Insert general disclaimer here.
There is no glory in winning an unfair battle. Where is the justice of slaughtering the weak, corrupted by their own self-ambition? Most soldiers aren't where they are for the fame and glory. Those who are, soon realize it can't be found and are quick to leave. Then, those I kill are there for another reason. While weaker, they may be there for the same reason I am. How do I justify the slaughter of myself?
In my studies over the years, I've come across many philosophers, spouting useless nonsense to an incompetent crowd. One such of these men, Bronowski, had little value to his point, except one line. A string of words that made me pause and think. The idea haunts me, for I live by something that then, in fact, doesn't exist. The human language, he said, was one of imagination. almost entirely conceptual. People are on a very ignorant base, not to know their own language to its fullest extent, and most often, even words they speak, they do not know the true meaning of.
The concept doesn't bother me, until you get to the point that I live by justice. What is justice? It isn't something tangible. something I can look at and know, this is the right path. And who's to say what is right in the first place. Is the world, and the way we explain it, meant to be left up to so much personal interpretation that it is never quite the same from one person to the next.
Most people would answer, yes. But then how are we to judge one another. If someone else can justify the slaughter of millions of innocents, why couldn't I? How can we then judge him? Do we judge the man by his own sense of justice compared to ours; it seems unfair due to a bias. I'd like to know who the hell sets the standards around here because I think a change is in order.
The world is fast changing; we must realize that before we can attempt to direct it. Things change constantly while the masses have little or no control. It's one or two men who end up using the people as pawns in a deadly game of chess and this time it could well result in the destruction of the human race entirely. A war to end all wars.
Is that justice? Or is fighting against this well establish system the true meaning of the word? Bronowski made the point that words themselves are merely symbolic for that which is not actually present. Is my fighting, is all this fighting. merely a symbol for a higher form of justice which we can't enact. There's an old saying that it takes a village to raise a child; does it take a united race to cultivate peace?
Peace is one thing. a temporary thing. Benjamin Franklin, the colonial American, used to sell bullshit to people about how there is no good war or bad peace. A good war? It depends on the definition. on the personal concept of good and bad; right and wrong. I believe this war is right. but what I believe is likely far from the truth. As for bad peace? If it's on the wrong terms. If there was such a thing as "good" peace, then why more war? Peace was never something settled between people to the extent that everyone is satisfied.
And that dissatisfaction is what leads to trouble. Another concept, if you could excuse the ideology, is greed. We live in a generation never happy with what it's given. All humanity lusts for is instant gratification. This is where our problem comes for. why there is a question to what is true justice. The fact of the matter is, there is no longer any truth, and there hasn't been for a long time.
I, myself, am not truly who I should be. or is it should have been, and was. I abandoned scholastic endeavors to pursue what, at the time, I thought to be a higher goal. But should we place worldwide betterment over the improvement of our own person? If the entire world stopped trying to do "good," stopped thinking of what they wanted but more of what they needed maybe we wouldn't need to save the world from itself. Henry David Thoreau, Walden; he had a valuable point on the difference between needs and wants... and also made the point of saying, " There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted.If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Isn't this what I'm doing to the world? By attempting to enforce a sense of justice, aren't I intending to do good for the world? What's the worth of helping others if we can't help ourselves?
Funny, there was once someone in my life who'd challenge me simply for thinking too much. For saying things like these. But maybe, that's the problem with letting other people change your life for you. and then doing nothing to change theirs in return.
I was convinced, only a year back from now, that justice existed only in convenience. An excuse to do the unthinkable. I was right in a sense, but then again entirely wrong. Soon after, I was also told I had the ability to change history; I defied justice by sitting by in inaction and apathy while the world slowly died. If I were to take Thoreau to heart, however, I could easily argue it worse to attempt the world a favor. But to watch people suffer and die simply because there was no foundation on which to justify helping them. Is that justice? I'm simply twisting my own words. concepts, now.
The weak aren't so because they can't help themselves. they are weak because they choose not to. Is it more worth to give aid temporarily, but leaving them to their ways? Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish? Well, we all know how this one goes. But before I go off giving away these philosophical "fish," I might want to learn to catch them for myself first. There is no honor in defeating or helping the weak. But in defeat, maybe I will gain more of what I truly need to survive. neither fish, nor justice. But a true understanding of the value of my actions.
There is no glory in winning an unfair battle. Where is the justice of slaughtering the weak, corrupted by their own self-ambition? Most soldiers aren't where they are for the fame and glory. Those who are, soon realize it can't be found and are quick to leave. Then, those I kill are there for another reason. While weaker, they may be there for the same reason I am. How do I justify the slaughter of myself?
In my studies over the years, I've come across many philosophers, spouting useless nonsense to an incompetent crowd. One such of these men, Bronowski, had little value to his point, except one line. A string of words that made me pause and think. The idea haunts me, for I live by something that then, in fact, doesn't exist. The human language, he said, was one of imagination. almost entirely conceptual. People are on a very ignorant base, not to know their own language to its fullest extent, and most often, even words they speak, they do not know the true meaning of.
The concept doesn't bother me, until you get to the point that I live by justice. What is justice? It isn't something tangible. something I can look at and know, this is the right path. And who's to say what is right in the first place. Is the world, and the way we explain it, meant to be left up to so much personal interpretation that it is never quite the same from one person to the next.
Most people would answer, yes. But then how are we to judge one another. If someone else can justify the slaughter of millions of innocents, why couldn't I? How can we then judge him? Do we judge the man by his own sense of justice compared to ours; it seems unfair due to a bias. I'd like to know who the hell sets the standards around here because I think a change is in order.
The world is fast changing; we must realize that before we can attempt to direct it. Things change constantly while the masses have little or no control. It's one or two men who end up using the people as pawns in a deadly game of chess and this time it could well result in the destruction of the human race entirely. A war to end all wars.
Is that justice? Or is fighting against this well establish system the true meaning of the word? Bronowski made the point that words themselves are merely symbolic for that which is not actually present. Is my fighting, is all this fighting. merely a symbol for a higher form of justice which we can't enact. There's an old saying that it takes a village to raise a child; does it take a united race to cultivate peace?
Peace is one thing. a temporary thing. Benjamin Franklin, the colonial American, used to sell bullshit to people about how there is no good war or bad peace. A good war? It depends on the definition. on the personal concept of good and bad; right and wrong. I believe this war is right. but what I believe is likely far from the truth. As for bad peace? If it's on the wrong terms. If there was such a thing as "good" peace, then why more war? Peace was never something settled between people to the extent that everyone is satisfied.
And that dissatisfaction is what leads to trouble. Another concept, if you could excuse the ideology, is greed. We live in a generation never happy with what it's given. All humanity lusts for is instant gratification. This is where our problem comes for. why there is a question to what is true justice. The fact of the matter is, there is no longer any truth, and there hasn't been for a long time.
I, myself, am not truly who I should be. or is it should have been, and was. I abandoned scholastic endeavors to pursue what, at the time, I thought to be a higher goal. But should we place worldwide betterment over the improvement of our own person? If the entire world stopped trying to do "good," stopped thinking of what they wanted but more of what they needed maybe we wouldn't need to save the world from itself. Henry David Thoreau, Walden; he had a valuable point on the difference between needs and wants... and also made the point of saying, " There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted.If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Isn't this what I'm doing to the world? By attempting to enforce a sense of justice, aren't I intending to do good for the world? What's the worth of helping others if we can't help ourselves?
Funny, there was once someone in my life who'd challenge me simply for thinking too much. For saying things like these. But maybe, that's the problem with letting other people change your life for you. and then doing nothing to change theirs in return.
I was convinced, only a year back from now, that justice existed only in convenience. An excuse to do the unthinkable. I was right in a sense, but then again entirely wrong. Soon after, I was also told I had the ability to change history; I defied justice by sitting by in inaction and apathy while the world slowly died. If I were to take Thoreau to heart, however, I could easily argue it worse to attempt the world a favor. But to watch people suffer and die simply because there was no foundation on which to justify helping them. Is that justice? I'm simply twisting my own words. concepts, now.
The weak aren't so because they can't help themselves. they are weak because they choose not to. Is it more worth to give aid temporarily, but leaving them to their ways? Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish? Well, we all know how this one goes. But before I go off giving away these philosophical "fish," I might want to learn to catch them for myself first. There is no honor in defeating or helping the weak. But in defeat, maybe I will gain more of what I truly need to survive. neither fish, nor justice. But a true understanding of the value of my actions.