This question crawls underneath the skin of everyone in the world; it's a question that can destroy some, frustrate others, and create or resurrect others.
Years ago, the only thing you truly could be was yourself, because there was no real alternative presented by mind-numbing television, world-enveloping internet, or glossy fashion magazines.
Some have realized that resistance to the question can present one of the many answers, albeit not an inherently correct one, while resistance to the answer brings yet another set of conclusions which can only be deemed correct by the individual.
Life, like any other system in nature, isn't governed by any set of predetermined principles; as humanity has proven, nature is also incapable of governing itself, or in the least suppressing a renegade species that decides to go further. The entire facade of religion and, in a broad generality, belief in itself, has attempted to prove that their is indeed a predetermined set of rules that lay the game out for the species put on the continental playing fields, but have yet to truly convince the worlds population in its entirety due to the resistance of a few, which slowly grew into the resistance of many.
To identify as a separate individual from the commercial, corporate, and societal mainstream is indisputably one of the bravest forms of resistance there is, proving their is no way to completely suppress any group or society; there will always be people above the manipulation, lies, and stereotypes that will be brave enough to stand up for what they know is right.
One of the greatest flaws of humanity as a whole is the belief that if a large majority of a/the population believe something to be true, then in the least their needs to be some truth to it, right?
Wrong. Someone could spiel out a load of total bullshit and successfully convert an entire nation to a set of misguided principles and lies, and that wouldn't make it correct by default; for example: look at Hitler's Nazi Germany, or white supremacists in the Southern United States.
As far as I see it, if your willing to conform to a certain set of beliefs out of fear, then you're no better then either of the latter notable mentions, whether that set of beliefs is something as pure and innocent as Buddhism, or the ideas shared by a fitness group, anything taken from fear is automatically subject to doubt and scrutinizing with good reason.
The ability to dismiss a fear as nothing but yet another emotion that will pass in time is probably the wisest thing to do in a time of crisis. If you face death, look death in the eyes and accept that if their is no choice, nothing that can be done, then their is absolutely nothing to fear.
The cliche that states the 'only thing to fear, is fear itself' seems to ring quite true in this framework of thought.
That's yet another subject to address: frameworks of thought. It's a hard one to address, albeit quite fascinating: is it correct to set yourself with a framework of thought? Doesn't that mean conforming in some sense? Yes, it does mean conforming in some sense, but only to what you chose to conform too. When conforming to a framework of thought, it's a good idea to leave many doors open to reform, and be ready to accept any complete renovation to that frame if that's the ball life throws at you, without dogmatically clinging onto any thought you may doubt when an abstract, yet perceptionally correct alternative properly presents itself.
Chances are, if theirs a voice inside your head telling you either parts of the thought or the thought as a whole seems correct or acceptable, it's probably best to listen with an open mind.
An observation I've made in the hectic world of today is that resistance to the mainstream seems to be growing at an alarming rate, with people finally realizing what it is to be an individual, what it is to be oneself without having to listen to an ancient book, or a cassette tape telling you how to get rich. Humanity has finally reached a point where morals are simply common sense, as opposed to what they appeared to be during the apparent time of Christ or prior; it's come to a point where people need not be governed by the word of a deity or deities to be good, or even incredible people. They no longer due good out of fear of retribution if they were to do bad; they do good simply for the sake of doing good.
Alongside humanities maturing there is the obvious blurring of the line which tells us what's inherently wrong and what's inherently right. Until around 200 years ago, it was considered inherently wrong not to have an automatic belief in God; that line, as is obvious in today's society, has been blurred beyond recognition, being twisted every which way until it's nothing but scribbles when showcased as a chart statistic.
I believe this day and age is, in some sense, a second Renaissance. Whether it's the beginning, middle, or end is for future humanity checking in hindsight to decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment