Moderation is a key part of a responsible life. It is demanded in most everything. Moderation in substance (food, alcohol, cigarettes). Moderation in humor. Moderation in language. I consider myself to be a moderate. To be a moderate is to not lean any one way to any extreme in things that don’t demand absolute truths. Even politically. To have moderate political views means I do not lean completely one way or the other regarding government and politics. Instead, I find the best way is a healthy place in the middle. Without moderation, there are people like communists, liberals, and even what the world would consider to be "uber-conservatives" (going to such an extreme regarding things that have a truth attached, like being convinced that alcohol, in any small amount, is evil. Or a simple cigarette is damning). Moderation, of course, does not apply to everything. Such as things that are absolute "should or should not be’s” (for example, having moderate political views, in no way, means I am not completely against the sick idea of abortion).
But has anyone ever thought that Virtues demand a certain amount of moderation?
To Love, to be humble, kind, patient, compassionate, strong, ect.... are the most important concepts of life to abide by. By saying virtue demands moderation, I do not mean one should not act fully on virtue. My purpose for correlating moderation with virtue is to express the truth of the Lies that can be hidden in them.
For example, Humility, is one of the strongest human characteristics to practice. It demands love, self-control, kindness, obligation and so much more. There is no limit in practicing Humility. However, in practicing it, a very dangerous lie could present itself. Part of, both, being a moderate and practicing humility has taught me how to present myself in social interactions. Especially ones where topics that go against the truths I am most passionate about are presented. "Bite my tongue" and just chill. Its like the phrase, preach by example, not by words. Humility plays a key role in this along with the realization that, strictly speaking, in particular random social situations, it is not my place. However, there is a lie that can sneak into this truth. To be a friend means to support and or share mutual understandings with. More importantly, it means to strive with. To be a crutch for. If one friend is jumping into the fire, the other would obviously pull him or her out. However, the lie presents itself that, like in random social situations, it is also not your place with your friend. This is the lie that can be presented with humility. With a friend (assuming you two are actually friends) your obligation in interaction with that friend is the opposite of ones obligation in a random social environment.
Some time ago, I had done something I deeply regret. When I brought it to my friend, he seemed to already know what happened. I asked him how he knew and he said he saw it happening. Tears filled my eyes as I asked in shock, "Why didn’t you step in and do something? Why didn’t you help me?". He replied, "Because it was not my place...". I had this friend for support and mutual goals. Someone to look to for help in times of weakness and vice versa. And when I needed him most, he let me fall... (because he thought "It wasn’t his place"). The obligations between friends are strong in support. Without that support, the word "friend" loses its definition.
This is not a reason to act only moderately on practicing humility. However, it is reason to think and be smart in the truth of the actual virtue being practiced. Even Compassion has lies that can be hidden in it, as well as many others...
-Do all things in Christ, and all will be right
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Obligation of Art
In this life, it is imperative that we all find the means to ensure a steady and secure life for ourselves and our loved ones. This is why we have colleges and jobs. To be financially stable through life is our definition of being secure. But has anyone given thought to what "being secure" actually means? It is to be happy with one’s life and achievements.
In "The Good Will", part of Kant’s philosophy (sorry, I know i mention him alot, even though his philosophy has the most holes in it, I feel it is the closest one can get to thoroughly defining ways of life in absolute terms) he mentions an obligation, on our behalf, of giving to society what we subjectively can. This means, if one has a passion for helping people, their obligation would be to pursue that natural passion as a way of giving to the human race. Said ones would become nurses, doctors, or elderly care professionals. However, how many of us are so quick to shoot for those titles with the simple intent of being "secure" in life. Even if it contradicts ones actual passions. Granted, some are meant to become salesmen, finance specialists and so on, but how many of us settle for that when our passions are different? Just as a means of support and financial security....induced by fear.
This is where our subjective obligations set it. The obligation of art is strongly looked through as nothing in this world. This is because our world is set up so that those who enforce art for the society are less likely to be "safe" in terms of money and a secure life. It has induced a fear in many great people, with great potential, causing them to give into the "normal" life of dedicating themselves to giving to society in a completely different way. Yes, we need doctors and bankers, but I have met people with passions that correlate to those titles. What this world also needs is art. Art, whether it be through music or other entertainments, is the fuel for our hearts and souls. Our minds and the physicality’s of this world do matter, but we are nothing without steady and inspired hearts. Art gives this to us, courtesy of the artists who produce it. Kant states that if one has a passion for art, than it is his or her obligation to produce that art as a gift to society. Yet those who have said passions are living in fear of failure.
I myself aim to become a filmmaker. Creating stories has been a huge passion of mine since before puberty. This is in all details; its visuals, its storyline and its music in correlation with the emotions of particular scenarios in order to produce an intense feeling in the audience. However, this passion of mine is so deeply rooted that I began to realize I would have to do it all in order for it to come to life. That is, become a writer, director and a producer and somehow manage to get somewhere near the top in order to be noticed. With this realization during my teenage years, I lost all hope in pursuing it.
About a year ago, when I was twenty, I came to another realization. After praying long and hard about what God wanted me to do with my life for three steady years and receiving no answer, I realized he had already given me the answer. He made me with the heart and mind that I have and they obtain a strong passion for filmmaking as a means to express my art. That was my answer. It wasn’t a question of how incapable I am (very), how hard I have to work for it (alot) or the chances it will all work out (impossible). It was just a question of how God had made me and the passions he engraved in me. Regardless of what I can or cannot accomplish, anything can be done through him. I have decided to continue thinking that I cannot do it. The difference is, along with that thinking is the acknowledging that I will do more than my very best and with trust in God, his will will be done.
Still, after being on this road for so little time now, only being 21, the doubts of reality set in again. When I think about how many of my favorite artists never made it as far as they "thought" they would. But even in the midst’s of these doubts, God comforts me by telling me to shut up, work, and trust.
This is when I decided to get my first and only tattoo. I have wanted one for years but could never think of one to get. I was listening to a song by my favorite artist, Matt MacDonald of The Classic Crime, and was captured by some of the lyrics. Although the reason I decided to permanently engrave them onto my body may have been for different purposes than what the actual words in the song meant generally, I feel they subjectively apply perfectly. Those words are: "I will walk through the Fire, I will not be Afraid". The Classic Crime is a perfect example of what is demanded of art by the convictions their art has engraved on its listeners that has benefited society more than the band will ever fully know, sadly. I admire these men for fallowing, and succeeding in, their obligations and the gift they have given thousands of people. Those words proudly remain on me as a perpetual reminder that, although I know I am incapable, that it is going to be a long and hard road, that I will never live comfortably and that it may never come to life the way I want it to, as long as I work my best on it and trust in God, the outcome will be amazing and, more importantly, my life will be a happy one.
This is my obligation of Art...
In "The Good Will", part of Kant’s philosophy (sorry, I know i mention him alot, even though his philosophy has the most holes in it, I feel it is the closest one can get to thoroughly defining ways of life in absolute terms) he mentions an obligation, on our behalf, of giving to society what we subjectively can. This means, if one has a passion for helping people, their obligation would be to pursue that natural passion as a way of giving to the human race. Said ones would become nurses, doctors, or elderly care professionals. However, how many of us are so quick to shoot for those titles with the simple intent of being "secure" in life. Even if it contradicts ones actual passions. Granted, some are meant to become salesmen, finance specialists and so on, but how many of us settle for that when our passions are different? Just as a means of support and financial security....induced by fear.
This is where our subjective obligations set it. The obligation of art is strongly looked through as nothing in this world. This is because our world is set up so that those who enforce art for the society are less likely to be "safe" in terms of money and a secure life. It has induced a fear in many great people, with great potential, causing them to give into the "normal" life of dedicating themselves to giving to society in a completely different way. Yes, we need doctors and bankers, but I have met people with passions that correlate to those titles. What this world also needs is art. Art, whether it be through music or other entertainments, is the fuel for our hearts and souls. Our minds and the physicality’s of this world do matter, but we are nothing without steady and inspired hearts. Art gives this to us, courtesy of the artists who produce it. Kant states that if one has a passion for art, than it is his or her obligation to produce that art as a gift to society. Yet those who have said passions are living in fear of failure.
I myself aim to become a filmmaker. Creating stories has been a huge passion of mine since before puberty. This is in all details; its visuals, its storyline and its music in correlation with the emotions of particular scenarios in order to produce an intense feeling in the audience. However, this passion of mine is so deeply rooted that I began to realize I would have to do it all in order for it to come to life. That is, become a writer, director and a producer and somehow manage to get somewhere near the top in order to be noticed. With this realization during my teenage years, I lost all hope in pursuing it.
About a year ago, when I was twenty, I came to another realization. After praying long and hard about what God wanted me to do with my life for three steady years and receiving no answer, I realized he had already given me the answer. He made me with the heart and mind that I have and they obtain a strong passion for filmmaking as a means to express my art. That was my answer. It wasn’t a question of how incapable I am (very), how hard I have to work for it (alot) or the chances it will all work out (impossible). It was just a question of how God had made me and the passions he engraved in me. Regardless of what I can or cannot accomplish, anything can be done through him. I have decided to continue thinking that I cannot do it. The difference is, along with that thinking is the acknowledging that I will do more than my very best and with trust in God, his will will be done.
Still, after being on this road for so little time now, only being 21, the doubts of reality set in again. When I think about how many of my favorite artists never made it as far as they "thought" they would. But even in the midst’s of these doubts, God comforts me by telling me to shut up, work, and trust.
This is when I decided to get my first and only tattoo. I have wanted one for years but could never think of one to get. I was listening to a song by my favorite artist, Matt MacDonald of The Classic Crime, and was captured by some of the lyrics. Although the reason I decided to permanently engrave them onto my body may have been for different purposes than what the actual words in the song meant generally, I feel they subjectively apply perfectly. Those words are: "I will walk through the Fire, I will not be Afraid". The Classic Crime is a perfect example of what is demanded of art by the convictions their art has engraved on its listeners that has benefited society more than the band will ever fully know, sadly. I admire these men for fallowing, and succeeding in, their obligations and the gift they have given thousands of people. Those words proudly remain on me as a perpetual reminder that, although I know I am incapable, that it is going to be a long and hard road, that I will never live comfortably and that it may never come to life the way I want it to, as long as I work my best on it and trust in God, the outcome will be amazing and, more importantly, my life will be a happy one.
This is my obligation of Art...
Friday, January 28, 2011
Impairment
For all those who may unfortunately stumble across this note, what I have to say may not settle with you. For that I apologize, even though I have no problem expressing a truth. I just need to vent out my thoughts.
The purpose of this note is to express my understanding on impairment. For all those who don’t know what it means to be impaired or to impair, it means to diminish, damage, or weaken. To function poorly or incompetently. In today’s society and culture it has become not only normal but good to impair oneself. To impair our minds. We do this to "cool off", "relax" or my favorite, "loosen up". We do this through psychoactive drugs (drugs that alter and impair ones reasoning and judgment process). Under this category of drugs that act as impairers and distorters are drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, heroin, marijuana and more. If looked up, alcohol is the first substance listed under psychoactive drugs. DO NOT GET ME WRONG. There is nothing wrong with alcohol in and of itself (physically, socially or morally). In fact it is a blessing, much like talorham-egg-and cheese (love them!). It is a beverage and should be treated as such. However, the way we in society treat the concept of alcohol is so obviously wrong and yet even the best of men go blindly to it.
Alcohol is a gift (like everything else). It is a beverage with the purpose of being enjoyed, whether it be socially, personally or recreationally. I myself love the opportunity to sit down, relax, and enjoy a beer or two with a couple friends. However, the difference is I see it for what it is. A beverage to be enjoyed. I love apple juice, but I would never drink thirteen bottles of apple juice in one sitting. So why would I drink thirteen beers in one sitting. Its common sense. This with the assumption that I don’t have the intent of drinking retardedly excess amounts of a substance just to screw my head up. (which will be getting into the meat of my point next).
People have a lot of different definitions for the term "drunk". With the truth in this, one can almost say the truth in its definition is subjective. It's really not. Being "drunk" is to be in a state of mind that is not your own, normal. That is to say, when your mind is impaired, by means of substance, to the point where it has effected your rational thought process (the way you think), your judgment process and, in turn, your ability to thoroughly choose as a result, even in the slightest way. The reason, in science, that we have the classification of “psychoactive” drugs is so that we may distinguish between other drugs. Drugs such as caffeine or nicotine that act as “stimulants”. Stimulants are arousers and exciters. They, quite literally, stimulate the mind and in turn enhance ones physical well-being. “Psychoactive” drugs, on the other hand, are impairers. These are the drugs that Distort one’s mind. They impair ones reasoning and judgment process. Your reasoning and judgment is self-obtained through experiences and the lessons the individual has come to learn in their life. In them lies subjective and individualized strengths that enable us to have the ability to choose how we want to think, act and speak, regardless of social influences and how the individual may desire to think, speak or act. This defines free will. Being stimulated by caffeine is not the same as being impaired by a “psychoactive” drug. So when people list the steps to impairment by saying "happy, buzzed, tipsy, drunk, smashed", what they mean to say is "drunk, drunk, drunk, drunk and drunk". If you drink enough to effect the way you feel, think, speak, or act in the slightest way, (that is to say, if you are effected by alcohol in the slightest way) you are impaired and therefore you are drunk. Granted, there are different levels in impairment and therefore, different gravities. But just because something is less of a larger amount does not mean it holds no gravity. It just means it holds less. That’s like, (assuming one believes drugs to be immoral), saying that smoking crack is wrong but smoking weed is not, because it’s not as large of an effect. Obviously this is untrue. Just because the effect is less does not mean the gravity disappears all together. For the effect is what holds the gravity and by saying it’s just a little effect is the same as saying it’s just a little gravity, so treat it as such.
The physical, scientific, and moral truths on the matter are absolute. However, the obtaining of this state is strictly subjective. One might have a sip of wine and be flat out retarded whereas I would have to have several beers in order for it to have an effect on me. Both states are the same in that an effect has taken place and therefore hold the same amount of truth in terms of science, body and morality. However each state was obtained differently. If the one that becomes impaired by a sip of alcohol rightfully aims to not impair oneself, if necessary, that persons obligation would be to never have a sip of wine (or build up a tolerance so he or she can enjoy an alcoholic beverage every once in a while) ... and I never more than just a few beers to be safe. As for the reasons one might not want to impair one's self? Well it's quite obvious.
When you are impaired, as explained, your reasoning and judgment process has been damaged and distorted. This is not just a theory. It’s fact. You can find it in neuroscience (biology of the mind) under psychoactive drugs. Your reasoning and judgment allow you to act on those obtained strengths that give us the ability to choose to go against natural inclination. With those impaired and damaged you would find yourself thinking differently, speaking differently and acting differently then you normally would with these traits fully intact. You can’t deny this, the evidence is why we even have the word "drunk". (you act differently)
Therefore, when you are drunk, you are literally being a different person. One would commonly argue that drinking makes them more of who they are (it emphasizes their personality). But then again, we are defined by our strengths, not our inclinations. At the very core, we are all the same. We are all inclined to act on our pride, our desires, our selfishness and however else we desire or feel. What gets in the way of that? Our rational thought, our judgment process. The strengths we personally obtain to act against those inclinations are what makes us individuals and different from all the rest. With this, we have the ability to choose what we think, say or do, regardless of what we are inclined to do. It enables free will. You have the ability to not do what you want to do and to do what you do not want to do. When you are drunk, those strengths are damaged. Your rational and judgment processes are damaged. Therefore it impairs your free will. You no longer have as strong the ability to choose how you think, speak or act. You are just weaker and therefore it is easier to act more on your natural inclinations (your instinct). So when you are drunk, you are not more of who you are, you are less. You are more of an animal and more like everyone else. Why would you want to even do that in the smallest way. Unless you hate yourself and would rather be a shallow, unguarded, retarded machine. And even if so, can you honestly define it as objectively rite?
Its like putting your middle finger up to God and saying "F you and who you made me to be and who I have fought to become. I'm going to mindlessly drink much more of this stuff than is logically normal just so I can be different and act as if I have none of the strengths I, through your help, have obtained."
One could also argue that the only wrong, in excessive drinking, morally speaking, is the actions one commits while under the influence. This only more solidifies my point in that: why would you commit these “actions” unless you were drunk? But the actions, in and of themselves, hold their own moral gravity even in regards to the fact that one is intoxicated. The intent to intoxicate oneself is where the wrong originated and therefor it is the intoxicating that hold the moral gravity in and of itself. (Regardless of how ones actions are judged after that)
Because of these obvious truths, I don’t know what irritates me more. Those who just don’t care and drink however much they want no matter what... Or those who claim that they have an understanding that getting "drunk" (to their definition) is wrong but there is nothing wrong with getting a little bit buzzed or tipsy. (Like the example with smoking pot and doing a stronger drug) It is the Same thing. Just different levels of impairment. Obviously one can be more "wrong" than the other, but that does not mean a lower level of such holds no moral gravity. Why cant we just chill with our beer or two, our glass of wine, our mixed drink. Why does it have to be a goal to drink a lot more than anyone would normally if alcohol was not involved, just to damage and impair who you have grown to be. It’s sad. Not to say I have not had my fair share of "fun" and am without flaw when it comes to this matter in my personal life. But we all mess up. The difference is knowing an obvious wrong and trying against it, regardless of stupid past (and possibly present) mistakes.
It hurts to see GOOD people go so blindly to this without a care. Many of them my friends. They live for Christ and yet they insult him every week and think nothing of it. I have gotten to a point where it is hard to find a good person with mutual understandings of this issue involving morality. I am extremely blessed to have a couple of my best friends hold an understanding of this close to their hearts. But even so, in a world so large, with so many amazing people, most the time I feel alone in this. No matter where I turn; left, my friends from high school getting drunk and acting like jackasses; right, my family and my brothers having parties with the simple and insecure intent of getting together and getting wasted. Everywhere I turn I am let down and there is no hope for a good person to be found who understands this. That would be a great support. Even though, most every night i can, I have a beer or two with my two best friends who share this mutual support, it still for some reason is not enough to block out the hurt of being disappointed everywhere i turn with everyone I meet, have met, have known, am getting to know and am already friends with, blindly taking part in their shallow fun with no thought on it.
If anyone, and i mean anyone, has a mutual understanding on this matter, please comment below. Even though the matter itself is not such a massive one, the support would really help.....
The purpose of this note is to express my understanding on impairment. For all those who don’t know what it means to be impaired or to impair, it means to diminish, damage, or weaken. To function poorly or incompetently. In today’s society and culture it has become not only normal but good to impair oneself. To impair our minds. We do this to "cool off", "relax" or my favorite, "loosen up". We do this through psychoactive drugs (drugs that alter and impair ones reasoning and judgment process). Under this category of drugs that act as impairers and distorters are drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, heroin, marijuana and more. If looked up, alcohol is the first substance listed under psychoactive drugs. DO NOT GET ME WRONG. There is nothing wrong with alcohol in and of itself (physically, socially or morally). In fact it is a blessing, much like talorham-egg-and cheese (love them!). It is a beverage and should be treated as such. However, the way we in society treat the concept of alcohol is so obviously wrong and yet even the best of men go blindly to it.
Alcohol is a gift (like everything else). It is a beverage with the purpose of being enjoyed, whether it be socially, personally or recreationally. I myself love the opportunity to sit down, relax, and enjoy a beer or two with a couple friends. However, the difference is I see it for what it is. A beverage to be enjoyed. I love apple juice, but I would never drink thirteen bottles of apple juice in one sitting. So why would I drink thirteen beers in one sitting. Its common sense. This with the assumption that I don’t have the intent of drinking retardedly excess amounts of a substance just to screw my head up. (which will be getting into the meat of my point next).
People have a lot of different definitions for the term "drunk". With the truth in this, one can almost say the truth in its definition is subjective. It's really not. Being "drunk" is to be in a state of mind that is not your own, normal. That is to say, when your mind is impaired, by means of substance, to the point where it has effected your rational thought process (the way you think), your judgment process and, in turn, your ability to thoroughly choose as a result, even in the slightest way. The reason, in science, that we have the classification of “psychoactive” drugs is so that we may distinguish between other drugs. Drugs such as caffeine or nicotine that act as “stimulants”. Stimulants are arousers and exciters. They, quite literally, stimulate the mind and in turn enhance ones physical well-being. “Psychoactive” drugs, on the other hand, are impairers. These are the drugs that Distort one’s mind. They impair ones reasoning and judgment process. Your reasoning and judgment is self-obtained through experiences and the lessons the individual has come to learn in their life. In them lies subjective and individualized strengths that enable us to have the ability to choose how we want to think, act and speak, regardless of social influences and how the individual may desire to think, speak or act. This defines free will. Being stimulated by caffeine is not the same as being impaired by a “psychoactive” drug. So when people list the steps to impairment by saying "happy, buzzed, tipsy, drunk, smashed", what they mean to say is "drunk, drunk, drunk, drunk and drunk". If you drink enough to effect the way you feel, think, speak, or act in the slightest way, (that is to say, if you are effected by alcohol in the slightest way) you are impaired and therefore you are drunk. Granted, there are different levels in impairment and therefore, different gravities. But just because something is less of a larger amount does not mean it holds no gravity. It just means it holds less. That’s like, (assuming one believes drugs to be immoral), saying that smoking crack is wrong but smoking weed is not, because it’s not as large of an effect. Obviously this is untrue. Just because the effect is less does not mean the gravity disappears all together. For the effect is what holds the gravity and by saying it’s just a little effect is the same as saying it’s just a little gravity, so treat it as such.
The physical, scientific, and moral truths on the matter are absolute. However, the obtaining of this state is strictly subjective. One might have a sip of wine and be flat out retarded whereas I would have to have several beers in order for it to have an effect on me. Both states are the same in that an effect has taken place and therefore hold the same amount of truth in terms of science, body and morality. However each state was obtained differently. If the one that becomes impaired by a sip of alcohol rightfully aims to not impair oneself, if necessary, that persons obligation would be to never have a sip of wine (or build up a tolerance so he or she can enjoy an alcoholic beverage every once in a while) ... and I never more than just a few beers to be safe. As for the reasons one might not want to impair one's self? Well it's quite obvious.
When you are impaired, as explained, your reasoning and judgment process has been damaged and distorted. This is not just a theory. It’s fact. You can find it in neuroscience (biology of the mind) under psychoactive drugs. Your reasoning and judgment allow you to act on those obtained strengths that give us the ability to choose to go against natural inclination. With those impaired and damaged you would find yourself thinking differently, speaking differently and acting differently then you normally would with these traits fully intact. You can’t deny this, the evidence is why we even have the word "drunk". (you act differently)
Therefore, when you are drunk, you are literally being a different person. One would commonly argue that drinking makes them more of who they are (it emphasizes their personality). But then again, we are defined by our strengths, not our inclinations. At the very core, we are all the same. We are all inclined to act on our pride, our desires, our selfishness and however else we desire or feel. What gets in the way of that? Our rational thought, our judgment process. The strengths we personally obtain to act against those inclinations are what makes us individuals and different from all the rest. With this, we have the ability to choose what we think, say or do, regardless of what we are inclined to do. It enables free will. You have the ability to not do what you want to do and to do what you do not want to do. When you are drunk, those strengths are damaged. Your rational and judgment processes are damaged. Therefore it impairs your free will. You no longer have as strong the ability to choose how you think, speak or act. You are just weaker and therefore it is easier to act more on your natural inclinations (your instinct). So when you are drunk, you are not more of who you are, you are less. You are more of an animal and more like everyone else. Why would you want to even do that in the smallest way. Unless you hate yourself and would rather be a shallow, unguarded, retarded machine. And even if so, can you honestly define it as objectively rite?
Its like putting your middle finger up to God and saying "F you and who you made me to be and who I have fought to become. I'm going to mindlessly drink much more of this stuff than is logically normal just so I can be different and act as if I have none of the strengths I, through your help, have obtained."
One could also argue that the only wrong, in excessive drinking, morally speaking, is the actions one commits while under the influence. This only more solidifies my point in that: why would you commit these “actions” unless you were drunk? But the actions, in and of themselves, hold their own moral gravity even in regards to the fact that one is intoxicated. The intent to intoxicate oneself is where the wrong originated and therefor it is the intoxicating that hold the moral gravity in and of itself. (Regardless of how ones actions are judged after that)
Because of these obvious truths, I don’t know what irritates me more. Those who just don’t care and drink however much they want no matter what... Or those who claim that they have an understanding that getting "drunk" (to their definition) is wrong but there is nothing wrong with getting a little bit buzzed or tipsy. (Like the example with smoking pot and doing a stronger drug) It is the Same thing. Just different levels of impairment. Obviously one can be more "wrong" than the other, but that does not mean a lower level of such holds no moral gravity. Why cant we just chill with our beer or two, our glass of wine, our mixed drink. Why does it have to be a goal to drink a lot more than anyone would normally if alcohol was not involved, just to damage and impair who you have grown to be. It’s sad. Not to say I have not had my fair share of "fun" and am without flaw when it comes to this matter in my personal life. But we all mess up. The difference is knowing an obvious wrong and trying against it, regardless of stupid past (and possibly present) mistakes.
It hurts to see GOOD people go so blindly to this without a care. Many of them my friends. They live for Christ and yet they insult him every week and think nothing of it. I have gotten to a point where it is hard to find a good person with mutual understandings of this issue involving morality. I am extremely blessed to have a couple of my best friends hold an understanding of this close to their hearts. But even so, in a world so large, with so many amazing people, most the time I feel alone in this. No matter where I turn; left, my friends from high school getting drunk and acting like jackasses; right, my family and my brothers having parties with the simple and insecure intent of getting together and getting wasted. Everywhere I turn I am let down and there is no hope for a good person to be found who understands this. That would be a great support. Even though, most every night i can, I have a beer or two with my two best friends who share this mutual support, it still for some reason is not enough to block out the hurt of being disappointed everywhere i turn with everyone I meet, have met, have known, am getting to know and am already friends with, blindly taking part in their shallow fun with no thought on it.
If anyone, and i mean anyone, has a mutual understanding on this matter, please comment below. Even though the matter itself is not such a massive one, the support would really help.....
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
"Self"-Dependent World
We live in a self-dependent world. This meaning, everything we do, whether it be our actions, reactions, inclinations, desires, goals, words, ect..., is based off of selfishness. Why is that?
Have you ever talked to a man who said that if someone else punched him in the face, he would not hit them back? If so you are blessed. I myself pride my understandings on compassion that I would not. But that does not mean I am excluded from this "self-indulged" way of being. But there is a difference in realizing this truth and striving for it, and not giving a "shit" about it. (Which, come to think of it, is also pretty selfish.)
So many wrongs in this world are given birth to by selfishness (if not, kept alive by). Objectivity, treating people as a means for your own.... This is just one of many. Using people for your own selfish gain. This streches everywhere from playing the "friend" dispossition in order to simplify your life (such as car rides, access to necessary substances or tools, or even just taking advantage of someones generosity), to acting on lust in order to saticefy a "natural" inclination to express ones sexuality and desires (such as checking someone out, using objective terms to discribe someone soley focussed on their looks and/or body, or even engaging in shallow activity just for a sense of animal release). We use people all the time. We use our freinds to get what we want, we use our classmate to provide us with necessary musts in education, we men use woman as eye-candy to serve our animal inclinations and selfish cheap sexual gratifications, you women use men as objects as well to serve that same purpose, we use manipulation in order to obtain money or abuse someones kindness for our own selfish desires..... the list of objectivity goes on and on. The more its delved into, the sader it becomes.
Emotions and dispossitions can be a form of selfishness. Our goals and set acheivements we place in our days and lives are soley focussed on. We go throughout our days with little to no regard of other people. We are only set and focussed on what we have to do in order to get what we want. Our personal emotions are self-based. When we go through something, all that matters is what we are going through, no one else. We are so self involved with our troubles and how we feel that we dont even realize that the person you pass while walking or the person you sit next to in class is going through something ten times worse and the hurt is unbearable (when we, as other people, can do something to help that person). But all that matters is ourselves so no one is going to recieve any help or compassion from you, and you wont recieve any compassion or help from anyone else.
Pride is the root of selfishness (as well as being the root of many other destructive things). We are all naturally inclined to act and react on our pride. What people often fail to realize is that we are defined by our obtained strengths that oppose our natural inclinations. Men often pride themselves on the mentioning of a "definition" of a man (being of ego, pride, physical strength, a "dont F with' attitude). I am definately not excluded from this. But its become a sad thing to hear when someone says "Yeah, this dude picked a fight with me and I totally nailed him" or "Dude! this waiter was such a tool! we went outside and egged his car. Hell yea!". Is there anything more sad than that? Watching people express their failer in resisting the giving into said inclination because of pride, revenge or shallow laughs? There is no visible sight to mans greatest trait, compassion. No one takes into consideration the hurt of others. Hurt is a powerful thing. The physical hurt is not what is most deadly. The deadliest hurt lays in the heart, even though that hurt can be powerfully sparked by physical hurt as well. No one deserves to be hurt, even if that person is the one hurting. Can anyone honestly say that two getting hurt is better than one? So why then to we react on our pride? hurting those who hurt us? Maintaining a consistancey in the encouragement of hurting people?
Experiment: (This situation holds no moral "right or wrong" on the experimentees part. However, it involves strong matters of humility, compassion and heart). Imagine two men were to jump you in a random place at a random time and start pushing you around. They laugh and call you names as they begin to get more violent. Although you have the means to rightfully defend youself and "drop them", for the time being, it would appear that you are completey at their mercy. Yet they continue to brutally beet you down, all while laughing and calling you names. As opposed to choosing to continue being at their mercy, begging them to stop, pleading and taking the pain they dish out regardless, how many of you would fight back, defent yourself, use those means to "drop them" if available? And how many of you, with knowlege that you could "kick their asses", would choose to continue being at their mercy, continue to take their ongoing and painful beating without even throwing a punch? Even though the right (logically and morally) to defend yourself would be yours, there is a strong matter of compassion, humility and love that goes into these answers. The question could be rephrased like this: Would you take a severe beeting if it meant someone else not getting hurt? If you answer that with "But if he is the one beating me, he deserves it!" you are not getting my point and you do not have the heart you are supposed to try for. I dont think anyone deserves to be hurt. Just because someone might be hurting you, dose not make it kind, caring, compassionate and loving of you to cause hurt in them as well. So ask yourself these questions and other insane ones like them. It will help establish how you are and what goals of dispossition you are trying for. I for one have a goal of dispossition, Christ. I suck at it and am nowhere near it. But he is based off of complete and total love, humility and compassion. And therefore, I want to form myself to act and react as he would, recardless of "moral acceptings" and "rights".
Have you ever talked to a man who said that if someone else punched him in the face, he would not hit them back? If so you are blessed. I myself pride my understandings on compassion that I would not. But that does not mean I am excluded from this "self-indulged" way of being. But there is a difference in realizing this truth and striving for it, and not giving a "shit" about it. (Which, come to think of it, is also pretty selfish.)
So many wrongs in this world are given birth to by selfishness (if not, kept alive by). Objectivity, treating people as a means for your own.... This is just one of many. Using people for your own selfish gain. This streches everywhere from playing the "friend" dispossition in order to simplify your life (such as car rides, access to necessary substances or tools, or even just taking advantage of someones generosity), to acting on lust in order to saticefy a "natural" inclination to express ones sexuality and desires (such as checking someone out, using objective terms to discribe someone soley focussed on their looks and/or body, or even engaging in shallow activity just for a sense of animal release). We use people all the time. We use our freinds to get what we want, we use our classmate to provide us with necessary musts in education, we men use woman as eye-candy to serve our animal inclinations and selfish cheap sexual gratifications, you women use men as objects as well to serve that same purpose, we use manipulation in order to obtain money or abuse someones kindness for our own selfish desires..... the list of objectivity goes on and on. The more its delved into, the sader it becomes.
Emotions and dispossitions can be a form of selfishness. Our goals and set acheivements we place in our days and lives are soley focussed on. We go throughout our days with little to no regard of other people. We are only set and focussed on what we have to do in order to get what we want. Our personal emotions are self-based. When we go through something, all that matters is what we are going through, no one else. We are so self involved with our troubles and how we feel that we dont even realize that the person you pass while walking or the person you sit next to in class is going through something ten times worse and the hurt is unbearable (when we, as other people, can do something to help that person). But all that matters is ourselves so no one is going to recieve any help or compassion from you, and you wont recieve any compassion or help from anyone else.
Pride is the root of selfishness (as well as being the root of many other destructive things). We are all naturally inclined to act and react on our pride. What people often fail to realize is that we are defined by our obtained strengths that oppose our natural inclinations. Men often pride themselves on the mentioning of a "definition" of a man (being of ego, pride, physical strength, a "dont F with' attitude). I am definately not excluded from this. But its become a sad thing to hear when someone says "Yeah, this dude picked a fight with me and I totally nailed him" or "Dude! this waiter was such a tool! we went outside and egged his car. Hell yea!". Is there anything more sad than that? Watching people express their failer in resisting the giving into said inclination because of pride, revenge or shallow laughs? There is no visible sight to mans greatest trait, compassion. No one takes into consideration the hurt of others. Hurt is a powerful thing. The physical hurt is not what is most deadly. The deadliest hurt lays in the heart, even though that hurt can be powerfully sparked by physical hurt as well. No one deserves to be hurt, even if that person is the one hurting. Can anyone honestly say that two getting hurt is better than one? So why then to we react on our pride? hurting those who hurt us? Maintaining a consistancey in the encouragement of hurting people?
Experiment: (This situation holds no moral "right or wrong" on the experimentees part. However, it involves strong matters of humility, compassion and heart). Imagine two men were to jump you in a random place at a random time and start pushing you around. They laugh and call you names as they begin to get more violent. Although you have the means to rightfully defend youself and "drop them", for the time being, it would appear that you are completey at their mercy. Yet they continue to brutally beet you down, all while laughing and calling you names. As opposed to choosing to continue being at their mercy, begging them to stop, pleading and taking the pain they dish out regardless, how many of you would fight back, defent yourself, use those means to "drop them" if available? And how many of you, with knowlege that you could "kick their asses", would choose to continue being at their mercy, continue to take their ongoing and painful beating without even throwing a punch? Even though the right (logically and morally) to defend yourself would be yours, there is a strong matter of compassion, humility and love that goes into these answers. The question could be rephrased like this: Would you take a severe beeting if it meant someone else not getting hurt? If you answer that with "But if he is the one beating me, he deserves it!" you are not getting my point and you do not have the heart you are supposed to try for. I dont think anyone deserves to be hurt. Just because someone might be hurting you, dose not make it kind, caring, compassionate and loving of you to cause hurt in them as well. So ask yourself these questions and other insane ones like them. It will help establish how you are and what goals of dispossition you are trying for. I for one have a goal of dispossition, Christ. I suck at it and am nowhere near it. But he is based off of complete and total love, humility and compassion. And therefore, I want to form myself to act and react as he would, recardless of "moral acceptings" and "rights".
The Tangible Life
We live in a life of tangibility. Where everything represents that which is unseen. For the unseen is what is real and the tangibility of life is what we limited humans have to associate it with.
Christopher West once said our bodies are the tangible representatives of who we are. This meaning, we are defined by our personalities, our hearts, our minds and how we think. Unfortunately what defines us cannot be seen. We cannot see echothers personalities, minds and hearts in and of themselves. Our bodies, all being different, represents who we are as individuals. When you look at someone you are looking at their body, and you recognize them for who they are through their body. Our bodies are the tangible representatives of who we are. For without the body, we cannot see eachother, even though we are very much there. This brings the immorality of lust to light in a great way. When you look at someone, appreciating them for only their boby (checking them out), you do not aknowledge that that person has a name, has a personality, has a mind and train of thought, or has a heart to fall in love with. They are only bodies. Peices of meat that we use for our own cheap selfish sexual gratification. There is no greater insult than to imply that a human being is not a person... just an object.
Everything in our lives is built up of tangible representations. Love is complete oneness of mind, heart, and soul. That is what matters in love. But we cannot see that oneness even though it would absolutely be there. If who we are
(heart, mind, personality) is tangibly represented by our bodies, than how can we tangibly represent the invisibility of total human oneness (one mind, heart, and soul)? Sex is the tangible representative of love. You are tangibly expressing being one mind, one heart, and one soul, by being one body. Like being one heart and one soul, you are tangibly expressing total human connection by, quite litterally, being one body. If two are one mind, one heart, one soul, and one body, they are totally and permanantly committed to each other. For when something becomes one, it cannot become two again. And yet we abuse and mock this gift of being able to physically and tangibly express our love and total oneness by throwing it around as just another act for fun. As nothing but something to gain self-saticefying pleasure from. To love is to desire to be one with, to give up ones oneness and have two become one. It is self giving. But the way we treat love and sex is nothing but to take. To take our own selfish pleasure to saticefy our own desires.
To Be completely one with another means to be permanantly bonded to that other. For if you were one mind, no matter what fight, misunderstanding or change in dispossition, the other would be able to understand how it came to be so as to work or grow through it, and viceversa. If you were one heart, you would never have the desire to seperate those emotions that run parallel and one with eachother. No matter the emotional distress, the other would be able to understand that emotions disposition, and viceversa. If two were in love, they would never seperate for they are totally comitted to eachother. That total human comittment can very well be there, but like our personalities, it cannot be tangibly seen. Marrage is the tangible represenative of total human commitment.
If two were in love, they would be one heart, one mind and one soul. In this way, they would be totally and permanantly commited to each other. Sex is the tangible represenative of total oneness. Therefore two should not rightfully have sex if they are not representing a complete oneness between eachother. And if there is a complete oneness between eachother, they are totally and permanantly commited to echother. So, like we need sex to tangibly express that oneness (because we as humans are flawed enough to need tangibility to be absolutely sure of that love and that oneness), we also must need marrage to tangibly represent that total human commitment (because we as humans are flawed enough to need tangibility to be absolutely sure of that truth of commitment).
We live in a tangible life. If we need tangibility in some things, than dont pretent we dont need tangibility in all things.
Christopher West once said our bodies are the tangible representatives of who we are. This meaning, we are defined by our personalities, our hearts, our minds and how we think. Unfortunately what defines us cannot be seen. We cannot see echothers personalities, minds and hearts in and of themselves. Our bodies, all being different, represents who we are as individuals. When you look at someone you are looking at their body, and you recognize them for who they are through their body. Our bodies are the tangible representatives of who we are. For without the body, we cannot see eachother, even though we are very much there. This brings the immorality of lust to light in a great way. When you look at someone, appreciating them for only their boby (checking them out), you do not aknowledge that that person has a name, has a personality, has a mind and train of thought, or has a heart to fall in love with. They are only bodies. Peices of meat that we use for our own cheap selfish sexual gratification. There is no greater insult than to imply that a human being is not a person... just an object.
Everything in our lives is built up of tangible representations. Love is complete oneness of mind, heart, and soul. That is what matters in love. But we cannot see that oneness even though it would absolutely be there. If who we are
(heart, mind, personality) is tangibly represented by our bodies, than how can we tangibly represent the invisibility of total human oneness (one mind, heart, and soul)? Sex is the tangible representative of love. You are tangibly expressing being one mind, one heart, and one soul, by being one body. Like being one heart and one soul, you are tangibly expressing total human connection by, quite litterally, being one body. If two are one mind, one heart, one soul, and one body, they are totally and permanantly committed to each other. For when something becomes one, it cannot become two again. And yet we abuse and mock this gift of being able to physically and tangibly express our love and total oneness by throwing it around as just another act for fun. As nothing but something to gain self-saticefying pleasure from. To love is to desire to be one with, to give up ones oneness and have two become one. It is self giving. But the way we treat love and sex is nothing but to take. To take our own selfish pleasure to saticefy our own desires.
To Be completely one with another means to be permanantly bonded to that other. For if you were one mind, no matter what fight, misunderstanding or change in dispossition, the other would be able to understand how it came to be so as to work or grow through it, and viceversa. If you were one heart, you would never have the desire to seperate those emotions that run parallel and one with eachother. No matter the emotional distress, the other would be able to understand that emotions disposition, and viceversa. If two were in love, they would never seperate for they are totally comitted to eachother. That total human comittment can very well be there, but like our personalities, it cannot be tangibly seen. Marrage is the tangible represenative of total human commitment.
If two were in love, they would be one heart, one mind and one soul. In this way, they would be totally and permanantly commited to each other. Sex is the tangible represenative of total oneness. Therefore two should not rightfully have sex if they are not representing a complete oneness between eachother. And if there is a complete oneness between eachother, they are totally and permanantly commited to echother. So, like we need sex to tangibly express that oneness (because we as humans are flawed enough to need tangibility to be absolutely sure of that love and that oneness), we also must need marrage to tangibly represent that total human commitment (because we as humans are flawed enough to need tangibility to be absolutely sure of that truth of commitment).
We live in a tangible life. If we need tangibility in some things, than dont pretent we dont need tangibility in all things.
Truth vs. Philosophy
"If God is everything, than everything can be found through God."
We live in a world that demands absolute definitive ways of life and morality. This is where philosophies came into being. Philosophies are stated absolute definitive ways of life and morality. They are our flawed human ways of trying to make sense of truth and state it. But unfortunately, being flawed human beings, we cannot define these ways of right and wrong in absolute terms. (Absolute meaning applying to all....such as “maxims”). A common maxim known to society these days is “Just do it”. The phrase acts as an encouragement. But to consider it an absolute, (a maxim), would be very foolish. I can think of more situations in which fallowing that maxim would be a terrible idea than situations where it would be a good idea. I believe the absolute use of maxims to be a foolish way of living, for it leaves no room for exception from case to case and one can end up doing the opposite then was intended by blindly fallowing said maxim.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t absolute objective truths. It's just that, being human, we cannot define them in absolute ways (chalk them out for everybody). That is to say, we can know and understand truths but we cannot give definitive absolute answers to the truth in ways of right or wrong because the reasons for those answers cannot apply to everything. There is a “correct” philosophy of life, but we as flawed human cannot define it in absolutes.... That would put us on the same level of God (the ultimate representative of Truth). But we have the privilege of seeking understanding in that philosophy as we go through life.
There is a right and wrong way of life. Those rights and wrongs can be found and understood (the answers can be found) but we cannot define those answers in absolute terms. Philosophy attempts to. Here is a small example. I am going to give you two situations, both are the same situation, but both have different answers in truth:
-------Would it be right to x-immorality (kill an innocent man) --If it meant saving 100 men from dying?
If thought about (or prayed about) enough, one would come to an understanding that the answer is "no"
-------Would it be right to y-immorality (lie to an innocent man) --If it meant saving 100 lives?
If thought about (or prayed about) enough, one would come to an understanding that the answer is "yes"
Now, regardless of the truth in these answers, your reason for the first answer would be because it is never ok to take an innocent life -That is: regardless of the intent, reasoning, or outcome, the act in and of itself is still wrong. (That would be the maxim applied to the moral reasoning in this situation). And keep in mind that if something is to be considered a “maxim”, it must be fallowed in all situations it can be applied to.
So if you were going to define that reason in absolute terms (as a maxim), you would have to apply it to both situations (because they are the same) and yet they have different answers. You would have to say no to lying because regardless of intent, reasoning, or outcome, the act in and of itself is wrong. And yet you know the correct answer is yes.......?
You know that those answers are truth but you cannot define why in absolute terms because both answers differ. This is what philosophy tries at. They try to define write and wrong, concepts of life and morality in absolute terms. They do this because we, as humans, know that there is a truth so why can’t we define it. What we don’t understand is that in being human, we are flawed. Therefore we cannot perfectly define these truths in absolute definitive ways, even though those truths do exist.
Philosophies demand an absolute yes or no. That is to say, the way philosophies are thought out, they are presented in such a way where it demands all of your agreeing rather than just part. No one realizes that no human maintained philosophy is without its contradictions and its flaws if drawn out in absolutes. No one can put themselves on the same level as God, but we have the blessing of being able to strive for him and come to more of an understanding on truth as we grow.
Take Kant's Philosophy on absolute moral rules for example. It is an excellent philosophy, but when dug deep enough into, it has its contradictions and flaws. He acknowledges the existence of absolute morals. However, he is mistaken when he tries to define them. According to Kant, lying is an absolute moral rule. (He would be mistaken if he said it was not) but he is also mistaken by saying it is. If a band of soldiers knocked on your door and asked if you knew where any Jews were (during the time of their persecution) and you were hiding a family in your basement, you would obviously realize the moral thing to do is lie and say no. However, Kant says that is immoral. He says that lying is an absolute moral rule because regardless of intent, reasoning and outcome, the act in and of itself (lying) is still wrong. Therefore it was immoral of you to lie in that situation. It is a great philosophy to learn from and take reference to (much like religion) but the ideas it proposes cannot be drawn out so perfectly by our mere mortal human minds. And yet killing an innocent man is, rightfully, considered to be an absolute moral rule?
There are absolute moral rules but we cannot define them (as we try) because we are incapable. You should never kill an innocent man. That is an absolute moral. I acknowledge that. But by saying that, I must also agree that all morals are absolute because of the reason (the maxim I would apply) a moral would be absolute. So how can I believe that killing innocence is an absolute immorality and not believe lying is an absolute immorality? Believe some morals are absolute but others are not? If the reason for a moral to be absolute (regardless of reason, intent and outcome, the act in and of itself is still wrong) demands a correlation with all other morals? This confused me for quite some time. But then I realized my confusion was the answer. I know of absolute objective truths but I am incapable of defining them.
This leads me to say that one can always find the truth of right or wrong in any situation and understand it but no one can give an absolute definitive reason for it (apply a maxim). Its like trying to definitively explain Faith, when the whole meaning of faith is striving to understand that which cannot be fully and absolutely explained or proved. It does not mean its not truth...It just means I cannot define it in absolutes because I am incapable.
Religions are philosophies. You might find that most religions would say lying is a sin. Now that is true generally speaking, but that cannot be defined as an absolute (I would never think it was a moral thing to do to say yes to those soldiers. In fact, it would be immoral of me to be truthful). Religions are well thought out definitive absolutes in concepts of life and morality. Therefore, if fallowed wrongly, in order to be "labeled" as having a particular religion, you have to agree and fallow it to its very core. What most religious people don’t understand is that, in doing so, you are encouraging a dictation, and as a result, you are nothing but a slave to what others have told you to be true. As a result, one would obtain the stubborn belief that their religion is the only right there is (involving God). That isn’t to say that there are no truths in religion. Religion holds more truth than any other type of philosophy. But in order to have a belief, you have to believe it for reason, not just because of nurture, environment or dictation. Otherwise, the person who is raised atheist has is “right” in believing what he or she does just because that is how they were raised. But, fortunately, we all have the ability to seek for truth and find it, regardless of nurture or environment. This defines Faith and its power over Religion alone (see note: “Faith vs. Religion”). However, if fallowed and used correctly, Religion is a great guideline because it sums up truths but they are not the start of truth. You do not need a religion to define what is right and wrong (however accurate it may be) because, unlike religion, truth in right and wrong has always exited. God did not just make up rules and hand them out. He gave them to us as summed up conclusive points to understandings in truths regarding right and wrong. Truth came before religion and the rules.
This leads me to again say: If God is everything, than everything can be found through God.
This means that regardless of religious teachings, one can always find the truth through God and God alone, for the truth existed before the presenting of the rules. I am a Catholic because I find that particular religion most helpful (most correct) to refer to as a guide for my Faith (my striving to understand and try for truth). In all the understandings I have come to and am still trying for sometimes it’s great to have that religion to look to when I forget one. All I have to do is look at Catholicism’s conclusive point and stance on the matter and I will remember the understandings I have come to on that matter by methods of Faith. This goes to show that religion (however helpful and important) is not necessarily "necessary" to find and understand truth.... only God is, and everything can be found through him because he is everything.
We live in a world that demands absolute definitive ways of life and morality. This is where philosophies came into being. Philosophies are stated absolute definitive ways of life and morality. They are our flawed human ways of trying to make sense of truth and state it. But unfortunately, being flawed human beings, we cannot define these ways of right and wrong in absolute terms. (Absolute meaning applying to all....such as “maxims”). A common maxim known to society these days is “Just do it”. The phrase acts as an encouragement. But to consider it an absolute, (a maxim), would be very foolish. I can think of more situations in which fallowing that maxim would be a terrible idea than situations where it would be a good idea. I believe the absolute use of maxims to be a foolish way of living, for it leaves no room for exception from case to case and one can end up doing the opposite then was intended by blindly fallowing said maxim.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t absolute objective truths. It's just that, being human, we cannot define them in absolute ways (chalk them out for everybody). That is to say, we can know and understand truths but we cannot give definitive absolute answers to the truth in ways of right or wrong because the reasons for those answers cannot apply to everything. There is a “correct” philosophy of life, but we as flawed human cannot define it in absolutes.... That would put us on the same level of God (the ultimate representative of Truth). But we have the privilege of seeking understanding in that philosophy as we go through life.
There is a right and wrong way of life. Those rights and wrongs can be found and understood (the answers can be found) but we cannot define those answers in absolute terms. Philosophy attempts to. Here is a small example. I am going to give you two situations, both are the same situation, but both have different answers in truth:
-------Would it be right to x-immorality (kill an innocent man) --If it meant saving 100 men from dying?
If thought about (or prayed about) enough, one would come to an understanding that the answer is "no"
-------Would it be right to y-immorality (lie to an innocent man) --If it meant saving 100 lives?
If thought about (or prayed about) enough, one would come to an understanding that the answer is "yes"
Now, regardless of the truth in these answers, your reason for the first answer would be because it is never ok to take an innocent life -That is: regardless of the intent, reasoning, or outcome, the act in and of itself is still wrong. (That would be the maxim applied to the moral reasoning in this situation). And keep in mind that if something is to be considered a “maxim”, it must be fallowed in all situations it can be applied to.
So if you were going to define that reason in absolute terms (as a maxim), you would have to apply it to both situations (because they are the same) and yet they have different answers. You would have to say no to lying because regardless of intent, reasoning, or outcome, the act in and of itself is wrong. And yet you know the correct answer is yes.......?
You know that those answers are truth but you cannot define why in absolute terms because both answers differ. This is what philosophy tries at. They try to define write and wrong, concepts of life and morality in absolute terms. They do this because we, as humans, know that there is a truth so why can’t we define it. What we don’t understand is that in being human, we are flawed. Therefore we cannot perfectly define these truths in absolute definitive ways, even though those truths do exist.
Philosophies demand an absolute yes or no. That is to say, the way philosophies are thought out, they are presented in such a way where it demands all of your agreeing rather than just part. No one realizes that no human maintained philosophy is without its contradictions and its flaws if drawn out in absolutes. No one can put themselves on the same level as God, but we have the blessing of being able to strive for him and come to more of an understanding on truth as we grow.
Take Kant's Philosophy on absolute moral rules for example. It is an excellent philosophy, but when dug deep enough into, it has its contradictions and flaws. He acknowledges the existence of absolute morals. However, he is mistaken when he tries to define them. According to Kant, lying is an absolute moral rule. (He would be mistaken if he said it was not) but he is also mistaken by saying it is. If a band of soldiers knocked on your door and asked if you knew where any Jews were (during the time of their persecution) and you were hiding a family in your basement, you would obviously realize the moral thing to do is lie and say no. However, Kant says that is immoral. He says that lying is an absolute moral rule because regardless of intent, reasoning and outcome, the act in and of itself (lying) is still wrong. Therefore it was immoral of you to lie in that situation. It is a great philosophy to learn from and take reference to (much like religion) but the ideas it proposes cannot be drawn out so perfectly by our mere mortal human minds. And yet killing an innocent man is, rightfully, considered to be an absolute moral rule?
There are absolute moral rules but we cannot define them (as we try) because we are incapable. You should never kill an innocent man. That is an absolute moral. I acknowledge that. But by saying that, I must also agree that all morals are absolute because of the reason (the maxim I would apply) a moral would be absolute. So how can I believe that killing innocence is an absolute immorality and not believe lying is an absolute immorality? Believe some morals are absolute but others are not? If the reason for a moral to be absolute (regardless of reason, intent and outcome, the act in and of itself is still wrong) demands a correlation with all other morals? This confused me for quite some time. But then I realized my confusion was the answer. I know of absolute objective truths but I am incapable of defining them.
This leads me to say that one can always find the truth of right or wrong in any situation and understand it but no one can give an absolute definitive reason for it (apply a maxim). Its like trying to definitively explain Faith, when the whole meaning of faith is striving to understand that which cannot be fully and absolutely explained or proved. It does not mean its not truth...It just means I cannot define it in absolutes because I am incapable.
Religions are philosophies. You might find that most religions would say lying is a sin. Now that is true generally speaking, but that cannot be defined as an absolute (I would never think it was a moral thing to do to say yes to those soldiers. In fact, it would be immoral of me to be truthful). Religions are well thought out definitive absolutes in concepts of life and morality. Therefore, if fallowed wrongly, in order to be "labeled" as having a particular religion, you have to agree and fallow it to its very core. What most religious people don’t understand is that, in doing so, you are encouraging a dictation, and as a result, you are nothing but a slave to what others have told you to be true. As a result, one would obtain the stubborn belief that their religion is the only right there is (involving God). That isn’t to say that there are no truths in religion. Religion holds more truth than any other type of philosophy. But in order to have a belief, you have to believe it for reason, not just because of nurture, environment or dictation. Otherwise, the person who is raised atheist has is “right” in believing what he or she does just because that is how they were raised. But, fortunately, we all have the ability to seek for truth and find it, regardless of nurture or environment. This defines Faith and its power over Religion alone (see note: “Faith vs. Religion”). However, if fallowed and used correctly, Religion is a great guideline because it sums up truths but they are not the start of truth. You do not need a religion to define what is right and wrong (however accurate it may be) because, unlike religion, truth in right and wrong has always exited. God did not just make up rules and hand them out. He gave them to us as summed up conclusive points to understandings in truths regarding right and wrong. Truth came before religion and the rules.
This leads me to again say: If God is everything, than everything can be found through God.
This means that regardless of religious teachings, one can always find the truth through God and God alone, for the truth existed before the presenting of the rules. I am a Catholic because I find that particular religion most helpful (most correct) to refer to as a guide for my Faith (my striving to understand and try for truth). In all the understandings I have come to and am still trying for sometimes it’s great to have that religion to look to when I forget one. All I have to do is look at Catholicism’s conclusive point and stance on the matter and I will remember the understandings I have come to on that matter by methods of Faith. This goes to show that religion (however helpful and important) is not necessarily "necessary" to find and understand truth.... only God is, and everything can be found through him because he is everything.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Faith vs. Religion
-The purpose of this note is to discuss the objectivity of Faith and the subjectivity of Religion.
The reason for these writings is to bring light to the persecution of faithful people because of their particular religion rather than their striving for God and truth.
If you are the type of religious person who holds on more strong to that religion than anything else then this note is not for you. That is to say, if you follow the rules that you have been told to fallow regarding religion without fully understanding why and as a result end up shoving rules and beliefs down others throats with no explanation and somehow acquiring the belief that all those who do not fallow that particular religion are pretty much screwed, please do not read this (your stubborn mind won't hear what is trying to be said)...
However, if you are the type of religious person who holds more strong to God than anything else and rightly uses their religion as a guide for their Faith, than you might find what is going to be said agreeable...
Now don't get me wrong. I am a proud and dedicated Catholic and I love that particular religion of mine. I find it to be a great help in my personal walk with God (my Faith). The tools it presents are very helpful. But that's just it. It is a guide for my Faith. It is A frame for THE picture, it is MY walking stick for my walk with Christ. It is secondary to my Faith and in that way it is subjective.
I grew up a strong Catholic. Learning all the "rules"(morals), all the teachings, all the stories and all that fun stuff. I now understand those “rules” to be “truth”. But what I was also raised to believe is that Catholicism was the only and best way to get to Christ and everyone else who differed was wrong. So for eighteen years of my life I followed the rules, went to church and recited my prayers. But that was just it. They were just rules for me to stubbornly fallow blindly. If you blindly fallow something without understanding it through and through, eventually, you WILL crack. When I was eighteen I had the blessing of getting out of the "American Bubble" or "The Box" as some people would call it. I went half way across the world away from the distractions of my life and the people in my life for several months. There, i had the opportunity to pray and think a lot. During this time I put everything I had been raised to believe aside until I was empty. Then I would think for myself. I would come to an understanding of truths through this. Whether they were morals (rules), beliefs, concepts of life, or virtues, I would come to an understanding in most all of them without using my "Religion" as a reference. Those morals I used to fallow as "rules" are no longer rules. They are an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. All those empty words and teachings about Love and Humility that I used to sit through are no longer just words. They are an understanding of how to live.
I did (and am still trying for) this all by taking the time out to think of these aspects and how they make sense. I literally found the truth in everything. My beliefs were no longer what I have been forced to believe growing up, they were MY beliefs and the truths I had come to know. Some things took me a few minutes, some things took me a few months and some things I have yet to find the truth in. But if I thought about it enough, and if I talked to God about it enough, I eventually came to a complete understanding on everything. That is when i learned what "Prayer" is. It is not sitting down a reciting a poem. It is sitting down and talking to God as if he were your best friend sitting next to you.
I had established my Faith.
Faith is objective. There is only one true way of life and morality. There is only one truth and many truths in that truth. There is no subjectivity to what “is”. There is one necessity to growing deeper in your faith. That is prayer (sitting and talking to God). If you do that enough, you will come to an understanding of those truths involving life and morality no matter what the differences are in them between religions. If you continuously strive for your Faith, you will come to the same and only true conclusions.... regardless of what tools you use to help you along the way. I personally love the concept of the Eucharist. I find the use of that tool extremely helpful in my Faith. But some people would say that if someone doesn't believe in the Eucharist, they can never be as close to God in life (if they don't believe, they are wrong). So someone may read the Bible every day because that tool helps them with their faith, but I don't. Does that mean i can never be as "good" or "holy" as that person? Just because I don't find reading the Bible to be helpful in my Faith and instead i use other tools? .... Regardless of what specific religion you fallow, if you are working on your Faith right (searching for those truths and living them), that is ALL that matters.
One cannot exist without the other. Religion cannot exist without Faith. And yet, we flawed beings manage it. We cling to the guides more than we cling to the reason for the guides... God. Religion has separated us from each other and in turn, from God. Most "religious" people fallow the teachings of their religion and the rules that company it without a "life's point of view" understanding of it all. They cannot see or understand the truth involved with them. As a result, we end up persecuting those with a different layout of religion. We are all so focused on religion that most people forget the reason for it, God. Now we have all these stubborn, "shove it down your throats" religious people that when asked for a reason and why, all they have to say is "because God says so" or "because the church teaches it" with no real convincing reason (They may have their Religion, but they have no faith to base it off of). As a result of that they give the concept of believing in God a bad name and turn people off to trying with their Faith.
Now we have prejudices between denominations and lack of denominations. Its like going to the art show and criticizing the frames not being of a particular color or design. We forget to look at the one objectively absolute picture it is holding. As long as the frame fits and holds that same picture, there is nothing wrong. Its like looking over at someone else on their walk with God and persecuting him for using a blue walking stick instead of the red cane you are using... when that person could very well be further in his walk with God than you are.
There was a man that said he practices Buddhism because it brings him closer to Christ. If he is moving closer to Christ then he is moving closer to establishing truth in all aspects. So what he uses to help him in that journey to Christ (Buddhism) does not matter on an objective scale.
The differences in the tools that people use between different religions do not matter. The differences between the rules and moral issues between religions are important. There is only one right answer. That can be found and understood, regardless of what religion you may fallow. It would be foolish for someone to have a belief on a moral issue without knowing why (just because their religion says so). Well, you may be wrong. There is a reason concepts of morality differ between religions. They cant all be right. There is only one truth.
I refuse to believe that our loving God would think ANYTHING of the technicalities of our “religions” as long as our Faith (truth) is being practiced and followed, as long as our relationship with him is tried for, ect…..
Faith is objective (There is only one true way of life and morality and understanding). Religion (how we help ourselves obtain that Faith)(our walking stick) is subjective.
To all those who are dedicated to their religion and using it as a guide and a help for their "all more important" Faith, I admire you. For the rest of you 98% of "religious" people..... get some God... I promise you, everything will make more sense and you will be a whole lot happier.
The reason for these writings is to bring light to the persecution of faithful people because of their particular religion rather than their striving for God and truth.
If you are the type of religious person who holds on more strong to that religion than anything else then this note is not for you. That is to say, if you follow the rules that you have been told to fallow regarding religion without fully understanding why and as a result end up shoving rules and beliefs down others throats with no explanation and somehow acquiring the belief that all those who do not fallow that particular religion are pretty much screwed, please do not read this (your stubborn mind won't hear what is trying to be said)...
However, if you are the type of religious person who holds more strong to God than anything else and rightly uses their religion as a guide for their Faith, than you might find what is going to be said agreeable...
Now don't get me wrong. I am a proud and dedicated Catholic and I love that particular religion of mine. I find it to be a great help in my personal walk with God (my Faith). The tools it presents are very helpful. But that's just it. It is a guide for my Faith. It is A frame for THE picture, it is MY walking stick for my walk with Christ. It is secondary to my Faith and in that way it is subjective.
I grew up a strong Catholic. Learning all the "rules"(morals), all the teachings, all the stories and all that fun stuff. I now understand those “rules” to be “truth”. But what I was also raised to believe is that Catholicism was the only and best way to get to Christ and everyone else who differed was wrong. So for eighteen years of my life I followed the rules, went to church and recited my prayers. But that was just it. They were just rules for me to stubbornly fallow blindly. If you blindly fallow something without understanding it through and through, eventually, you WILL crack. When I was eighteen I had the blessing of getting out of the "American Bubble" or "The Box" as some people would call it. I went half way across the world away from the distractions of my life and the people in my life for several months. There, i had the opportunity to pray and think a lot. During this time I put everything I had been raised to believe aside until I was empty. Then I would think for myself. I would come to an understanding of truths through this. Whether they were morals (rules), beliefs, concepts of life, or virtues, I would come to an understanding in most all of them without using my "Religion" as a reference. Those morals I used to fallow as "rules" are no longer rules. They are an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. All those empty words and teachings about Love and Humility that I used to sit through are no longer just words. They are an understanding of how to live.
I did (and am still trying for) this all by taking the time out to think of these aspects and how they make sense. I literally found the truth in everything. My beliefs were no longer what I have been forced to believe growing up, they were MY beliefs and the truths I had come to know. Some things took me a few minutes, some things took me a few months and some things I have yet to find the truth in. But if I thought about it enough, and if I talked to God about it enough, I eventually came to a complete understanding on everything. That is when i learned what "Prayer" is. It is not sitting down a reciting a poem. It is sitting down and talking to God as if he were your best friend sitting next to you.
I had established my Faith.
Faith is objective. There is only one true way of life and morality. There is only one truth and many truths in that truth. There is no subjectivity to what “is”. There is one necessity to growing deeper in your faith. That is prayer (sitting and talking to God). If you do that enough, you will come to an understanding of those truths involving life and morality no matter what the differences are in them between religions. If you continuously strive for your Faith, you will come to the same and only true conclusions.... regardless of what tools you use to help you along the way. I personally love the concept of the Eucharist. I find the use of that tool extremely helpful in my Faith. But some people would say that if someone doesn't believe in the Eucharist, they can never be as close to God in life (if they don't believe, they are wrong). So someone may read the Bible every day because that tool helps them with their faith, but I don't. Does that mean i can never be as "good" or "holy" as that person? Just because I don't find reading the Bible to be helpful in my Faith and instead i use other tools? .... Regardless of what specific religion you fallow, if you are working on your Faith right (searching for those truths and living them), that is ALL that matters.
One cannot exist without the other. Religion cannot exist without Faith. And yet, we flawed beings manage it. We cling to the guides more than we cling to the reason for the guides... God. Religion has separated us from each other and in turn, from God. Most "religious" people fallow the teachings of their religion and the rules that company it without a "life's point of view" understanding of it all. They cannot see or understand the truth involved with them. As a result, we end up persecuting those with a different layout of religion. We are all so focused on religion that most people forget the reason for it, God. Now we have all these stubborn, "shove it down your throats" religious people that when asked for a reason and why, all they have to say is "because God says so" or "because the church teaches it" with no real convincing reason (They may have their Religion, but they have no faith to base it off of). As a result of that they give the concept of believing in God a bad name and turn people off to trying with their Faith.
Now we have prejudices between denominations and lack of denominations. Its like going to the art show and criticizing the frames not being of a particular color or design. We forget to look at the one objectively absolute picture it is holding. As long as the frame fits and holds that same picture, there is nothing wrong. Its like looking over at someone else on their walk with God and persecuting him for using a blue walking stick instead of the red cane you are using... when that person could very well be further in his walk with God than you are.
There was a man that said he practices Buddhism because it brings him closer to Christ. If he is moving closer to Christ then he is moving closer to establishing truth in all aspects. So what he uses to help him in that journey to Christ (Buddhism) does not matter on an objective scale.
The differences in the tools that people use between different religions do not matter. The differences between the rules and moral issues between religions are important. There is only one right answer. That can be found and understood, regardless of what religion you may fallow. It would be foolish for someone to have a belief on a moral issue without knowing why (just because their religion says so). Well, you may be wrong. There is a reason concepts of morality differ between religions. They cant all be right. There is only one truth.
I refuse to believe that our loving God would think ANYTHING of the technicalities of our “religions” as long as our Faith (truth) is being practiced and followed, as long as our relationship with him is tried for, ect…..
Faith is objective (There is only one true way of life and morality and understanding). Religion (how we help ourselves obtain that Faith)(our walking stick) is subjective.
To all those who are dedicated to their religion and using it as a guide and a help for their "all more important" Faith, I admire you. For the rest of you 98% of "religious" people..... get some God... I promise you, everything will make more sense and you will be a whole lot happier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)