you're reading...


I wonder what it is that they think now? Wasn’t there supposed to be a difference in all of this, some sort of message that hid just beyond the reach of the mortal realm? I used to think that somewhere in all of this was an answer, but perhaps when I was a poorer man I remembered being more noble in trade. This of course must be a re-imagining of my life, since nothing moral or ethical often came from my decisions.

I derive no pleasure from life, not in the traditional sense, after absorbing a life based on singular achievement, progressing through that to the stability of communal life, and then deriving a merit based ideal of future intent, I came to the realization that none of those systems suit man at all, and at any one given time, he will resort to any and all of the three in order to achieve any outcome, normally not the desired one. This means of course that man in his base nature is a liar. To show humor I will simply observe that I am honest about the fact that I lie.

Is this why man’s life is based upon what it is he can do, the sum total of his work as it is the only graded thing that can bestow virtue upon him, or is it just because it’s easier to do so in the context of society. We often assert that man has a free will and desire to live as he chooses, yet we somehow through invisible boundaries limited and narrowed such options to the point that he feels that those options do not exist. I am not an advocate for man flying without the use of some sort of machine, but within the limits of a normal microcosm, we somehow can derail such options into the pattern of binary thinking. What appears many is in fact one. E pluribus unum. The virtue lays in choosing the right list of factors for continued existence.

But this is not life, only a collection of tasks until life expires. Is this where the need for religion and faith comes in, that the underlying fabric of all that exists is so easily questioned in the face of that which is unpleasant that countless fools have attempted to prove that such a collection of tasks serves a gamut of beings that only potentially exist? Is this a sick perversion of the survival instinct, with a built in underlying bear trap of dogma and rules that serve only to propagate intolerance and hatred among differing viewpoints in a world made of men that err continually and with wanton disregard for consequence. In a world of responsible people, Phillip Morris would have gone bankrupt years ago. This is not the case.

And what of the vices of men, which seem to do much to motivate his actions, more so than invisible friends that lie beyond all that he is able to ascertain through science, and with which no proof will surface. And this is not even necessary to rely on, the proof that there are no gods lies not with a triumph of reason, but more so in the everyday activity of the layman, whom may claim god-fearing worship, but by the virtue of his actions dictates that he at the very least does not fear a god, potentially describing a basic sense that there is in fact not one.

And in his absence, this god, we are told that there would be untold chaos and evils that would swallow the whole of mankind and leave a path of destruction so great that only enslavement to our current world leaders is the beacon of hope that stave off such an affront. And what do we gain from this? Our very natures are questioned and either co-opted into a larger fallacy that is even further away from the prediction of actual result, or flat out denied by the very same human element that we sought to judge and punish. Mediators to this group allow for things to turn this way and that, like eddies in fly-fishing, but in that we go home empty handed like first-day fly-fishermen.

Why even espouse such nonsense in the clear light that what is done is done? Is the idea of a termination of response make something change within the action itself? If this is true then why are the rates of drug users roughly the same in criminal and legalized models? Could it be that human action has a larger scale of predictable results that would place the idea of free-will beyond the human experience. If that is frightful then why am I able to choose to perform things that would allow me to die faster? This can only be regarded through the idea that an overall theory of existence-based behavior cannot be attributed to an underlying moral guideline, rather a simply economic one. We do what is done because we can afford to.

And what then of the societal value, in that we are thrust into society, the underlying idea that it is in our best interest to serve it (which I take no issue with since it has been demonstrated numerous times that this is the better scenario for survival) and in doing so earn a place in it. But what does that mean to the disaffected member? Where do you derive self worth when you question not the basic duty of your station but the system that lies underneath it?

What if you don’t like society or its rules? For those souls we have prison and welfare, the base of operations of the disenfranchised and forgotten. A system within a larger one that tends to the frailty of itself with a boon directed at its larger subscriber base. To put it plainly, it gives a place for those of us that don’t like the deal to get locked away into to prevent our dissonance from reaching the minds of those that benefit from our system at large.

We play by numbers here, and what is popular becomes what is right in that system. Democracy is ineffectual simply because one person very rarely shows resolve and purpose, and a room full of people are infinitely less likely to perform such a deed. Democracy breeds a center line with the occasional bad idea derived from a great sounding promise. We strive to be effective and are promised just that by our constituents. We can often find the idea of being a well oiled machine, we just can’t decide what the machine is supposed to do.

So in a system such as this, where there is no progress because that requires a goal to be met eventually, we take the view of the infinite line in mathematics, where we come so close, yet by infinitely halving the sum, we can never reach the second point at the end of the line. A system that does nothing must do something to afford the illusion that it works, and the only thing for it to do with an efficiency and resolve is to feed itself, make itself bigger and better and larger with even more responsibility to justify its lack of purpose overall.

A system that is simply enslavement to others through the ruse of progress towards a hidden goal.


About John Matar

A Philosophical Journey shares the work of John Matar as well as other poets, writers and bloggers. Topics and discussions written are proudly displayed to enlighten and inform.


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

You don't have to be left out! Subscribe to receive new discussions and topics via email with others who share the same ideas.

Join 58 other followers

A Philosphical Journey ©copyright 2011-2012

© John Matar and 'A Philosophical Journey', 2011-2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to John Matar and 'A Philosophical Journey' with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

%d bloggers like this: