The end of the end. For now.

Disclaimer:
The first argument is rubbish, I know. That was from a bleak moment of my blogging life. But because there was a little something in there that had to be published sooner or later I just decided to add it to this really really long finale post.


Talking about God makes me sick. It never gets anywhere and in the end, no point gets across, instead, after the argument, people who believe in the existence of God believe even stronger, not because their faith is renewed, but because the opposition presented their case so barbarically. The atheists in the argument feel a lot smarter for the same reason.

Instead, I think I'll talk about a question I just can't seem to present well. I've tried at least three time to post something about this question, usually it just branches off into some other topic or gets left as a draft.

The question is, why do we strive for perfection.

You know how that little bit of dirt you just can't seem to get off your new pair of shoes just gets to you? Even though it's tiny and you're the only one who seems to notice it. Even if you make no effort to try and clean it up, WHY does it affect your mind?

That's just one case. In any the bureaucratic systems that we struggle to maintain and keep flawless always fall apart. The thing is, these systems should work perfectly(like law), but the problem is, we aren't perfect. If there was a civilization of robots and machines, then it would all work exactly as planned, but these systems that require perfection simply break down when we use it.

I think a little branching out is required here.

It is in our nature to think that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, because that only makes sense and has been proven. But what has also been proven is that no matter what the action OR reaction is, there is no right and wrong. If I push a ball across a surface, it'll move, but there is no good way to push a ball, just as there is no evil way to push one. What there IS, is efficient ways. Ways that have different outcomes, with the most beneficial outcomes usually regarded as 'good' and the least as 'evil'.

When we expand this into a more social setting, for instance, when selling something, there are many ways to sell. Overcharging for something is considered cheating, an evil. But you may argue that I have proved that the most efficient way of doing business should be the 'good' way. And charging a customer more than the actual price is a faster way of making money, and therefore more efficient. But that is not true, the flaw lies in the long term. The customer, obviously will not return if you cheat him. therefore, the most efficient way of doing things is by balancing between too much and too little.

As you can see, I really cannot discuss my initial question without revisiting old ground. So I'll have to skip thay and stop right here. Writer's block.


***********************************1 month later***********************************
I realized the previous argument was a bit boring, so I gave up on it entirely. New argument time!



Often, too often, in fact, we judge by what we see on the surface. If a song is not pleasing to hear, it is immediately said to be a lousy song; the opposite applies.

But what if the 'lousy song' actually took a different sort of approach. One that only a musician could tell was a leap. Does the song switch from being 'lousy'to being 'good'? When the general public listen to that piece of music, they don't catch that smooth phrasing, familiar vocal melody, or safe lyric that they would normally expect. When a musician listens to that same piece of music, they see the true ingenuity that ought to shine through. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't pleasing to listen to.

Now, what if we bring down that argument to a different place.

If a man murders his friend, to the general public, the man deserves a hanging. But to the detective, the man had an almost valid reason to commit the crime. But that doesn't change the fact that a murder has been commited.

So, should the unspecialized public keep it's nose in it's own business, or should we continue on this road of conflicting views? Should the quality of art be determined by the critic or the commoner? Is there ever going to be a way of either making everyone see through the eyes of the specialist(depending on what is being judged) or making opinion not matter?

Certainly, the first option seems to be the fair one. And that's where the final part of this post begins.


************************1 mug of coffee later******************************





The world most definately isn't fair. The fact that there is no choice makes it that way. The system we live in now gives the illusion of being fair. Even at its best, it is a mere illusion.

This system's purpose is to glorify the lucky. And this part of the post is aimed at proving that purpose.


The most important factors that make a person:

name, gender, beauty, wealth, family, character, belief. To name a few.

How many of you picked out your own name?
How many chose how they looked, how rich their parents were, how patient their family members were, how fast they got angry, which way they prayed when they prayed to God.

Not to say none. Plastic surgery, meditation, conversion. Three of the very few options that allow a man to chose.

It's still EVERYTHING to do with luck. Luck is now the new problem. And I'm not talking about superstitios luck. I'm talking about what happens when random events line up so perfectly with little or no conscious direction from any man.

So, a law abiding man isn't law abiding because he's good, but because he's lucky.
And an unlawful man isn't unlawful because he's evil, but because he's unlucky.

Our system rewards and glorifies people who have simply been born and bred exactly right without them choosing most of their choices, and punishes those who weren't given that privalege.

But what of the few 'good' people who had no reason to commit an act of evil?
And what of the few 'evil' people who strived for perfection even though the odds were stacked against them?

Even in those cases, the presense of luck makes it impossible to determine if reward or punishment should be more extreme.

The cure to this whole problem is simple. The elimination of luck. It has begun. But if God comes in the way of us meddling with genetics, then there is little hope of progress. It is time for the system to change and for the powerful and weak to share equal oppurtunity, and be judged fairly. Luck should not be the deciding factor when it comes to determining who is on top of the human food chain.



P.S. This is sort of a final post. There is nothing left to say or write about that's worth anyone's time. However, if there's an awesome comment to help me find a flaw in my argument, then I may just end up continuing anyway.