The Book

Dead Line. Dead End.

2009-07-12T07:54:00.001-07:00

To date, humanity has little to be proud of.

No acheivement can ever absolve our collective greed and ignorance.

What more could you expect from us?

21st century technology with a 2000-year-old code of ethics leaves little else to be said.

The age of man will soon draw to a close; we've dug our own graves.

There's only just enough time left for us to write our own eulogy.

We are the fallen race of man, and history will never mention us again.

Inspiration in the form of Insulin

2009-05-08T08:16:00.000-07:00

How many countless times have we heard people telling us to persue our dreams?

How many countless times then, have we heard that the persuit of dreams is futile, naive and even infantile?

Crippled by the fear of regret, we let indecision creep in.
Indecision by default, chooses the more "culturally-accepted" course.
And that course, is the abandonment of our aspirations in favour of what society, our peers or our parents deem to be more acceptable.

The greatest lie we ever tell ourselves, is that getting proper jobs is the only way to secure a proper future.

"Who will want to marry an artist? Women prefer men with a stable employment", says the neighbour.
But let me ask you this: Would you rather marry someone who loves your job, or someone that loves for who you are?

One life to live.

Reflection. Deflection.

2009-02-11T07:43:00.000-08:00

"In this difficult time, John is displaying tremendous courage in following through his chemotherapy".

Where does this 'courage' stem from?

Would it not be more likely that the individual is succumbing to fear, rather than bravery?

Subjective, relative. Never an imperative.

Consider the opposite scenario; that an individual does not want treatment.

Would we then describe this person as a brave soul, for committing himself to obvious death?

Or would we be compelled to label him a coward?

Who are we to justify and rationalise the actions of others, or even brand them as displaying great virtue?

Are we then not simply judging based on our own standards?

We are compelled not to praise the virtue of others, but rather, that of our own.

Or lack thereof.

1.1.2.3.5.8.13...

2008-12-27T03:35:00.000-08:00

There is a perverse sense of beauty that accompanies anything that is vastly beyond human comprehension.

Surreal, how somethings can induce in you a profound sense of serenity, awe, wonder and fear.
All at the same time.

Yes, the game might be pointless.
But that doesn't mean you can't have fun playing it.

Or maybe it's just the happy logo?

2008-12-11T11:17:00.000-08:00

Initially, Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch appealed to me.

However, I gradually came to realise that much of its appeal is due to its 'branding'.

The associated state of superiority and elite status that came with the label 'Übermensch'.
That there are many other secular alternatives to religion that promote the advancement of humanity and its morals.

Nietzsche saw war as an opportunity for the Übermensch to display heroism, honour, and other virtues.

But who will the Übermensch be at war with?

Either amongst themselves or against the, so to speak, 'untermensch'; or the present humanity.

But like the ape is to man, man shall be to the Übermensch.

Why then would the Übermensch find anything against current human ideals to be worth fighting a war over?

Clearly we don't deem it necessary to wage war with chimpanzees.

If Nietzsche perceives the overman to still be capable of war, then I feel that it has lost much of its appeal to me.

Currently humanism seems like a pleasant idea...

The Last Vestige

2008-12-03T01:57:00.000-08:00

All belief systems have a concept of holiness or purity.
And such, they also have concepts of unholiness and sin.

Adherence to particular instructions of their dogma would then, according to their doctrine, enable them to reach closer towards a state of purity.
Individuals who do not adhere to such dogma, be they of the same sect or another school of thought, would then conversely be labled as impure or unholy.

Such judgement is however, unavoidable.
For if a theist were to follow his doctrine in full order, the result is such.

Such 'moral elitism' holds true even if a theist would step forth and declare that he does not see theists of other sects, or atheists, as beings of lesser purity.
Simply because if a theist were to deny such judgement upon others, he would be going against the fundamental principles of his doctrine.

However, it is argued that it is not in their place to judge purity, but rather, in their God's.
If So,
Why does religious law exist?
Why should earthly punishment be inflicted upon heretics and infidels?

Would your God not be the ultimate judge?
Would your God not inflict the proper punishment in the afterlife?

By inflicting mortal punishment, such theocracies are in a way surrendering to the notion that there is no afterlife, and no divine judgement, and as such all infringments on religious law should be punished not by God but by man.

...I am not against the wolf that would kill me should I open the door between us.
Rather, I am against your idea that there is such a wolf behind the door in the first place.

Human. All Too Human.

2008-11-16T08:58:00.000-08:00

What is death?
It isn't simply just a statistical compilation of the mortality rates around the world.
We don't refer to is as the life expectancy of the third-world compared to developed nations.
Nor do we simply accept it as a natural decay of the human body, where entropy takes place.
All of the above are very technical ways of looking at it.
A machine's way of looking at it.

We as human beings cannot simply accept the passing of a loved one as an expected event.
We cannot simply just live our lives as per normal.
It's inevitable, scientifically and mathematically predictable, but that's not what we do, is it?
We don't do probablity rates and compile reports on the leading causes of death.
We don't follow a set of algorithms when we are bereaved.
No. That is a machine's job, not ours.

We feel for every friend that has passed, every child that is born.
We cry, we mourn, and we appreciate everything that life has for us.
We experience every little joy in life, every little frustrating event that makes us ignore all that we already have.
We live our fullest, share great moments with our friends and family.
Moments that will never last forever, and yet, that is what gives them their value.
Moments that will always remind us of why we continue living, looking forward to each new day, or not.

And hopefully when we have had our fun, we die.
Painlessly, peacefully, we just fade away.
With no regrets, no undone deeds. No unsaid apologies and gratitude.
With pride in every decision we have made, and humour in every failure.
With our last smile etched on our faces, we take our final breath.
Then we disappear, leaving no trace in the history books.

There is no afterlife, and we need none.
For what we need, and indeed what we have, we have now.
The greatest love of all, the greatest achievements in our lives.
It's now or never.
And never, will we be able to live ever again.
Such is the beauty of life.

The Rainbow is Grey

2008-11-14T07:52:00.001-08:00

Everything you do, you either do it as an act of self-interest, or as an instinctive act.
And altruism exists between the two.

For every act of kindness that every human does, it can be traced to either of the reasons.
If one sacrifices his time to help a less-fortunate individual, it may be in his self-interest.
An interest in keeping himself 'morally pure'. Accumulating 'good karma' for example.

Now a skeptic can easily prove the above statement wrong by doing volunteer work without believing in karma.
However, he would still be acting in self-interest.
By doing doing volunteer work while not believing in any form of religious morality,
he is trying to prove the statement wrong.
The act of proving the statement false constitutes as an act of self-interest,
because one would do so to prove that he is capable of altruism, that he is morally-superior.

So then which is more important; The motive or the result?
Two men did voluntary charity work in equal effort.
Johnny did it to accumulate good karma, but Tom did it without knowledge of the concept of karma.
Which of the two men is more righteous?

If Tom is deemed by some 'divine judgement' to be worthier of moral purity than Johnny, then we have a problem.
Does this imply that Johnny is morally inferior to Tom SIMPLY because he understands the concept of karma?
If so then the knowledge of karma in buddhism should be prevented from spreading,
simply because by virtue of the knowledge of it's existence, one will be relatively inferior in terms of morality.

But what if both men accululate an equal amount of 'moral purity'?
Does this imply that the ends justify the means?
If so, that would suggest that nobody is morality pure or impure,
simply because every action we take holds an equal amount of good and bad implications.

Hitler Killed Millions: He is bad.
Hitler started WWII, which lead to rapid advances in technology, which improved lives thereafter: He is good.
Hitler started WWII, which lead to rapid advances in technology, which complicated lives thereafter: He is bad.
Hitler introduced eugenics, which lead to less hereditary diseases, which improved lives thereafter: He is good.
Hitler introduced eugenics, which lead to the execution of millions of people: He is bad.

If the ends justify the means, everything is pointless.
If the motive affects morality regardless of it's effects, everything is unfair.

Rather than dismissing both concepts and employing a God to impose judgement (simply because of the individual's own ignorance),
there is another way to look at this.

Go ponder about it yourselves.