There are theorist who
oppose science for the horrors it brings and is capable of bringing unto the
world, then their scientist who claim to be in the right whose thoughts are
based on the reasoning that the theorist have no concrete reasoning. Yet, what
must be noted is that both parties are going forth in the world in order to
bring about a better environment for people to live in, that is the general
idea, even if it only is an idea which now merely seems to be used as an excuse
for maladaptive behavior. Both groups oppose each other to such an extent,
partly due to probability of an imbalance in the mindset. In argumentation
scientist have a hard time dealing with similes’ and metaphors’, which is often
the point that cannot be breached, as were some theorist believe the world is
perfect as is and needs no change. It is not to say that some have gotten close
to the balance between the scientific mind and the theoretical mind, however
only about two or three people in this life time have probably gotten so close,
evidently not enough to make a change.
However, realistically trying to put the scope of things
into perspective, there is an inherent desire within everyone for the world to
be place of good, in some way whether it be something as mundane as more
choices of clothes or no extreme starvation. Reaching a goal in life requires a
set amount of effort depending on the caliber of the telos. Inversely, to reach
great morality or great immorality requires incredible amounts of effort. If
one analysis the type of evil Hitler was able to inflict it is safe to say the
whole process did not come about because of work during one weekend, it was a
life time commitment of arduous toil and struggle. Even Gandhi’s non violent
protest required a relentless amount of effort to conceive and execute. Effort
is the pinnacle reason of why our humanity has not gotten stronger, if at all
we have any humanity.
One must see that the payoffs of being morally humane for
the better of mankind are more or less felt with the heart, in contrary the
benefits of being evil are far more desirable for their immediateness of physicality.
For example, rob and kill twenty people eventually you can buy a car, help
twenty starving children, they get to eat and you feel satisfied with yourself.
Now these are extreme cases, there are smaller yet strongly connected ones,
like seeing someone get stabbed but you choose to walk away and not get
involved, because you fear for your life. Then there is the aspect that our
world has been tailored to commit evil deeds without a strong reproach, with
the logic that evil deeds small or big are committed by others, meaning my
participation won’t make any difference. To this point still keep in mind
effort, committing great evil still requires much effort, meaning much of the
population is on a rather neutrally passive level of morality. Obtuse passivity
arises from the lack of willingness to think about matters at hand, for sadly
they give too many headaches that are not desirable, therefore making thinking
undesirable. Since the inane are in the majority those who seek an
understanding of matters find themselves in obstacles that border the involuntarily
narrow minded. Everyone wants a better world, but it is left as an idea. Another
notion we cannot abrogate is the opposition that effort has nothing to do with
the matter, rather the ubiquity of mindset is to not have any consent for
matters that do not directly and immediately affect one-self. Is the terminus
of man the congruent truth that we are all infinitely obsessed with an embracing
marked by the uncouth of being a ragingly timorous narcissist?
No comments:
Post a Comment