about any further consequences. If such an event takes place, Man C is responsible for all the consequences which follow after his involvement.) In doing so the negative effects brought forth by Man B are reversed/compensated for and so Man B is freed of guilt and hence justice has taken place.

Our actions, regardless of our intent, are exactly what identifies us in the world. And if we cannot take responsibility for ourselves, who can?

That is an important thing to note; to ourselves we are an endless pool of thought and emotion, but to the world around us we can only be perceived by what we do. And so our identities in the world are made up entirely of our actions. In short; We are what we do.

In fact I think it is appropriate to repeat that phrase and end on it.


We are what we do.