Discipline Is Hard But Weakness Is Not My Game

my head is hurting because i thought about my future for 0.3 seconds

Life is like that... In the pause between two heartbeats, the curse of broken promises, foolish plans and bitter separation, is undone by the simplest notion of love.

First of all: get some sleep.

I am going to offer you two arguments. One of them is as rational as it gets and the other one has a personal example.

#1: As much as it's necessary to realize how things change, how everything's transient and how life can get fairly random, it's way overrated.

HIMYM is a sitcom and it's unjust to set high standards for it, I understand that. But I think my expectations should have been met by it because I didn't want it to end with an ultimate moral that somehow makes everything click. Of course no show can run without standing for something, however irrelevant or stupid that thing might be.

The arc of HIMYM and especially the finale really focused on the dynamics of the core five characters but other than that, the dynamics of life. It is a good observation that things are in motion and that cruel things will happen to everyone, undeniably and unavoidably. I further say that it is an important observation, since one may find him-/herself in the false hopes that maybe a good state of things, a good part of life may be preserved. That way of thinking ought to be reformed, illuminated, as it would eventually lead to bitter disappointment. So I accept the value of this point.

On the contrary, it is inadequate. The lead singer of Switchfoot, Jon Foreman, once said it in an interview that today's people have lost their connection with death and danger. If you read Hemingway, many of his characters meet their ends at some point of the story and it's really not a big deal (in the sense that it's not the end of the world, though death's always a big deal, even in Hemingway's works). I was really surprised by the way Robert Wilson teased the woman, who just shot her husband about how their relationship was already pretty bad anyway in The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber. It wasn't a weightless, irrelevant thing, of course, even so, it was the climax of the story, yet Robert Wilson's reaction was different from how, for one, I would react if I saw someone die. This isn't because of Hemingway's particular relationship with violence but because of a more general concept of life--one that's changed over the course of time.

Our culture has been softened so much that it'd be enough for us to realize that things come and go in life. It is treated as a great revelation because we live in much greater safety and we're pretty sure that our safety will not be seriously endangered and when it is endangered in someone's life, we consider it radical. We're so blinded by our security that we don't see past the possibility of change, whereas it would be mandatory to know how to act in case life should bring a wave of it toward us.

I say that a good story can't stop when reaching the so popular phrase of "the perfect imperfection of life" but rather it should offer some sort of remedy. To try to give us options and hopes is what I see as the primary mission of a writer or director.

#2: Hard things don't always happen to us but they are often made by us.

As much as Ted couldn't save his wife, Robin and Barney were completely responsible for the end of their marriage. One could argue that it was "written in the stars" but their personality traits did not determine how their romance will conclude.

Henri Nouwen wrote: "In the depths of my being, I meet my fellow humans with whom I share love and hate, life and death.". Everybody has certain flaws that gradually alienate their partners or that make being married to them difficult. These flaws differ from person to person but in one form or another, they are unquestionably there. It is also true that everyone shares the ability to love.

It's always an invalid defense to say that one was not a good match because of certain qualities or the lack of them and thus the divorce. I wouldn't argue against saying that someone wasn't the one but that should be realized before marriage and not years into it, though it's a sidetrack and I should return to my point...

Let me elaborate by pointing out something in my own life. I've been in a romantic relationship for over three years now. I intend to marry this girl sooner or later and I also intend to be nice to her. Furthermore I'm madly in love with her, what's not a bad thing once you want to marry someone. But there are moments, much like instances of insanity, when I feel distant from her. Sometimes certain traits come into focus that are flat out antagonistic in me and her. I have felt the capability of breaking up. If I ever wanted to end our relationship, there would have been moments for that. Of course, I never wanted to break up with her, that's why we're together, but my point is that I understand how it is in everyone to end a romantic relationship, as I know it is in me, too, whereas I also see that it is also in everyone to hold on to someone, as it is in me, just as well, and as I intend to live my life.

So I say that divorce is not an article of change that happens to some people, inasmuch as it is based on personality traits.

I never made it an issue whether or not the show would have a happy end or take a more dramatic turn. (Personally, I prefer sad ends--well, not in all cases.) And I know it's nonsense to say that a TV show is wrong, especially to say that a sitcom is wrong--but How I Met Your Mother is wrong :) JK

PS: I say it again, have some sleep. Seriously bro.

The famous sit-com, How I Met Your Mother, reached its end finally. It’s been greatly anticipated by many and is currently being hated and scorned by even more. I’ve heard countless negative comments on it but as most people aren’t philosophers, nor particularly good at deeply analyzing films,…

Being Sherlock

Have you ever felt, that someone was talking to you like they were absoutely superior? As if they positioned themselves far over you intellectually? I suppose you hate those people but sadly... I am them.

The thing that bugs me the most in this wide world is stupidity and slow-thinking, thus I am impatient, egoistic and of course high-minded. But let's just take a step back: from my point of view, in obvious situations, I simply point out trivial truths. A phrase, which I find extremely fitting to use in most of the cases is "because I am right". How arrogant, isn't it?

But then, why do I treat people like that? It's because I've grown accustomed to behaving this way. When in an argument with my father, I never was (and still am not) allowed to reason because he considers that to be disrespect. What I've learned from this is, that though I am 99% right, reasoning and negotiating are not options. I know it's not good, sorry...

Taking it to a little more universal level: Why are there people, who have no compassion? Why can't we simply talk through things? What could be done?

Well, I must say, Sherlock is not Sherlock out of will but out of inevitability.

Randomness rules!

An Argument for God - The Genuine Nature of Christianity

This post is a product of a heated conversation I’ve had very recently. The argument I will present is in no way a proof, rather a compelling line of reasoning, supporting the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

First of all, religious beliefs have been present since the naissance of our race, as evident from numerous archeological findings of ritual items. Although primitive iterations of different faiths can be connected to the lack of scientific understanding. For example it could seem logical for groups of humans to praise the sun, as they had no distant idea of its inner workings, and as something beyond their comprehension, yet observably powerful, it appeared to be an entity far above them, ergo a god of sorts. Similar patterns can be found in countless natural religions, as usually their objects are things or persons of immense influence and/or outside the intellectual and physical grasp of their subjects. This mode of religious faith (or fear) is thus very natural, almost inherent to the unknowing masses of the distant past. Opposite to this, the Judeo-Christian tradition had an original birth, meaning it was not connected to observable objects, rather an entity outside of the physical and intellectual realms, through revelation through a long line of prophets and inspired people. In comparison the natural religions had an understandable reason to be invented because their objects were things overpowering humans, whereas Christianity’s roots came from a place outside of the boundaries of rationality, ergo, as far as religions are concerned, the birth of Christianity is genuine.

Secondly, in the stratum of religions from revelation, there is a great amount of corruption and an even greater amount of dubious sources. Many faiths come from the preaching of inspired individuals, who have claimed to have some supernatural knowledge, and usually these persons even had miraculous happenings in their close proximity. Whenever one such individual could amass a cult, a new religion was born and very often their teachings remained the core of their religion ever after. Now this is problematic because the only convincing power of these faiths is that of their missionary’s, the original prophet (or anyone called by any name, serving as such) is completely at the mercy of the skills of the coming teachers and preachers of given religion. Even more severely so, when history discredits the original bringers of revelation. Probably the most outstanding example of this is the case of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam. First, his first amanuensis left him. It is extremely alarming, when the person, who writes down the words of a prophet reports that he lost his faith in the prophet’s revelation’s genuineness. Second, when the prophet’s teachings became self-contradictory, evidently along the lines of personal interest, a large group of people left the prophet. Third, the prophet had to discard parts of his teachings, attributing it to deception from Satan, when its contents found no popular acceptance. Mohammad thus seems like a hardly credible source. Of course his revelations are very compelling to many people, who choose to overlook all these three discrediting instances. The Bible, at the same time, has been created in the span of thousands of years, written by many dozens of inspired people. The revelation, to be so spread out, is quite unique in this manner, unlike any other out there. It can be thus said that, in comparison, Christianity’s revelation -- again, as far as religions from revelations go -- is genuine.

Thirdly, the Judeo-Christian revelation claims to have been proven and fulfilled. Like religions in a large percentage, Christianity also operates with many prophecies. Yet, it is quite exquisite in that its prophecies have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ(1). This is some two thousand years worth of texts, which have been completed in a real persons life and death and his message. Now at this point, to accept the above sentence, it requires faith, however, the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition counts Jesus Christ as fulfillment to its prophecies and expectations is very unique and can be counted as a genuine basis of faith.

And lastly, the inspiration behind the text is very credible. Most likely in connection with the long time span, the revelation of the Bible doesn’t follow lines of interest. Quite the contrary, often great historical influences were opposed by actual revelations and sacred guidance. Even socio-economic contexts were ignored or opposed time and time again, which again, proves that the revelations are genuine. Now whether or not to believe them still can be a question but not whether or not the claims are genuine.

Note: I’m aware of the possibility my above argumentation might be plagiaristic but as this is not published as a scholarly work I feel I don’t need to go source-hunting. Originally the basic concepts presented here are used in a novella I’m still trying to write and I put it out here in this shape and form because I’ve been deeply inspired by a personal conversation (see preface).

(1) Jesus is, historically, better recorded than Julius Caesar, so his earthly existence can be regarded as historical fact (as long as one accepts such things, since they can sometimes seem questionable), his metaphysical significance and the truth of his message is what is usually argued.

In any case you mustn’t confuse a single failure with a final defeat.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night (via honeyforthehomeless)

Magnificent

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And then one fine morning— So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Scott F. Fitzgerald

Winter lights on Her face