The Shape of the World.

The story of man is a vast and complex thing.  It's the stories of countless individuals contained within the stories of several cultures, which in turn are contained in the stories of several lands, which in turn constitute the story of the species.  Every individual's story is subdivided into even smaller stories, and the stories of the species as a whole is just a small fraction of the story of biological life.  It is, to be sure, a self-similar object in the respect that zooming in to any one part will show you a segment that is similar to the whole- but at the same time it is a chaotic object in the respect that no two points are identical.  To add to this conundrum it is not even clear where one story ends and one begins - where does "his" story become "their" story become "our" story?  By no means is the story of man a straightforward thing, and by no means is any meaningful description of it going to be straightforward.

At some points in time we observe that man lives in a fully autonomous manner while in others we observe that man lives in highly organized societies.  Taking into account the continuity of the story in question, there must be a point between these two where society arose from a collection of individuals.  And since, as previous stated, this story is a self-similar one, there must be countless events dotted through history of societies rising from individuals- at all levels of scale- from simple individuals banding together to form a sports club to the merging of companies or the amalgamation of countries.

At all these points of amalgamation, a group realises that its co-ordination is overall more beneficial to them than their individual toils.  However the exact grounds on which this organization is to be formed is not so evident.  To many of those who realise the benefits of organizations but do not know how to achieve and maintain it a strategy of force and fear seems the only path, especially in cases where full co-operation is difficult to accomplish.

At several points through history, and even today, organization is established and preserved by means of a governing body wielding some economical or military force which then forces others into submission either by direct and violent confrontation or by methods of fear and coercion.  From schools which push children by threatening sanctions to workplaces which dangle the threat of termination over their employees to governments which threaten their citizens with incarceration this method of organization is evident in almost every facet of life throughout history.

Granted that in the past, when man was intelligent enough to the see the benefits of the ends, but not the proper implementation of the means, this approach was an unavoidable tactic which had to be employed for the greater good.

However, just as we moved from individual toils to organized societies so can our thinking mature from one pushed by fear to one pulled by aspiration.  Should a society be constructed appropriately- that is founded on sound laws which are derived from indisputable axioms using infallible logic- the several individuals which constitute the society need not be coerced. Rather they need be educated so as to garner the understanding of the laws themselves and so be driven to obedience not by fear but by the will to see the fulfilment of society's ends which in turn - if society has been correctly constructed- will fulfil their own ends.

That is not to say that there should be no response to the infringement of law, but rather that this response should be one that exists to educate the perpetrator and wherever and to whatever extent possible for the perpetrator to atone for his or her wrong doings by contributing over and above what is normally expected so as to compensate for the damage done.

Currently, the law is literally made up as we go along and sentences are not calculated but rather guessed by the self-entitled from their own little and subjective frame of reference.  What more, the "correctional" facilities serve uniquely as a behavioural deterrent and do nothing to contribute to the education of the impeached or the atonement of damage done.

What I am suggesting is no small feat, I am well aware of that, but as things currently stand the world is upside-down and it is required that we should turn it over.  Presently people are pushed by fear, but we must reach a state- or at least come as close to a state as possible- where people are pulled by aspiration.

I will not end on a closing note, for this is by no means the close.  We must begin a dialogue amongst ourselves regarding where democracy has failed and how we are to correct it.

Neither do I know, nor shall I pretend to know - but I shall speculate.

These past two weeks the topic of faith has been flung at me from all directions and often from the most unexpected places. Due to this, my thoughts about faith have been buzzing diligently within my skull and hence I shall emancipate them here.

One of the most horrible and yet most fortunate traits of being human is not knowing a very vast majority of things. There exist several questions to which we simply do not have answers, and so we use faith (in many forms, including hypotheses and theories) to fill these unanswered voids.

Faith can be classified into three categories:

These is immediate faith- the faith which is the foundation of all religious institutions but is often also found in other areas. This kind of faith is very cut and dry. It is simply choosing a theory and accepting that theory to be true. Religion is the perfect example here - even though I hesitate to use it. Unfortunately however, it is too good an example to pass up. Religion is a very clear example of immediate faith for it provides the answers immediately and hence labels all other faiths as false. Note in particular how this kind of faith completely cripples all prospects of searching for answers.

Then there is primary mediate faith. This faith is quite specific. It accepts that there are things we don't know and further asserts that research and study will allow us to discover these things. It provides no substitute for what is not yet known. Note how this faith very powerfully encourages the search for knowledge.

Finally there is secondary mediate faith. This is better known as open-minded faith. Whilst accepting certain theories, this faith acknowledges that they are only theories and is open to replacing these theories with facts when these facts become known. It is a well-balanced mix of primary mediate and immediate faith. Whilst it does not encourage the search for knowledge as strongly as primary mediate faith does, it is very useful as it provides some dogma to apply in life until the facts become known.

In reality one may use a mix of two or all of the different kinds of faith, for example having an adamant religious core but being open to some of the religious dogma being changed over time.

On a personal note, my preferred faith is primary mediate, although I use secondary mediate too in some cases as I need it to get by.

Some people may claim to have no faith at all, although this is only true as they are using a different definition of faith. By virtue of the above three definitions the only plausible way of having no faith is by admitting there is knowledge we don't know and not knowing whether further research will provide answers or not. Although such a lack of faith means not only having no dogma to live by but also not searching for any knowledge, hence living life not only knowing no truth, but also with no hope of learning the truth. Ironically, faith is required for one to gain knowledge.

On a side-note I would also like to point that if any atheistic person is asked by a religious fanatic about a topic which (s)he feels (s)he knows the answers too whilst the non-believer does not, remember that they don't "know" either, they only believe and as such everyone on Earth is on the same level when it comes to these questions as no matter how strongly you believe something, believing is not knowing.

Stop! You're doing it wrong!

We've all heard it - the whole "life is shit" speech which always sounds so much like the last time you heard it that you could swear pessimists had an underground club somewhere in a warehouse where they drone the same words over and over until they can say them all by themselves. Then they're back next Sunday for some brushing up.

Yes that is some light humour over there. I figure that the best way to start a blog which argues against the view that life is a tragedy is with a bit of comedy. Anyway, now on to why life isn't shit.

Well you see the thing is...life cannot be horrible. Because that feeling of life being horrible doesn't come from life per se. It comes from the way you're handling life. It's very easy to say life is horrible when you keep looking for things like "fairness" , "sanctity", "forever after"'s etc. etc. Well obviously life is horrible then. You're looking for a bunch of things which just don't exist. We made them up to make life less scary.

Think about the universe for a second. Where in the universe is anything fair? Do planets which get obliterated due to getting a tad too close to a black hole get a second chance? Nope. What about sanctity? Well where have you ever seen anything spared in the universe? I assure you, a meteor collision will spare nothing and no one. And forever? What lasts forever in the universe? Just in case you don't get the picture yet: Zilch.

Life is none of these things. Life is ever-changing, uncaring, unbalanced and restless.

So it's definitely horrible when you're looking for fair treatment, kept promises, a love ever after, unchanging happiness, total respect and all the other leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.

And why did we come up with these fairy tales? Well for one things it all makes life less scary. It's much easier to believe that you're going to achieve your goals when life is fair. You don't need to worry too much about the future if it's possible to just settle down and live happily ever after. It's just so much easier.

But that's the shame of it too though. Why go for these dreams? That's no kind of living if you're not fighting for something you believe in. You ever go to the theatre and watch just the last scene of a play? No. You go for the whole play, the whole plot. It's not about the ending it's about getting to the ending. And of course, nothing ever ends, so once you're done you can catch your breathe for a while but soon after you're off again.

So in short; Life doesn't suck. You suck at life. Now get your ass in gear and start living with a fighting mentality.

P.S. For the record, the "should"'s and "shouldn't"'s of our dear little norms....also dreams. So in the spirit of unpredictability.....fuck' em, they can kiss my ass.

Preface.

Technology and philosophy are not so different from each other.

Technology is the manipulation of the physical world to create better devices to make humans' lives easier. The perfect device has never been made and its existence is dubious at best.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is the manipulation of concepts and ideas to make better theories about life to make humans' lives easier. Much like technology, the perfect theory has never been made, and its existence is dubious at best.

Those uncertain about just how valuable philosophy is may very well ask the same question about technology. Several claim that because philosophy has never reached a universally accepted and completely flawless theory it is a waste of time. Likewise, however, technology has never created the perfect device. Does this make technology a waste of time?

Indeed no. Technology constantly improves upon old devices or replaces them for better devices. The same is so in philosophy. New theories either build upon or replace old ones, but that does not mean that all philosophy is in vain. One cannot argue that we have come a long way from the ethics of the Dark Ages.

Nowadays the newest theories in philosophy exist to make life easier. Whether one uses the most suitable or the most cutting-edge theory is a different question, but the fact remains that he is using a theory much like one would use a device - to make a problem easier to solve.

It is unfortunate, however, that more people do not educate themselves in the field of philosophy, particularly in ethics, for it is very much like they are living in the 21st century but facing their problems with 11th century technology. Why shouldn't one equip oneself with the most advanced tools in facing life's problems?

Writing for everyone.

I am writing this for everybody to understand - and hopefully appreciate-why I do what I do. I will try to use a vocabulary which everyone can understand and to show the steps behind my reasoning as clearly as possible.

Today I shall be writing about ethics- the general rules which tell us about what we should and should not do in life.

Nowadays almost everyone has his or her own personal outlook on life- and therefore how one should live it. When one sees the vast amount of different opinions which exist it is very tempting to just jump straight to the conclusion that life- and therefore ethics- are different for everyone. This kind of reasoning is called "relativism" - the denial of there being any absolute and universal truth.

Now while it is true that as of yet there doesn't exist one fully complete proven ethical law- it can be shown how from the vast majority of different views one can quickly narrow it down to only a handful of possible choices.

Let us first begin to do so by proving that some absolute things must exist. This is VERY simple: just think about the phrase "Everything is relative." If you except it as true then you create a paradox because you have excepted an absolute truth while at the same time saying that absolute truths don't exist! Therefore some things must be absolute.

So now we know that some things are absolute and some things are relative. The relative things depended on other relative things which depended on other relative things etc etc etc until eventually the relative things will have to depend on the absolute things.

Therefore we can see that we do not have an infinite number of possible situations- only a limited number. Situation A differs from Situation B because of how they relate to an absolute thing- but since there is a limited number of absolute things and a limited number of how they relate to other things then there is a limited number of situations.

WAIT DON'T CLOSE YOUR WINDOW. OK, I admit that it isn't as simplistic as I promised- but things get simpler from here on. The summary of what we said till now is simple: There is a limited number of possible situations which all have something to do with an absolute truth. Now that is important because it means that if we can define what these absolute things are we can come up with a general rule for every possible situation- since they ALL relate to the same absolute things. See? Simple.


Now then. These situations all have something in common: a person is making a choice. So for our purposes we can forget for now about all the irrelevant pieces of a person- bones, organs, skin etc. I'm not saying you can live without them- but when considering the case of making a choice the important piece of a person is the choice-making bit. Now we have to understand how this bit works.

Well, overall, people make choices depending on their list of priorities. They weigh out what is important to them and make their choice based on that. This is were the relative piece comes in: because different things are important to different people.

BUT- importance is also a relative thing. The leftover lasagna is MUCH more important to a starving man than it is to a rich, well-fed man. So is there one specific thing we should give importance to?

On a personal level- not really. We all have our likes and dislikes- there isn't a general rule for that. But when you think about ethics things change. Because relative to ethics- things do have a different importance- and this time in general, not on a personal level.

For example: people are the very very very most important things in ethics- because they are the only conscious beings which can make an ethical choice. It doesn't take much brainpower to figure out that if people are the only things which have ethics- then they're the most important things in ethics.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL OTHER LIFE IS USELESS. I am simply saying that people have more importance than other living things when it comes to ethics. Therefore helping other people should be at the top of everybody's priority-list, and animals/nature/God/religion/money /etc. in second-place.

So now we have a rough sketch of what everybody's priority list should look like. But still some people might say that "helping other people" is relative too. Well, on a non-ethical level yes. But like I said before- in ethics we have to give number one importance to the choice-making ability of people. So helping other people essentially means making them more in control of their lives.

A quick summary of helping other people is promoting:

Peace
Freedom
Health
Morality

Therefore- we can see that even though we cannot (yet) come up with a full law for ALL ethics- we at least have these four guideline: peace, freedom, health, morality. And anything which goes against any one of these can be called utterly wrong without the need of going into relativism.

Therefore ANYONE, ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME can prove that racism, violence, abortion, imprisonment, torture, sexism and many other vices are all wrong. Nobody can ever say " Well it depends"

Hopefully I have managed to keep this clear and easy to follow for the everyday man-on-the-street. If not I sincerely apologise. I do hope, however, that those who understood my reasoning can see why I insist on philosophizing about ethics- with general laws about ethics we can be sure and determined when it comes to fighting against injustices all over the world.

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.

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.

Beneath the sea; seashells. Above the land; the shell of a world.

So many listen to their sense; yet so many are senseless.

The world's become a place where almost everyone relies on nothing but their senses. People's minds have become so fixated upon the physical world that they have contracted its disease; limits. Virtually nobody can think in any form of depth anymore.

Barely anyone thinks of consequences, and self-discipline (NOT self-limitation, real self discipline as in having proper control of oneself) is a long-dead concept. Even those who are meant to teach "discipline" have no idea what they're talking about. Their minds too(for the most part) have been trapped in little boxes. They mistake discipline for "following rules". How many times have I wanted to just blurt out at them "It was NOT a lack of self-discipline, I full-heartedly and willingly broke the rules and did so while in complete control of myself." But they wouldn't understand. Even if they could, their insistence on themselves getting their way- of them not being corrected whilst correcting-wouldn't allow them to understand.

And even when we look upon the world we don't look in depth. How many people do you see everyday? How many do you speak to? Have you ever realised that all those people have a past like you do; that they too have their lives and interests which might potentially be yours too? And the people who anger you - they have places in other people's lives too, places which might be much more important to the ones they have in yours.

No we don't think. We are like grains of sand, all of them similair unless you look at them in great detail- and all of them shift with the wind and rest in the calm unless they're big enough to hold their ground.

But thankfully, some people (although rare) can truly sense the world, in all its depth.

Internet Etiquette

I do not feel like doing this. But I suppose I must. Nowadays a kind of etiquette has evolved on the internet (as is bound to evolve anywhere where humans interact, due to their own psyche) and not making an introductory post breeches that etiquette.

So, before doing what I have set out to do, I shall introduce myself. My (full) name is Jonathan Joseph Mark Ebejer, though I am known by many others. I never intended to blog. Ever. But when I heard about the experiences of others I was so intrigued that I had to try it for myself.

A second reason as to why I'm doing this is because I am constantly writing and thinking. But my writings and thoughts do not amount to anything if I just keep them locked away for myself. So here I am to share them with whoever may come across them. May they serve you well.