Foreword:
I once chanced upon a very interesting blogpost, written by one of *my favorite people in the world, and set out to comment. Once I was through dealing with the torrent of emotions I could not contain, let out in free flow, I realized that I had in effect, attempted to take over the blog by posting a verbiage of text nearly double of what the post itself contained. However, fully aware of the fact that this is my kingdom and I am the self-appointed king, I will yell out to mankind yet again and force it to hear me out.
* Dear Mindfreak, you are most welcome to retaliate and take over mine. :)
A question pertaining to the nature and necessity of logic/rationality/realism in the growth of a human as an individual. Also, the rationality v/s convenience hypothesis.
It is oft propounded that the realization of one’s concepts is a journey. But a life defined in non-absolutes isn’t exactly a very satisfying thought, is it?
Ignorance, like all other bitter pleasures, has a massive price tagged along that not many can afford. Despite the fact that the other extreme involves a risk much greater. That’s the problem with extremes, and that’s what ails the few who refuse to settle for anything but the extreme.
When faced with the proverbial fork in the road (especially in times and terms of moral dilemma),it is our innate tendency to take both ways at once. The middle path may be CONVENIENT. But it is not ABSOLUTE .Hence, not satisfying.
Perception, with its possible (/probable) discrepancies may not be absolute in the true sense. But conversely, there is no such thing as selective rationality (or in other terms, a convenient one).
If you say that rationality IS convenience, then you have, in effect, altered the definition of either of those two terms.
Let me elucidate with a very basic analogy:
An A is an A. Each one of us is capable of convincing ourselves it’s a C, to fit into our equation. THAT is convenience. Or either way, one at the cost of the other.
But what is the “right” thing to do..?
Let’s make it bigger: What defines the “right” thing to do?
Let’s go crazy with it: Is there a “right” thing to do?
I may not have the complete answer to the questions raised, but I refuse to let go of the belief that someday, I will define an all-encompassing absolute. It’s not just that I won’t. It’s that I can’t give up the quest. Call it a necessary hope.
I once chanced upon a very interesting blogpost, written by one of *my favorite people in the world, and set out to comment. Once I was through dealing with the torrent of emotions I could not contain, let out in free flow, I realized that I had in effect, attempted to take over the blog by posting a verbiage of text nearly double of what the post itself contained. However, fully aware of the fact that this is my kingdom and I am the self-appointed king, I will yell out to mankind yet again and force it to hear me out.
* Dear Mindfreak, you are most welcome to retaliate and take over mine. :)
A question pertaining to the nature and necessity of logic/rationality/realism in the growth of a human as an individual. Also, the rationality v/s convenience hypothesis.
It is oft propounded that the realization of one’s concepts is a journey. But a life defined in non-absolutes isn’t exactly a very satisfying thought, is it?
Ignorance, like all other bitter pleasures, has a massive price tagged along that not many can afford. Despite the fact that the other extreme involves a risk much greater. That’s the problem with extremes, and that’s what ails the few who refuse to settle for anything but the extreme.
When faced with the proverbial fork in the road (especially in times and terms of moral dilemma),it is our innate tendency to take both ways at once. The middle path may be CONVENIENT. But it is not ABSOLUTE .Hence, not satisfying.
Perception, with its possible (/probable) discrepancies may not be absolute in the true sense. But conversely, there is no such thing as selective rationality (or in other terms, a convenient one).
If you say that rationality IS convenience, then you have, in effect, altered the definition of either of those two terms.
Let me elucidate with a very basic analogy:
An A is an A. Each one of us is capable of convincing ourselves it’s a C, to fit into our equation. THAT is convenience. Or either way, one at the cost of the other.
But what is the “right” thing to do..?
Let’s make it bigger: What defines the “right” thing to do?
Let’s go crazy with it: Is there a “right” thing to do?
I may not have the complete answer to the questions raised, but I refuse to let go of the belief that someday, I will define an all-encompassing absolute. It’s not just that I won’t. It’s that I can’t give up the quest. Call it a necessary hope.
3 comments:
wz that ma blog?? :)
like the blog!
profound! well at times weird ;)
Haha..! Obviously, the *-ed comment was lost in translation. :)
And you may say the blog echoes me in more ways than one. ;)
Post a Comment