That’s About Humanity’s Dignity

Yay! Pop-art!

Someone saw this picture being the wallpaper of my phone and just said: "Yeah, but he actually isn't." That is a misunderstanding.

Descartes identified something self-evident in this statement. If I think, then it cannot be that I do not exist--to put it differently. But then, we can see that the man on the picture is really not there. His place is indicated but he's absent. However, that's the point: it is possible for everything to not be as it is, yet, as long as I think, I exist. And there's obviously no need to prove that because it's a trivial truth. If the man thinks, his existence cannot be doubted, even when it would seem that he doesn't exist.

But there's more!

Granted that if I think, then I am, everything else is contingent. And this image is smartly implying that regardless of the appearances, if and as long as I think, I am.

St. Thomas Acquinas said that everything is perfect that is. It is so because perfection is the most or ultimately desired state of a being. And for every being the most desirable is to be, ergo when something is, then it is perfect. But that perfection stands only inasmuch as something exists. Which means that every human being is a perfect human being.

What's not so easy to see in this, is that while every human being is a perfect human being, it applies only to their beings. So it's easy to understand that every person, not depending on their skin color or culture or language, realizes in their existence the perfection of human existence, that only leads to the conclusion that only in the fact that people exist are they perfect. That means that their actions may be imperfect, just the same, and that would not invalidate the thesis that they are perfect.

In summary, every human being, just because they are, realize the perfection that can describe a human being. So there are no inferior and superior people. Equality is thus, by the nature of things, granted, and any inequality, originating in the imperfection of one, is an illusion. However, that does in no way lead us to the conclusion that the content of any being is perfect. It is false romanticizing and a logical fallacy. Equality is naturally given because everybody fulfils the perfection conveyed in human existence but that is exactly how far equality can be talked of and anything beyond that line will not really be in relation to equality.

I'm glad that even as simple as a wallpaper can have meaning.

Waiting is hard but it's better than having nothing to look forward to.

An Open Letter to TFioS

Dear TFioS,

I got you for Christmas and I watched you in the movie-theater last Saturday and I like you. I like you but that doesn’t mean I don’t have something to say to you.

Of course your unorthodox and irreverent plot is refreshing and it really talks to people in many ways. This is somehing that people are craving—what I personally am craving and thank you for being this way. A book review said that you are “damn near genius” and you are so. It sounds like a huge compliment (one that I’ve never received, so I sort of envy you for it) but this isn’t the greatest one, which would be:”it’s genius”. John Green is made of awesome and so are you, TFioS, still, neither of you are made of genius. Let me elaborate:

#1: Is the fault really in our stars? John Rawls would probably congratulate you on the fine point you have made about how nature is creating random inequality and unfairness. What mindless animal would one have to be to say that it is fair what Hazel and Gus went through, none of it out of their own making or desert? Their example—and the title really—shows what a great fault there is in what our lot is in life. It would have been fair if Hazel and Gus’ cancer was given to an evil mass-murderer—yeah, I don’t really mean that; no one should get cancer, ever. You tell it wondrously that no matter who you are or what you’ve done, this sort of pain is unbearably immense. Everyone deserves the same and that same would be a normal life, which is free of disease, free of tragedy, free of all sorts of bad things. Everyone deserves it because of human dignity, which is everybody’s. When Gus calls Hazel to the petrol station to help him because he got very sick, we get to see the unromanticized version of dying from cancer, which is the true version of dying: painful and miserable. This whole thing is an attempt to introduce us—through characters we get to care about and truly heartbraking events happening to them—to the reality of undeserved suffering in the world. I used the word:”undeserved”, but is it really? It would also be fair if everyone on earth was suffering the same as these kids, wouldn’t it? As I’ve said before, only a terrible person would say that, and that’s because of human dignity. And where does that come from? One could say that:”Yes, people do terrible things sometimes but no one deserves to suffer or experience pain.” Such a statement would be based on the concept of dignity, which’ existence we can only assume, following our moral compass, our feelings. Naturally, I wouldn’t say that there’s no such a thing as human dignity or that I want to see someone go through this hell. My point is that the origin of dignity is not inspected thoroughly and it cannot be a groundless assumption. If we built on it, first we’d need to see why it’s an unshakable foundation. 

#2: Infinities are problematic. I’m not going to discuss the mathematical inexactitude of your statement about the size of the infinity between 0 and 1 compared to the one between 0 and 2 because you’ve already apologized for that and also because it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the story, when Hazel remembers her time together with Gus, she is really grateful for their “little infinity”. I suppose she means that their relationship and their experiences were immeasurably valuable, even if smaller in number than the one’s of someone with a greater lifespan. This serves as a poetic and sublime element, though it also implies that even where there is great pain, there’s beauty. But if all that is equal in worth to what other people have, then why is it sad that they have to die? Or is it not sad at all? Is it okay for them to have to go through all that horror and then die so young? It’s rather terrible—or unspeakably terrible. But if only the quantity and the length of beautiful things in life matter, what’s the limit of having a good life? If everyone had the same amount of happiness and the same length of it and an equal lifespan, I suppose that’d count as a good world. But wouldn’t we try to extend the length of our lives if everyone was to live 80 years already? It would be neat if everyone lived for 200 years, wouldn’t it? And if Hazel and Gus were to live 80 years, whereas everyone else 200 years, would that count as a tragedy, too? Is it just the relative length and amount that matters or is it the absolute of them? It seems that both do: we want a relatively and an absolutely longer, richer life. That’s alright, of course. The ultimate thing we would settle with is infinity—literal infinity, not just the allegorical one. To have Hazel be grateful for what they shared is really awesome, my point is really what this tells the audience is unclear and/or indefinite.

#3: Where’s that extra mile? When Hazel and Gus are talking about what comes after death, I thought some conclusion would be made. Okay, there was actually this: even people, who believe in something transcendent aren’t necessarily morons. Thanks, I appreciate it, but whether or not there’s an afterlife, or whether or not God exists, these are sort of important questions. Especially when you’re so conscious about your imminent death. The whole thing is understandable, of course, since to someone who is not a believer, it’s obvious that there’s no Heaven, no Lord, no nothing, yet I was extremely let down, when Gus said that there has to be a point to it all and Hazel’s reply was about the overall pointlessness of everything AND then no distinct conclusion, apart from what’s above. It’s nice of you not to take away the hopes of christians though. But to make two teenagers so profound as Hazel and Gus are and then just let them be diplomatic about the point (or the pointlessness) of being is just lazy. It’s popular to think that a writer’s duty is to ask important questions but it is also their duty to offer answers to important questions and not be like:”Yeah, ‘A’ might be the ultimate truth, but whoever says ‘B’ is it, well, yeah, they’re totally cool to say that.”

Okay, TFioS, I’m sorry for criticizing you, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings or something. You are a beautiful book—you never forgot to be awesome. Thank you for existing and thank you for feeling the pain of everybody, especially of those who feel the greatest pain.

Best wishes,

B

P.S.: Okay.

Instead of condemning people, let’s try to understand them. Let’s try to figure out why they do what they do. That’s a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism; and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness. “To know all is to forgive all.

 Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends & Influence People (via yesdarlingido)

What is Reckless?

Tumblr’s prodigal son returns to his audience of one--himself.

The past four or five years I’ve been consumed by ideas. Articulations. Unraveling mysteries.

But what kind of a mystery is something that can be articulated or unraveled? Very low quality.

Prose and poetry and music feel a little bit like things of another elevated reality. Such a place it must be, where those irresistible people live from myths and novels, such muses there must be to inspire some of the melodies out there.

So, where I can articulate something, or explicitly understand meaning, there I must break myself. And through the mystery, can one only reach anything worth reaching.

young Shakespeare has done it again. actually no, he's not young, he's thirty-something and that's technically dead. still, pretty powerful suff for an old man

Visiting Chyna’s family in Kentucky and I saw a gazebo and figured it needed to have a song about it.

Remember, remember the fifth of November.

V

In the past few years my activity on tumblr has been irregular. I have written original posts but also did a great deal of reblogging and quoting, which are both very nice but are not why I want to have a blog. For me it’s a place for intellectual exercise and an outlet of thoughts. I want to be more focused here to chisel my mind and crystallize my opinions and thoughts, therefore I will make an attempt at returning to exclusively post original content and I want to be more committed. If I could write here everyday I’d be thrilled but that’s probably way too much to be crammed into my schedule--which I admit is not full momentarily but airy spaces of time for relaxation are what keep me mentally fit so I don’t intend to deprive myself of them.

This is it for now, writing it down only so that I will be more motivated to follow through.