Is the complicated search for the perfect love match equivalent to the search for the perfect outfit to wear on multiple occasions? There seem to be many parallels.
In both cases, there are comparable stages. In the art of shopping one must undergo the sometimes enjoyable yet dreadful practice of window shopping. This means that the so called shopper is only, at least for the time being, able to admire the would-be perfect outfits without actually acquiring them for his/her personal collection. This practice implies, of course, that one must first visit a nearly insane amount of stores in order to find possible options. Said options must have separate pieces that fit nicely with each other while also fitting flawlessly on our body once we put it on. In the same way, one tends to look for a perfect person who is to become the object of our affection. That person must possess the ideal set of characteristics that fit immaculately in a package. The search for that person takes place at countless locations and at many different times. This search is sometimes intentional and others unintentional but always unconsciously conscious.
Subsequently, one must make sure the outfit is available for sale since some stores do sell out of certain items early in the season; and more importantly if the chosen outfit is available in the searcher’s size. Otherwise, one must make sure the person who has caught one’s attention is indeed single as well as at least slightly interested in the person wanting that information is.
The next step in the road of shopping is paying a visit to the dressing room in order to try on what one has chosen. This is not always a pleasant trip since in the process one might find that the different pieces that make up the outfit are not as perfectly fitting as one judged them on the window. One might, in fact, like pieces of that outfit. At the same time, there might be other pieces that we do not like at all. Parts of that outfit might make us look gorgeous while others make us look hideous. The question to face then becomes what to do if the outfit is not so perfect after all? That inquiry is not so easy to answer when the subject that raised it happens to be a person. When we think we have found the perfect object in which to focus on affection, we simply set up a date. Such event is the equivalent of the visit to the dressing room. During the date one attempts with the best effort to become acquainted with the other person; who to our dismay more often than not turns out to be not as wonderful as we first judged. There might, in fact, be certain characteristics that we absolutely find as reasons to be devoted that person while there might be others which we encounter as outrageously unacceptable. The interrogative appears again: what to do in those instances? One must begin the search again, as we do with the outfit.
One then comes across a new difficulty: buy the outfit if one does like it or begin a relationship if the former applies to that special person. If one chooses to take the outfit home, by not means does that imply the outfit was in fact perfect, rather it was perfect for the one who bought it. One wears the outfit, but in the process the outfit suffers minor changes that prevent one from wearing it subsequently. In the same way, the person one chooses to be in a relationship with at first seems to be great. But one might begin to discover certain other traits that one does not like about that person and as a result consider a drastic measure although one usually endures in hopes that one might be wrong or that change will come about. However, one often finds that the person we have chosen also tends to suffer alterations or make mistakes. Such events might prompt us to end the relationship. Some people believe in second chances, but outfits should never be worn after one has realized they have a defect.
It seems then, the only way to find the perfect outfit is to have it tailored and meticulously cared for. Nevertheless, the secret to find our one impeccable love is simply to keep trying because love is not custom made... yet. It should enjoy, however, customized care.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Platonism for the Commoners
Is Christian theology simply a way to demystify Greek philosophy in order for the masses to understand it? While there is not a mathematical proof about this theory, there exists evidence which seems to support it.
To begin, a direct reference to the bible: St. John has the following sentence in his gospels: “In the beginning there was word and with word there was god.” That is an undeniable platonic reference. is a direct translation from the Greek which also means reason. Thus, St. John, whoever he was in order to write the gospels, must have known the other meaning of logos in order to associate it with god. Otherwise, it does not seem as something very enlightening to relate god with word.
Platonic ontology is driven by the need to find the absolute “One” which can only be reached by the reason which comes from innate ideas. In a parallel with Christianity, the “One” would be god, and the way to reach him seems to be the same, except Christianity emphasizes a different kind of reason than that to which Platonic epistemology refers to. Christianity is interested in a rather spiritual reason. However, both types of reasons are related to each other in the sense that we as human beings are born with the knowledge that, according to Platonism, there are forms and, according to Christianity, that there is a god. The highest form is the Form of the Good and is the basis for the rest. God is the basis for everything there is in Christian theology.
If Plato was the one who presented the realm of forms to humanity, then Jesus would be his equivalent since according to the gospels he came to this material world in order to teach humanity his father’s doctrine.
Plato’s Republic is one of, if not the most, influential philosophical works. In said book, Plato presents the ideal community, the ultimate rulers and the different models to rule. In the same way, the bible seems to present humanity with the idea of the perfect world through merely trying to teach how to go about building it, but refraining from showing what the finished work would look like. The Republic is a more direct guideline towards building the perfect inhabitable place. The perfect rulers are the philosophers in Plato’s word which directly relate to the priests as god’s instruments for ruling Earth.
Plato presents the metaphor of the sun. Said metaphor presents the sun as the source of “light” which in this case represents knowledge as well as the Form of the Good. This idea is sometimes interpreted to be Plato’s concept of god. The metaphor is about what the reality crucially means and how one attains the understanding of it. Likewise, god represents the essential source of light in Christianity. God is the Supreme Being the same way the Form of Good is the Supreme Form. Early Christian thought understood the forms of which Plato talks about as the thoughts of god which shows another connection.
The Allegory of the Cave is a well known passage in Plato’s Republic in which a man walks out into the sun and after experiencing light he is not longer able to live inside the cave, yet those who remained in the cave do not understand what he means when he speaks of the light. In this sense, this man has reached the light, reason, which he must share with the rest of the people with whom he was on the cave in order for those who remained to also become possessors of light. Otherwise, the one man who has found the light would become a bizarre creature to his past companions. In the same way, god’s word should be spread, the gospels claim. If one becomes acquainted with Christian thought, one must share it with the world in order for god’s teachings to help humanity as opposed to selfishly keep them to oneself. The problem here becomes that one is involuntarily forced to share god’s teachings that could be found in the bible which for all we know was only written by men in the same way Plato’s Republic was.
Christianity and Platonism are not, of course, all the available options in this department. But I am sure that other religions also have similar relations with Platonism. What do you practice then, the real thing otherwise known as Platonism or a spin off whatever it might be called?
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
To begin, a direct reference to the bible: St. John has the following sentence in his gospels: “In the beginning there was word and with word there was god.” That is an undeniable platonic reference.
Platonic ontology is driven by the need to find the absolute “One” which can only be reached by the reason which comes from innate ideas. In a parallel with Christianity, the “One” would be god, and the way to reach him seems to be the same, except Christianity emphasizes a different kind of reason than that to which Platonic epistemology refers to. Christianity is interested in a rather spiritual reason. However, both types of reasons are related to each other in the sense that we as human beings are born with the knowledge that, according to Platonism, there are forms and, according to Christianity, that there is a god. The highest form is the Form of the Good and is the basis for the rest. God is the basis for everything there is in Christian theology.
If Plato was the one who presented the realm of forms to humanity, then Jesus would be his equivalent since according to the gospels he came to this material world in order to teach humanity his father’s doctrine.
Plato’s Republic is one of, if not the most, influential philosophical works. In said book, Plato presents the ideal community, the ultimate rulers and the different models to rule. In the same way, the bible seems to present humanity with the idea of the perfect world through merely trying to teach how to go about building it, but refraining from showing what the finished work would look like. The Republic is a more direct guideline towards building the perfect inhabitable place. The perfect rulers are the philosophers in Plato’s word which directly relate to the priests as god’s instruments for ruling Earth.
Plato presents the metaphor of the sun. Said metaphor presents the sun as the source of “light” which in this case represents knowledge as well as the Form of the Good. This idea is sometimes interpreted to be Plato’s concept of god. The metaphor is about what the reality crucially means and how one attains the understanding of it. Likewise, god represents the essential source of light in Christianity. God is the Supreme Being the same way the Form of Good is the Supreme Form. Early Christian thought understood the forms of which Plato talks about as the thoughts of god which shows another connection.
The Allegory of the Cave is a well known passage in Plato’s Republic in which a man walks out into the sun and after experiencing light he is not longer able to live inside the cave, yet those who remained in the cave do not understand what he means when he speaks of the light. In this sense, this man has reached the light, reason, which he must share with the rest of the people with whom he was on the cave in order for those who remained to also become possessors of light. Otherwise, the one man who has found the light would become a bizarre creature to his past companions. In the same way, god’s word should be spread, the gospels claim. If one becomes acquainted with Christian thought, one must share it with the world in order for god’s teachings to help humanity as opposed to selfishly keep them to oneself. The problem here becomes that one is involuntarily forced to share god’s teachings that could be found in the bible which for all we know was only written by men in the same way Plato’s Republic was.
Christianity and Platonism are not, of course, all the available options in this department. But I am sure that other religions also have similar relations with Platonism. What do you practice then, the real thing otherwise known as Platonism or a spin off whatever it might be called?
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Self-Produced Reality
Is it possible for what we tend to call reality to be a genuine entity in which we can rely in order to justify our every day existence? It certainly seems to be so, but there is not any way to be convinced.
Reality is that which is totally determined. However, I find that not to be constantly the case. If reality was indeed totally determined, then there would not be absolutely anything worth fighting for. The end of the road would already be known and we could just sit and enjoy the ride rather than trying to change the path the train takes and doing our best to prevent if from derailing. This, however, is not the case at all. We continually engage into the very selfish practice of picking and choosing what to consider as important part of our lives, and through that, even if it is a subconscious practice, we decide what pieces form our reality. Nonetheless, we refuse to accept such fact.
So often the situations in which we find ourselves and the people we find ourselves surrounded by turn out to be such disappointments. In which cases, we simply move on. That is a performance which is otherwise known as changing our reality. Provided the world is not the perfect place to spend our existence, we must recognize that it is so only because it is a representation of our ideas. In turn, our lives are but a reflection of such ideas. But since as human beings we naturally thrive for the best, we are powerful enough to make of the world as we please even though our decisions are not always the most widely accepted.
The reason we find ourselves in situations we do not enjoy is because we put ourselves in those situations. After careful deliberation, I have decided that anything that happens to us is because we allow it to do so. There are signs that we must be cautious enough to understand in order to avoid such situations. To our dismay, however, we are incapable of recognizing such signs until the worst has passed. By which time, we assure ourselves that there is absolutely not any way in which we could have known what was coming. But too late do we realize we were wrong and we could have predicted those situations and with that absent prediction we could have escaped them.
A question that is quite bothersome: how do we wind up surrounded by the wrong people? The answer: our doing. We tend to make certain traits in us more pronounced which in turn tends to attract the wrong people towards us. Whether we find ourselves with the not so perfect friends or with the wrong object of our affection, it is always a direct result of our actions. This is due to our judgment or lack thereof. We must become acquainted with the people we surround ourselves with early in order to avoid any later problems of discomfort and the cruel realization that the people with whom we spend most of our time are far from who we thought them to be.
As it becomes obvious through these minimalist arguments, one holds the power to create the reality in which we want to exist. A great life is, of course, never guaranteed. But it is rather completely dependent on our good judgment. What goes wrong is never the situation and in the same way the people around us do not change in a split second. We, unconscious but simply choose not to be aware of those things that make situations and people mistakes before they actually become one. We must be careful to make the world the a representation of the ideas that would make it the proper place we wish to inhabit as opposed to those which are flawed and would only lead to decay.
If the situation shall present itself in which there is absolutely not a sign of future light, fear not. There is always a way out of a self perpetrated misery. Pain is undeniably inevitable. But in the cases it must appear, suffering is only optional.
Advice: Please do make sure that your reality is totally determined by you. Also, that your world is but a reflection of your own ideas. Otherwise, it is neither your reality nor your world at all. It is simply someone else’s play, the one in which you have taken a role as a delightful puppet.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Reality is that which is totally determined. However, I find that not to be constantly the case. If reality was indeed totally determined, then there would not be absolutely anything worth fighting for. The end of the road would already be known and we could just sit and enjoy the ride rather than trying to change the path the train takes and doing our best to prevent if from derailing. This, however, is not the case at all. We continually engage into the very selfish practice of picking and choosing what to consider as important part of our lives, and through that, even if it is a subconscious practice, we decide what pieces form our reality. Nonetheless, we refuse to accept such fact.
So often the situations in which we find ourselves and the people we find ourselves surrounded by turn out to be such disappointments. In which cases, we simply move on. That is a performance which is otherwise known as changing our reality. Provided the world is not the perfect place to spend our existence, we must recognize that it is so only because it is a representation of our ideas. In turn, our lives are but a reflection of such ideas. But since as human beings we naturally thrive for the best, we are powerful enough to make of the world as we please even though our decisions are not always the most widely accepted.
The reason we find ourselves in situations we do not enjoy is because we put ourselves in those situations. After careful deliberation, I have decided that anything that happens to us is because we allow it to do so. There are signs that we must be cautious enough to understand in order to avoid such situations. To our dismay, however, we are incapable of recognizing such signs until the worst has passed. By which time, we assure ourselves that there is absolutely not any way in which we could have known what was coming. But too late do we realize we were wrong and we could have predicted those situations and with that absent prediction we could have escaped them.
A question that is quite bothersome: how do we wind up surrounded by the wrong people? The answer: our doing. We tend to make certain traits in us more pronounced which in turn tends to attract the wrong people towards us. Whether we find ourselves with the not so perfect friends or with the wrong object of our affection, it is always a direct result of our actions. This is due to our judgment or lack thereof. We must become acquainted with the people we surround ourselves with early in order to avoid any later problems of discomfort and the cruel realization that the people with whom we spend most of our time are far from who we thought them to be.
As it becomes obvious through these minimalist arguments, one holds the power to create the reality in which we want to exist. A great life is, of course, never guaranteed. But it is rather completely dependent on our good judgment. What goes wrong is never the situation and in the same way the people around us do not change in a split second. We, unconscious but simply choose not to be aware of those things that make situations and people mistakes before they actually become one. We must be careful to make the world the a representation of the ideas that would make it the proper place we wish to inhabit as opposed to those which are flawed and would only lead to decay.
If the situation shall present itself in which there is absolutely not a sign of future light, fear not. There is always a way out of a self perpetrated misery. Pain is undeniably inevitable. But in the cases it must appear, suffering is only optional.
Advice: Please do make sure that your reality is totally determined by you. Also, that your world is but a reflection of your own ideas. Otherwise, it is neither your reality nor your world at all. It is simply someone else’s play, the one in which you have taken a role as a delightful puppet.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Unattainable Reality
Is happiness an attainable reality or a wild dream? Happiness is overrated. If I think about it, such conclusion becomes clear. What is happiness? How am I to know the answer to such question if I always want to be “happier”; which ultimately suggests that I am not happy from the beginning?
Happiness is not what people tell me; it is what I make of it. I’ll stop for a moment and ponder on the interrogative…
To start simple: a clear cut definition is needed, or the lack thereof. There is not a definition of happiness other than knowing that it should be our aim. Nevertheless, what is there is only an insufferable desire to reach it. Since the moment in which we are able to separate between what a smile may entail and what a tear must mean, we incline towards what seems more joyful: smiles. We see tears as entities full of sorrow. We do not, however, possess enough information and understanding to distinguish the meaning both items have.
Happiness is not a simple smile, it necessitates more. Happiness itself is relative because what can make one happy might only bring distress to another. For some it means having the latest gadget out there, or the new it fashion item, the best car –the list goes on. But happiness could also mean something as simple as a, worth the tautology, smile from the object of our affection or seeing our family. Happiness then means very different things for very different people: material or not. Happiness relies on other items to be called so; otherwise, it is another simple state of mind.
Then, there is the other theory which says that happiness is rather a contingency. It is part of the process of existing. There is not any destination to which, upon arrival one would feel fulfilled and, well, happy. In other words, the mere fact that material objects or certain people or certain immaterial states or receiving the various kinds of affection that can be displayed make us happy is but a coincidence. In short, there is not anything which can actually make us happy. We must just be happy at any given moment with any given possession or people we find ourselves with.
A dream provided that is a wild idea, is still a possible definition for happiness. When in desperation, one turns to anything in order not to find oneself lost. This would imply, unfortunately, that happiness is in fact unattainable. But that would also question the times in which we have felt happy. In those cases, if it wasn’t happiness, then what was it? Perhaps happiness is just an unattainable reality.
Finally, I present my personal attempt to define such an abstract idea. I find it very comfortable but at the same time a bit illegitimate. On the one hand, it is pleasing because it applies well to me as it is. But every person is a world, thus making it unjustifiable as a general idea.
Happiness for me is who I am. I am aware arrogance is believed to be the word. Think about it, however, and the reason will become clear. I must be happy with who I am I first in order to find this so called happiness. Otherwise, there won’t be anything or anyone to make me happy. But there is more to it. Happiness is enjoying the moment I am in because there will never be a repetition of it. Life is too short for regrets. So, one must live the moments presented to us as they come and allow them to bring happiness to our very life. Happiness must be the people around us: family, friends, perhaps even an object of our affection. In one way or another, every person with whom we share a relationship should be an ingredient that condiments our happiness not the extra element that spoils the recipe.
At the end, happiness is a roller coaster of emotions because we never really know that we are actually happy until we are not for a second, then we become aware of our previous state of happiness and thrive to return to such state. However, all we need to know is that: happiness lies within, not around.
Take a second and ponder on the subject. Perhaps happiness is after all, not such an unattainable reality rather one of those rare dreams that can actually come true in the not so distant future.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Happiness is not what people tell me; it is what I make of it. I’ll stop for a moment and ponder on the interrogative…
To start simple: a clear cut definition is needed, or the lack thereof. There is not a definition of happiness other than knowing that it should be our aim. Nevertheless, what is there is only an insufferable desire to reach it. Since the moment in which we are able to separate between what a smile may entail and what a tear must mean, we incline towards what seems more joyful: smiles. We see tears as entities full of sorrow. We do not, however, possess enough information and understanding to distinguish the meaning both items have.
Happiness is not a simple smile, it necessitates more. Happiness itself is relative because what can make one happy might only bring distress to another. For some it means having the latest gadget out there, or the new it fashion item, the best car –the list goes on. But happiness could also mean something as simple as a, worth the tautology, smile from the object of our affection or seeing our family. Happiness then means very different things for very different people: material or not. Happiness relies on other items to be called so; otherwise, it is another simple state of mind.
Then, there is the other theory which says that happiness is rather a contingency. It is part of the process of existing. There is not any destination to which, upon arrival one would feel fulfilled and, well, happy. In other words, the mere fact that material objects or certain people or certain immaterial states or receiving the various kinds of affection that can be displayed make us happy is but a coincidence. In short, there is not anything which can actually make us happy. We must just be happy at any given moment with any given possession or people we find ourselves with.
A dream provided that is a wild idea, is still a possible definition for happiness. When in desperation, one turns to anything in order not to find oneself lost. This would imply, unfortunately, that happiness is in fact unattainable. But that would also question the times in which we have felt happy. In those cases, if it wasn’t happiness, then what was it? Perhaps happiness is just an unattainable reality.
Finally, I present my personal attempt to define such an abstract idea. I find it very comfortable but at the same time a bit illegitimate. On the one hand, it is pleasing because it applies well to me as it is. But every person is a world, thus making it unjustifiable as a general idea.
Happiness for me is who I am. I am aware arrogance is believed to be the word. Think about it, however, and the reason will become clear. I must be happy with who I am I first in order to find this so called happiness. Otherwise, there won’t be anything or anyone to make me happy. But there is more to it. Happiness is enjoying the moment I am in because there will never be a repetition of it. Life is too short for regrets. So, one must live the moments presented to us as they come and allow them to bring happiness to our very life. Happiness must be the people around us: family, friends, perhaps even an object of our affection. In one way or another, every person with whom we share a relationship should be an ingredient that condiments our happiness not the extra element that spoils the recipe.
At the end, happiness is a roller coaster of emotions because we never really know that we are actually happy until we are not for a second, then we become aware of our previous state of happiness and thrive to return to such state. However, all we need to know is that: happiness lies within, not around.
Take a second and ponder on the subject. Perhaps happiness is after all, not such an unattainable reality rather one of those rare dreams that can actually come true in the not so distant future.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Enduring Death for a Better Life
Have you ever asked yourself whether this human experience to which you wake up everyday, namely life, is rather waking up to spend one more day in death?
Come to think of it, what is the talk about eternal life all about, religious perturbation, perhaps? But such talk is important as evidence for the time being. If everything awful that occurs can be justified from the eternal life perspective, then perhaps this is the short death we must pay as a price for such better prospect. We can not experience life twice or so we are told, thus it follows that one should be life and the other should be death. If the one that is to come after we depart this material existence should be better, then it must follow that the present one most definitely should be death.
Every detail seems to support this thesis. Although it is largely debatable depending on whom is presenting the topic, one has never question the idea that despite what is thought by many, there is only one chance given to each one of us. A chance to excel in the material existence, yet we are taught that there is a better alternative.
The suffering that is observed in this world everyday, as well as the suffering we are unable to examine, that which is experience under the skin, can only be justified through the expectation of a better future. Such future will not be found on this planet. If that is the case, why would it be helpful to believe that this is life when it is so awful for the masses? Only the selected few attain happiness whereas the masses must suffer from sunrise to sundown.
The lack of peace among nation-states as well as poverty and mortal diseases are among the major issues that terrorize the world on an everyday basis. Those problems seem as good reasons to believe on a better after life as any. This view, however, is the major scope through which such an important and controversial topic is analyzed. To add to this confusion, there are those other concerns that do not reach international arena. If someone dies, what is the purpose of holding the belief that they are in fact dead as opposed to think that they will live forever? If one believes their love ones to have passed to a better life, there is the hope of seeing them again and enjoying good times with them. Nevertheless, if one holds the opposite belief, namely, that the everyday existence we currently experience is life, then there is not hope for anything better. One must settle for a mediocre life in this planet that decays little by little.
Those who aim to reach happiness, yet they do not reach it must also find justification for this in an after life. If there is not anything better to hope for, then there is not any reason to endure. Yet, we endure.
Besides, the idea that this is death fits perfectly with the chronology of life as we know it. When we are born, we cry. This event automatically translates into the having enter a dreadful world, perhaps coming from a better place. Why else would we start our existence crying? Why does everyone cry when someone dies? Perhaps because they already know the better experiences that this newly ‘deceased’ person is having and which they are foregoing due to their remaining ‘alive.’ Certainly, such events do not justify the belief on an after life which will deem this one as a mere fleeting death.
There is also another argument: extinction. How was it possible for hundreds of species to disappear at a given moment without a trace? Yes, there are fossils, but those are only material leftovers of what there once was. Are we humans bound to suffer the same fate: extinction, or will there be something beyond?
There is absolutely no way for one to prove this debate either way. There are many arguments that run from simple, or rather complicated, biology to religious hopes. They are each designed to better fit the beliefs of every single being to their convenience.
Or perhaps death can be seen as simple biological stage of an organism’s existence. But in any case, tomorrow morning upon waking, hope you are still dead because you never know when you will start living, and that could be such a surprise.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Come to think of it, what is the talk about eternal life all about, religious perturbation, perhaps? But such talk is important as evidence for the time being. If everything awful that occurs can be justified from the eternal life perspective, then perhaps this is the short death we must pay as a price for such better prospect. We can not experience life twice or so we are told, thus it follows that one should be life and the other should be death. If the one that is to come after we depart this material existence should be better, then it must follow that the present one most definitely should be death.
Every detail seems to support this thesis. Although it is largely debatable depending on whom is presenting the topic, one has never question the idea that despite what is thought by many, there is only one chance given to each one of us. A chance to excel in the material existence, yet we are taught that there is a better alternative.
The suffering that is observed in this world everyday, as well as the suffering we are unable to examine, that which is experience under the skin, can only be justified through the expectation of a better future. Such future will not be found on this planet. If that is the case, why would it be helpful to believe that this is life when it is so awful for the masses? Only the selected few attain happiness whereas the masses must suffer from sunrise to sundown.
The lack of peace among nation-states as well as poverty and mortal diseases are among the major issues that terrorize the world on an everyday basis. Those problems seem as good reasons to believe on a better after life as any. This view, however, is the major scope through which such an important and controversial topic is analyzed. To add to this confusion, there are those other concerns that do not reach international arena. If someone dies, what is the purpose of holding the belief that they are in fact dead as opposed to think that they will live forever? If one believes their love ones to have passed to a better life, there is the hope of seeing them again and enjoying good times with them. Nevertheless, if one holds the opposite belief, namely, that the everyday existence we currently experience is life, then there is not hope for anything better. One must settle for a mediocre life in this planet that decays little by little.
Those who aim to reach happiness, yet they do not reach it must also find justification for this in an after life. If there is not anything better to hope for, then there is not any reason to endure. Yet, we endure.
Besides, the idea that this is death fits perfectly with the chronology of life as we know it. When we are born, we cry. This event automatically translates into the having enter a dreadful world, perhaps coming from a better place. Why else would we start our existence crying? Why does everyone cry when someone dies? Perhaps because they already know the better experiences that this newly ‘deceased’ person is having and which they are foregoing due to their remaining ‘alive.’ Certainly, such events do not justify the belief on an after life which will deem this one as a mere fleeting death.
There is also another argument: extinction. How was it possible for hundreds of species to disappear at a given moment without a trace? Yes, there are fossils, but those are only material leftovers of what there once was. Are we humans bound to suffer the same fate: extinction, or will there be something beyond?
There is absolutely no way for one to prove this debate either way. There are many arguments that run from simple, or rather complicated, biology to religious hopes. They are each designed to better fit the beliefs of every single being to their convenience.
Or perhaps death can be seen as simple biological stage of an organism’s existence. But in any case, tomorrow morning upon waking, hope you are still dead because you never know when you will start living, and that could be such a surprise.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
