theory

So here's a thought: When God saw in Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone, sin had not yet entered the world. Maybe now, with the presence of sin, it is better for the fleshly man to be alone.

True, I look around and see a lot of happy families, lots of love. I see people helping others, being nice to others, saying kind words. I do not dispute the genuineness of human love or happiness in the social context. But with the inherent sinfulness of man comes distrust, jealousy, anger, vengeance, bitterness, and the list goes on. Did God really intend for the fleshly man to partake in society? Such a man has a huge capacity to inflict pain and hurt on others. War aside, it is in the company of others that lustfulness and covetousness must occur. I wouldn't want a massive diamond rock on my finger if no one else had or wanted one, or if no one else saw it. I would have no one to compare myself to, no Joneses to keep up with (or beat). If we were lonely creatures, no one would be around to hear us slander others or be its target. With our tongues, we commit unmeasurable damage and evil. They are the original weapons of mass destruction capable of great deceit and hurt. And I don't want to skirt physical damage; again, aside from war, there are diseases that transmit from person to person, accidents caused by other people, and crimes that assume the presence of other people such as burglary, murder, kidnapping, adultery, heists, and -gasp-terrorism. And let's also mention suicide--I don't know what the leading causes are, but I'm sure a handful or more had something to do with the pressures of society, feelings of not measuring up, guilt, and the like.

I take an earnest look at myself and my relationships with others, and I readily confess that they are all imperfect. But in my defense, I am only human. This is my point, that humans are incapable of having perfect relationships. This must be in the definition of "human" somewhere, that we are fallible. We are not fit for company. Not the way we are now, at least, with our selfishness. We can certainly strive to be the way we will be, though. Nevertheless, this striving is not the way it was intended at all; we were intended to already be. Humans are not inherently faithful, generous, kind. Our Good Samaritan moments are just shadows of how it will be in Heaven after the Second Coming.

something to read

for later

EDIT:

"I hate that God lets you suffer like this," I said.

"Oh," he said, taken aback, "God suffers more."

-2009

reflections from my freshman self

To remind myself of what I thought before on libertarianism.

John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” expresses his opinion that liberty is the chief political value. He wrote this book to encourage others to exercise their liberty rather than conform, which has become the easy thing to do in a modern society wherein rule is determined by majority consent. Mill advocated that individual liberty should be preserved at all costs unless its preservation harms others or takes away their liberty. The liberty about which he wrote is civil, or social, liberty rather than liberty of the will. He was concerned with the power of society and government to oppress individual liberty and, through this book, sought to define the limits of the power that society can legitimately exercise over the individual. Mill believed that liberty of thought and feeling, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and liberty to unite are the essential liberties with which society must not interfere; “[n]o society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government” (Mill 55).

In previous ages, the struggle between liberty and authority was comprised of the struggle between subjects and their governments, in which subjects fought for protection against the tyranny of their rulers. Today, in democratic societies, the government is no longer independent of the people. Temporary elected leaders rule for the people and according to the will of the people. However, the people are still not free from tyranny; this is because the “will of the people…practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people” (Mill 46). The majority can manipulate public opinion to coincide with its own, hence exhibiting tyranny through silencing the minority’s voice. The minority must be protected from the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” or else its liberty is denied—particularly, its freedoms of thought and speech. Mill strongly believed in the sanctity of these freedoms and that they should never be violated; “[i]f all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 59). Stifling one man’s freedom of speech would rob the human race of a potentially right opinion and prevent a possible truth from being revealed.

According to Mill, man can interfere with another’s liberty of action only in the pursuit of self-protection or the protection of others: “[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 52). Mill based this idea on his opinion that liberty is the most important thing to be attained, even more so than what is wise or morally right. I can encourage a friend to do what is right, but unless the consequences of his actions are harmful to another, I cannot force him to do so. This is because the “only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute” (Mill 52). The liberty of every man with the capacity to act rationally must be preserved, and his wishes respected.

I agree with Mill that liberty is a good thing which should be preserved, that it has a positive impact on society. Although his idea that a person’s liberty should be interfered with only when his behavior harms others sounds pleasant to the ear, I’m not sure how practicable it is. Mill believed that the preservation of liberty is more important than ethics, but I believe that society’s duty to act morally is more important. Mill’s reasoning is not based on an absolute scale of what is right and wrong, but on liberty as the principal good. Although I recognize that liberty is extremely important, I think more important things do exist. Suppose that I have a friend who has no family or any other friends excluding myself. If he arbitrarily decides to kill himself and I discover his plans, should I stop him? This would harm solely him, as it would not cause me or anyone else to harm anyone. According to Mill, I cannot force him to refrain from killing himself, as “the individual is sovereign.” However, I believe that I am morally coerced to do all I can to prevent him from taking his life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but liberty over happiness, and life over liberty.

fiction

Do words craft the person or does the person craft the words? You can be anyone you want by choosing your words that way. They're tricky, these words, especially when scrawled or typed. With the written word, there is a sense of detachment that the spoken word does not allow for. You can always link spoken words to a voice, at least. With the written word, you don't always know who the author is, unless it has been made explicit. And even then, who knows? that person may not even be the true author. The words may be stolen goods.

Books will never go out of style, even if print media does. As much as people like to hear themselves speak, they also like to see themselves in print. The thoughts you form in your head sound somehow more intelligent when you write them out than we you say them. Somehow you become a more substantial person as a writer of thoughts than a thinker of the same. Somehow there is accomplishment in writing, even if no one but you reads it. Plus, there can be ownership of the written word in a way not afforded by its spoken brother; attributed to can now be definitively authored by, or just, sweetly, by. And people are vain, they like to leave legacies. In an internet age where memory fades fast due to constant replacement of preoccupations, we crave all the more desperately for something lasting. Ironic, then, how easily the lasting can be destroyed, or--worse--stolen. No matter how much you pour into your writing, no matter how long you spend deliberating over the right words to put forth, there remains the anonymity that invariably comes with separation of the writer from his physical voice.

But maybe that's not the point of the written word at all, the authorship. Maybe the point is the argument, no matter what it derives from, or where. Moreover, the miracle of writing is that stories don't have to be autobiographical; they aren't limited to the scope of the author's experience. You can be anything, when you write about anything.