Social Residues

What is the value of one man’s belief in a collectively consensual society going against that belief? None- he’s insane.

At least that’s what the population would think. But it’s not the least in significance such labels would pose. It matters what people think. As much as some would deny this importance or even feel for the person so labeled, no one can detract from the truth that subjectivity determines facts.

It is true that everything is subjective. Why then, do some garner more votes than others? Perhaps that is subjective as well? In this situation, how does one tell subjectivity from favourtism? It is in these social loopholes that people impose individualistic opinions whilst claiming to be under the veil of subjectivity, is it not?

In law, it is well settled that ignorance of the law is no defence- it is an irrefutable avenue that everyone would pursue. As I’d observed, the same enforcement cannot be seen in human behavioural ethics in a morally obligatory way, at least as strong in effect as this legal doctrine imposes.

Do people ‘see through’ these selfish endeavours? Perhaps they chose to turn a blind eye, because they help to pursue one’s own interests. Or that such a perception could easily be a projection of another’s subjective reality. Like I’ve said, it’s indiscernible. In modern civilization, it is not astounding to consider such a view as the human nature constantly finds its way to manifest its internal desires. In a more sophisticated manner, I would say.

Then again, it could all be absolutely fictional.

Natural Instincts

Let's ponder on the issue of Instincts.

Instincts are intuitions, some would say a natural phenomenon? But what is a natural phenomenon? What constitutes a natural phenomenon? In this context, are instincts biological or sociological in nature to amount to a natural phenomenon?

I guess they also call instincts hunches. Do people have hunches? Do people feel that something is amidst? In other words, are those feelings scientifically real, or are they merely psychological? If it being the latter, does that mean that we can control it? If it being the former, then people don't really have hunches in a linguistic sense, do they? In fact, there won't be such a thing as a hunch.

Instincts are the result of an assessment of a whole history of social interactions and the socialisation process that makes up that individual's identity. This implies that every person's instincts are not the same. While some instincts prove more accurate than others, they all naturally reflect a person's values and perceptions. To that effect, it may be considered to be sociological in origin.

But I continue to wonder if instinct is a byproduct of the complex neuro-calculations of our brain. Something that is not 'made up' so as to be psychological, but rather, a 'humanly' character. It is said that animals do have instincts as well, hence does that support the idea that instincts are biological in origin?

Then again, it is true that the external environment is the triggering factor of instincts in the first place. We don't get instincts out of nowhere, do we? That being the case, instincts seem to possess both a sociological and biological character in nature, since they are caused by the external dimension while being internally processed. Thus 'natural' covers both aspects, to be precise. But I find myself not being able to not mention the chronological argument that since instincts are triggered by external factors in which the internal process is based upon, wouldn't that make instincts sociological in nature? This brings us back to the earlier argument; the fact that animals have instincts themselves does not necessarily follow that instincts are biological in origin since it is possible that animals have their own socialisation process as well which caused the creation of instincts. But animal instincts are thought not to be the same as that of humans as they do not possess that 'humanly' character I was talking about. Do fresh-borned infants have instincts? The answer would shed much light on the debate at hand.

Either way, the consensus appears that instinct seems to be a natural phenomenon. It is difficult to categorise its origin as it may just be an existent in the rhetoric and linguistic sense.

Philosophical swings?

I can't sleep. I've been thinking alot. Lately. From the relevant to the irrelevant. From the weird to the rational. From the probable to the self-generated. From reality to ignorance, and self-confessed philosophical thinking. I feel entrapped in my mind of out-of-no-where social realities that has kept me captive for so long. To some, it had them labelled as "unnecessary". To others, it has just been part of my philosophy. For me, it has been somewhat rewarding at times, but mostly torturing.

I feel consumed by a whole world of life out there and the conventionally unexplained. Not that I'm on a life-long journey to self-exploration but I may have unintentionally embarked on one. I feel immersed in people's lives and happenings around me that I've consistently lost my sense of Self in the sociological sense; both the I and the Me. I wonder if that translates to the ordinary sense of "not having time for yourself" in living in a comparative lifestyle, or a sense of inferiority to the effect of not being able to settle with what I am, out of constant dissatisfaction with myself in relation to others. The point is, I don't want to be rationalising these stuffs anymore you see, as the process just gets me nowhere near the exit of a "self-full", anti-social and lonesome life. I'm not enjoying the thinking for the most part, though I am able to explain things more subtly.

I'm still interested in philosophy anyway. The only thing I gathered about it is that philosophy makes you think and live in that thinking. Philosophy, in my opinion, doesn't contribute to one's living in the physical sense; it's more of a way of life that does not transcend beyond that grey matter.

Having said all that, I'm still doubtful I would ever change my ways, as momentarily determined as I occasionally use to be. I think I better get some sleep now. It's getting late already. I'll stop here.

The Ideal of Perfection

The occasional halts in life is often misperceived as obstacles; burdenful obstacles that is unnecessarily happening in our lives. I use the article "is" to denote a singular tone as these obstacles, though often appear in different forms, are always regarded as stemming from the umbrella of negativities. They can be taken as soundbites that remind us once in a while that we are still living in a world of imperfections. Admittedly, these soundbites occur more regularly for some so that any flawlessness act as encouragement and consolation that the world is not entirely without its beauties.

To some, these halts seem to be more chronic that the well-being of a quality life has been hampered. It is at this point that these obstacles have ventured a distance far more than a mere stimulant of human resistance to daily upsets.

The world has shown to us that there never was perfection. This notion however, has proved to be far too general and simplistic to reflect accurately the realities of imperfection itself. Within this notion is a world more severe: there are various degrees of imperfections that the lowest end of the range would make the notion an understatement. Maybe it wasn't meant to be stratified further; they are still imperfections nevertheless.

Is there any truth that the better we are able to explain these obstacles and our lives, the closer to perfection will we reach? Or does it maintain a myth that one can attain perfection? Would there be such a notion of perfection then?

While we should not favour different levels of imperfections, the reality remains that we are imperfect beings ourselves.