Man, I Envy You Quite Honestly And Proudly

You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.  Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Revelation 3:17-20 (via thatwhichdoesnotsuffer)

Modern-day weddings

I've been on a big number of weddings now. On fabulous ones, with huge fortunes invested and on plain ones, that were almost for free. On ones, where it wasn't the first marrige, and on ones, where it wasn't the last.

It makes me wonder: what kind of wedding did they want. Though the most obvious question is: why did they want to get married on the first place? It's totally out of fashion, as many say, it's just a piece of paper, or a bureaucratic approach of romance. These modern views shoot a bullet straight through my heart and everything I love about love.

Marriage is supposed to be the sacred covenant, which establishes, that the subjects really want to spend the rest of their lives together. In love. In olden days, divorce was forbidden, or at least scandalous. These days we interpret it as obligated suffering throughout life. But why? Love should and can last forever. It can follow you through all your years and can make them worth to live through. I have seen examples of this kind of attachment, and this is what keeps me believing in marriage.

A couple days ago I was at a wedding. It was a very small-scale one, simplistic but somehow magical, inspiring, wonderful and delightful. At the dinner, there was some quiet music, no dancing, no big party really, only a few games for the young couple. It sounds utterly boring, however, it was a true example of their care for each other. The guests weren't neglected, or such, only they were shown what real love looks like. And it looks like a fairy tale.

When there is real love between two, it deserves a chance. And this chance isn't just living together, or making love, or fancy gifts. It's way more than that. True, honest love needs a fireplace, where it can eternally blaze, keeping warm those around it. It needs reassurance of its value, lifespan and absoluteness. If you marry the person you love, you can create a home, a family, basically a life, without doubt, without insecurity. Okay, it needs a little more than marriage but marriage is a fine brick of the house of a great life.

I want to believe, that marriage can be the great start of the grandest advanture of our lives. :)

When I was sixteen I read The Great Gatsby, and oh - Oh! I said, how it flows, how does this gorgeous iambic pentameter work its way through the valves of my arteries? ‘Within and without’ runs in my blood. Everything sounds like money to me. I wandered lonely as a cloud, only, no, old sport, I don’t wander, I plan. I lift weights like Benjamin Franklin. I gaze out, out, out, I am the poet. I am the huntsman. I lie in wait. I have for years. Sometimes I forget about The Bell Jar, but I remember The Iron Giant. Let me tell you, I’ve watched that movie every year of my life since I was seven years old, and I fell in love with the robot from a children’s story book to the big screen. I have since studied Metamorphoses and watched the hawk fly through the rain, but choking to death on my own breath? A touchy subject. What does F. Scott Fitzgerald have to say for himself when his wife’s journals lay strewn across his back catalogue? Where was Ted Hughes when Sylvia Plath collapsed in the kitchen? Boasting about his own work, or belittling hers? In 2008 The Times ranked Hughes fourth on their list of ‘The 50 greatest British writers since 1945’. Where is Sylvia Plath? Where is Zelda Fitzgerald? Where are the women? Where are the gentle hands, the voices that clink like coins, where are the dangerous curves, where is the soaring fire of our generation? Show me your nails, filed to claws. Give me your ragged hearts, give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, give me your words. I want to hear your voices, louder and more insistent than ever before. I want The Times to write a new list. I need to hear the murmurs of agreement of every lecturer in the Arts and Humanities department of each university as they turn it over in their hands. To see a split between every gender so even that no one remembers where the line is, where the line ever was. This wave’s classic writers are gone, so bare your teeth and show me your fighting stance.

we are still behind the yellow wallpaper | ishani jasmin (via ishanijasmin)

So beautiful, so complicated, so problematic...

Diving Head First

What I want this post to be is a reminder for later times.

"6 Be determined and confident, for you will be the leader of these people as they occupy this land which I promised their ancestors. 7 Just be determined, be confident; and make sure that you obey the whole Law that my servant Moses gave you. Do not neglect any part of it and you will succeed wherever you go. 8 Be sure that the book of the Law is always read in your worship. Study it day and night, and make sure that you obey everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Remember that I have commanded you to be determined and confident! Do not be afraid or discouraged, for I, the Lord your God, am with you wherever you go."" Joshua 1:6-9 GNT

I am standing up now and doing what my tasks are. I will keep on writing but with determination and confidence. I will also study and think as well as I can. I will run as fast as I can, do as many things as possible.

I do realize that the quoted scripture is not a promise given to me. It teaches the right mindset: when I see my mission, I have to be determined and confident. (I also realize that a mission can only be something through which I glorify the Lord and something that's focus is Jesus. Although it is not limited to the explicit forms of worship; it may take the form of art, for example (see also: Switchfoot))

It is highlighted even in the scripture above but it's also said beautifully as follows:

" 8 Physical exercise has some value, but spiritual exercise is valuable in every way, because it promises life both for the present and for the future. 9 This is a true saying, to be completely accepted and believed. 10 We struggle and work hard, because we have placed our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all and especially of those who believe." 1 Timothy 4:8-10 GNT

It is the spiritual ground, where I must be standing firm before anything else and only from there can I move out to do anything.

So let this day be remembered and may purity, love and humility toward God be the things marking the way.

The right answer is always figured out early on, when it isn't, it means, that you are not ready to know it.

Extreme close-ups of human eyes by Suren Manvelyan

The Hobbit - Smaug's Philosophy

Peter Jackson's Desolation of Smaug (2013) had a great impact on me for numerous reasons. When I was introduced to Tolkien's tale, I was in high school and I found a number of morals of the story, that I could revisit now. This time, however, I have come across a thing in Smaug's reasoning, that was brand new to me.

When Bilbo and Smaug have their conversation, the dragon speaks scornfully of Thorin's attempt to reconquer the mountain. He says, that the dwarf if misled, if he believes, that his ancestors' kingdom can be restored. The dragon also argues, that no one has right to Erebor but him.

We, the sons and daughters of modern democracies, which mostly promote both liberal and communitarian values, automatically think, that of course the Lonely Mountain rightfully belongs to Thorin. He is heir to the throne and the land was taken by force by a--so to speak--tyrant. The dwarf's reasoning seems legitimate and just. Smaug's evil and Thorin is virtuous, this is very clear.

But we must bring this conflict to further consideration to understand it in depth. What we actually see is how two philosophies confront each other. Smaug explains this almost explicitly to Bilbo. The dragon argues, that the dwarves have a narrative identity, which gives them ground to make their claims, on the contrary, Smaug says, he has just as much justification. His main argument is probably, that he is stronger, and justice exists only between equal parties but since they are inequal in strength, the more powerful does as he/she sees fit and the weaker obviously can't resist, ergo must undergo whatever the other decides. Smaug's second, maybe less conspicuous argument is, that his narrative identity also gives him ground to be ruler of Erebor: he conquered this land--probably by different means but with the same outcome--just as the race of the dwarves once did and now it belongs to him.

This predicament reminds me of the famous Melian Dialogue, which is in Thucydides' History. In that, the Athenian empire asked the island of Melos to surrender to them and pay tribute but they refused and appealed to Athen's sense of morals: mercy and the respect of neutrality. It is, of course, not an identical case, but what is very similar: the Athenians argued, that there's no true moral argument, that could be made in this case. They said: "For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". Smaug reasoned very much like the Athenians did. He thought it foolish to bring up questions about a code of honor or virtue because none of them can be more morally approved, than the other, since every land comes to be ruled by being conquered. The dragon kept arguing, that he has the right to do as he does by possessing the power that he does.

Naturally, Thorin's claim still seems more justified. Our approval can be traced back to two possible roots, both sufficiently sublime to give us peace about our point of view.

The first possible explanation is, that Thorin aimed to cultivate the land and the neighbor peoples. He wanted to restore a state of prosperity to the benefit of all.

The second possibility is, that Thorin's allegiance was to the side of good or the side of light, as opposed to Smaug's, which was to Sauron and the side of darkness. In this case the dwarf king was trying to reach a divine goal: to overcome evil with good.

Of course both explanations have their shortcomings, mostly because of Thorin's weaknesses, that are often in the nature of morals, but all in all, he is something like a "good guy".

Smaug's reasoning in IR and political philosophy in general is called a realist approach. It's like Machiavelli's "power is power" way of thinking. I believe our disapproval of the dragon's line of argument shows our natural tendency to believe in more than just causality. We have a moral code implanted in our souls. We can, of course, fight it in favor of profit or the "greater good" or whatnot but it's undeniably there. This tendency is a beacon of hope for me. It gives me faith and not just in humanity or a set of ideals, no. It gives me hope, that overall there is good, which transcends our desperate, miserable and depressing world. It gives me hope, that there is God, in whom I can lay my trust.

A Question of Morality

Do we do things because they are the moral things to do or do we do them to achieve certain ends? I faced this question in a debate I had with my church's youth group's sort of leader. It was of course a peaceful debate--diplomatically ignoring my views eventually--but this question has been living inside me ever since.

I took a Kantian standpoint and argued in favor of the categorical imperative, whereas my opponent said that, the moral thing is to act to earn God's divine gifts in Heaven. And even though it seemed pretty obvious to me, in the past one week ambiguity has begun to cloud my confidence on this matter.

The heavenly gifts we earn for living a righteous life are quite naturally stimulating and indeed worth living that life for but I thought, that it is not the highest we can get. In my opinion--the one which I had then--acting out completely because of wanting to do the right thing is the most moral way of thinking. Only for the rightness of that action, not for avoiding guilt, or actually finding pleasure in it, or anything of sort.

Using Kant's reasoning however, would actually mean embracing the opposing view, not mine. Kant actually found God in morals this way. His categorical imperative suggests a certain joy felt over the moral act, properly proportionate to how moral the act was. Although he found a problem in this: say--and this is my example--you commit a crime but you have cleaned up after yourself well enough. Still, a clever detective somehow gets to you and you are persecuted. However, when being tried, you find a way to get away by adding just one more lie, that could clearly undo the validity of any evidence they have against you. Now you are faced wih the dilemma, that either you add just one more lie and get away, or act morally and confess. It is problematic to imagine a situation, where a criminal in the midst of trial starts to think about morality but let's accept it for the sake of the thought experiment. Now before moving any further, I add another crucial detail: because of the severety of your crime and the local laws, if you testify guilty, you will be executed on the scene without any delay. So now, acting immorally will just get you life, in which you can try to make up for the wrongs you've done and do probably some even more moral things, than confessing now. On the contrary, in the present state, the only justifiable action is testifying guilty. But this morality, thinking in earthly matters, is completely vain. It earns you nothing, neither for the community, and though everyone will agree, that at least you did the right thing when you confessed of your crime, you will still be marked as overall immoral, and above these, you will not have a chance to feel any joy over your moral act. Impending death, brought forth only by a moral act, which serves only the abstract morality itself, can take away this kind of joy...

In the case above, according to Kant, the only acceptable choice is the moral one. But without a sort of moral joy felt over it and any service implemented through this, it certainly becomes difficult to find any point in it. On the contrary, no matter the contingencies, such as one's lack of time for joy, you should still choose the moral decision.

Now this is a place, where Kant found God. After your moral act, you can have joy over it even after you are dead, in case there is life after death. In case there is Heaven, and it is accessible to you--well, anyone can say a prayer a be saved even right before death--this final moral act of yours, will prove to be not in vain and you will have a chance to have that sort of moral joy in the proper proportion.

No, no one has to agree with Kant. I know, I haven't seen into the depths he has or the depths there are to this question. But--without solidly stating, that this is the right way to think about this question--this is a possible answer, that put some things into new light for me. It's good to get it off my chest :)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/u0zhZVKS1eo?feature=oembed

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0zhZVKS1eo)

sick as frick |-/

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,…