Photo by Joe Shlabotnik

Everybody has their own way of seeing the world, their own behaviors and beliefs.  There are a lot of conflicts that arise out of this and at the core of the conflict is the belief that whatever ideals we hold are the “right” ones.  I would say that one of my own beliefs is that there is no “right” belief, there is no objective moral truth.  Of course this creates somewhat of a paradox since this would also negate my own claim, but I will explain it nonetheless.

If we can look at the world and everyone in it through the lens of knowing that there is no objective meaning to be sought, a very different picture emerges.  Without the meaning, all of our attitudes, personalities, and ideals become completely arbitrary.  We can see them as a result of environments and biological proclivities.  Whether I am an extremist Christian or an atheist, an environmentalist or an industrialist.  All of these balances have no pull to either end.  I might as well be any of them.  I think that this is somewhat of an inevitability with human beings.  There are so many of us that everyone will never think the same way.  We take on these roles to play because without them, the stage becomes lifeless.  The roles make our lives interesting, even give the semblance of meaning, and provide us with comfort.

We need everyone else to play the roles as well, that’s the only way it all works.  What point is there to protest for peace in the absence of war.  We all need each other, even our enemies, to give us the chance to live our roles.  I need the murderer to show me fear, hate and anger just as I need a beautiful woman to show me lust, love, and happiness.  It is easy to marginalize the negative things simply because it would be more convenient, but they’re all part of the game.

Maybe you don’t agree with me, but that’s okay.  Even to think about this picture in a hypothetical sense offers some curiosity.  To imagine the whole world, with all its plights and delights as just a whole lot of people pretending in order to escape the meaninglessness.  It lends some sort of appreciation to even those we despise, if only for a moment before we cast it aside.  You then get reminded that this is my role, to show what I think, to convince you as we all try to convince one another.  But that’s what makes it all so interesting.

Photo by Jennifer Phoon

It seems the theme of hypocrisy is still present in my head.  This time, as applied to religious beliefs.  There are many different faiths and belief systems out there, each with their own following.  I’m not talking about any hypocrisy within these beliefs.  I mean the hypocrisy that is present in how people tolerate other views.  Most people are fine with talking about other beliefs and criticizing them, but not all are comfortable when their own beliefs are criticized.

It should be understood by people of religious faith that what they believe in as a path for answers.  Being this, they should know that there are multiple paths available.  Since there are multiple paths available, criticism of the different systems is inevitable.  But some who are  strong believers in their faith are unable to accept any criticism or even agree that their system is one among many.

The type of thinking that allows one to criticize the religions of others, but get offended when their own religion is questioned is hypocritical.  This is the same type of thinking that has caused so much conflict between the Middle East and the Western world.  Many people are quick to assume that it is a fundamental flaw in Islam that causes Muslims to be violent, but this is not the case.  Any strong believers of their own faith would react the same way to “offenses.”  If Christianity did not already dominate world, and was in a minority state as Islam is, Christians might react the same way.  The problem occurs when the followers believe that their faith is the only truth and that it is the only truth for everyone.

The absence of this problem would mean a world where religious issues could be discussed without inflaming any particular group.  People would be able to speak and act openly without the danger of offending anyone.  At the very least, the same people who get offended should be respectful and tolerant of other religious beliefs.  But this also does not exist.  Tolerance is preached universally, but the key is practice it unconditionally, not in a way that conforms to already our existing beliefs.

Photo by Philipp Klinger

The rules and ideals we hold to be true for ourselves and the ones we seek to impose on others must mirror one another.  To do otherwise is hypocrisy.  To expect a certain treatment while we treat others differently is hypocrisy.  When this imbalance exists, the reactions we have to rules and ideals are meaningless.  A rule that is not applied to oneself and others in the same fashion ceases to be a viable rule.

To make my point more clear, I offer the following example.  In my classroom building, the elevators are always quite busy.  As the doors are closing, more people will often run up and open the doors to get inside.  At other times, when I have been inside the elevator when this happens, I notice people grumbling about the delay this causes.  This is so common that now, when a person comes in at the last minute, they will apologize as they enter.  This is baffling to me.  Why would a person find it necessary to apologize for exercising the right that they have to use the elevator?  I asked this person why they apologized, and they told me that it was because people have complained in the past.  I have been using these elevators for over 2 years, and I know that most people have rushed in at the last minute at some point in the course of their schooling here.  The same people who complain about late comers have most likely been in the same situation themselves.

Why complain about someone else doing a thing that we ourselves will do in the same situation?  These hypocritical complainers must view their actions as being excusable because it serves their own interest.  But the actions of the other person are not excusable, because it hinders their own interests.  This practice of taking whatever actions benefit ourselves most creates countless inconsistencies.  To me it is ridiculous to expect to be treated differently than how we treat others.  If everyone were to live in this way, society would cease to function.  This same sort of thinking applies to many other everyday situations.  Cutting people off in traffic and getting angry when cut off.  Taking to long in a line and complaining of others who do the same.  Why can we not think that maybe they are in the same situation we were in when we did the same?

We cannot elevate ourselves above everyone else in how we apply our principles.  If we live by ideals meant to rule only ourselves, then they are not ideals at all, but simply living in a self-serving manner.  If we can notice and eliminate these hypocrisies, a lot of everyday annoyances and frustrations might be eliminated.  Treating others as we expect to be treated.  This lesson is taught since kindergarten, and yet it is one that is not remembered.  I think it’s time to re-apply it.

Photo by Mr. Kris

Every relationship that we cultivate has it’s own dynamic.  We do not behave exactly the same with everyone, and the greatest difference that can be observed is in our “romantic” relationships.  For some reason, we treat our lovers differently than our friends, we have different expectations of them.  Perhaps, this is partly because of what we’re taught by our surroundings, from seeing others do the same.  But it is also partly because we are more doubtful with our partners, as we have more to lose.

It is because we open ourselves to them much more and are fearful of this feeling not being reciprocated.  Maybe it’s because of this fear that we hold them to a higher standard.  Maybe it is because of this fear that we demand so much more from them in order to believe that they truly care about us.  When a relationship is in this dynamic, there is no real trust and there is no real giving.

If we are insecure of our love being reciprocated, then there is no real trust in the other person.  If we are able to absolutely believe in their expression of love, then we would not have any fear of not being loved.  Without this fear, we would not be as sensitive to their actions when they do not align with our expectations.  With this belief would also come a relinquishing of our expectations, because we might realize that we can still be loved without someone following what we expect them to do.

We must also look to see if our actions are motivated by an attempt to meet expectations.  Our actions must only be those that we truly want to do, not what we think we should do and not what we want reciprocated.  If we give our time and effort in this manner, it becomes something different, true giving does not come with an expectation of receiving.  Only if we can give without any expectations of reciprocation can we free our partner from us.  Expectations can become a limitation on whoever we love, and their expectations on us.  A relationship where both people are acting in this way is a false image, because neither person is acting according to their own wants.  The more this becomes so, the more the relationship will decay, as the real people inside grow farther apart.

The unlearning we have to do in order to achieve a state of no expectations might be an arduous task, but the chance of having an honest and freeing relationship is a great enough motivator to take on the task.

Photo by TON70

Is it possible to be aware of our lives in every moment, rather than in the ones we consider most important?  We all have things to look forward to, sometimes an entire life could be viewed as a series of these things, big and small, that we look forward to.  What happens in the time in between these events?  If I go through the week looking forward to a trip on Saturday, how is my experience of the week affected?

If we are living in a life full of tasks that we don’t enjoy, tasks that we are simply doing for survival, the chances of us living for these meaningful events is greater.  The more that this is true, the less that we are able to be present in every moment of our lives, because we want to escape the mundane.  We create these little things to look forward to so that we get pleasure from the wait.  In most circumstances, at least from what I can extrapolate form myself, the time spent waiting for the event to arrive has more aggregate pleasure than the event itself.  The expectancy gives us a little pleasure each day that we have to endure the mundane.

The downside to this kind of living is that all the time in between events is not really lived.  We are either escaping boredom or daydreaming the future.  We leave no room for the present.  The second downside is that even otherwise bearable or even pleasurable things could become a burden in the expectancy of something much larger.  Recently a friend recounted to me a story where he was trying to get to the top of a hill with a great view.  The entire hike up the hill was to him an annoying event because he was anxious to get to the view and that’s all he had in mind.  If perhaps he had not decided on a destination to head toward, he might have enjoyed the hike up as well.  The events we seek in the future have a habit of creating comparison with the present.

The future is not yet happening, not yet experienced.  This being the case, it should not keep recurring in our minds, much less dominate it.  It is one thing to plan things or create goals, but to live in the arrival of future pleasures is a waste of the present.  The present was the future at a past time in our lives.  Why don’t we try to absorb the most out of it?  There is some sense of pleasure to be attained just be being completely aware of one’s own existence.  This can happen in the present only, because we cannot feel the past or future completely.  With this pleasure in awareness, there ceases  to be a reason to dwell on the future as a source of satisfaction.  The future will become the present as we approach it and we can continue in our same state of consciousness.

Photo by Noel Zia Lee

Is the value of a cute and familiar animal greater than that of an unfamiliar animal?  I’m defining familiar in terms of closeness to humans.  Of course this varies across cultures as well.  Eating a dog or cat would seem unthinkable to most people in the United States, but it is commonplace in Asia.  But this bias toward animals that we think are cute or animals we have become accustomed to living among seems inconsistent.  The value of a dog versus the value of a cow does not change with the human opinion.  Both are four-legged mammals and neither have any discernible mental advantages over the other.  So our decision to eat one and adopt the other comes down to how friendly these animals are to us.

We could adopt a subjective view of the world and claim that whatever we perceive as value is value, making the friendliness of the dog its higher value.  But in this view, I would also become acceptable to differentiate among humans like this.  I would be able to kill anyone that I believed had lesser value to me.  Obviously this is not the prevalent philosophy.  The people that eat cows are for the most part, people that think humans have value and certain animals have value.  Outside of the subjective view, we have no logical basis for differentiating among different animals.  Without a logical basis, it is just inconsistency in its most obvious form.

How can a person be against eating dogs, but eat cows?  Most consumers of beef or chicken would not want to cause the death of a cow or chicken, yet they eat them.  It seems that we are just choosing to ignore what’s not in front of us.  It’s more convenient to make these differentiations than to face our inconsistency.  A person who chooses to eat animals should be perfectly willing to kill animals.  Some might be willing to accept the killing but want someone else to do it, even this is fine because they are accepting responsibility.  But to eat meat without wanting animals to die is wrong.  A person who chooses to eat meat and kill the animals that gave rise to the meat must also accept the killing of other animals.  If I choose to kill and eat stray dogs, the beef eater should not tell me that I am wrong.  It would just be a matter of taste.

The existence of an objective moral truth is arguable, so I cannot claim whether it is right to kill animals or not, but either belief should be practiced with complete consistency.  The meat eater should be willing to accept the death of every kind of animal.  The animal rights activist should not cause the death of any animal.  To choose among animals corrupts whatever we believe and we end up with an inconsistent and faulty moral code.

Photo by Zabara Tango

Is it possible to live a life without passion?  Can one go through life without a single passion for anything?  It seems that I’m encountering more and more people that don’t seem to know what they really love to do in life.  Most of my peers are college seniors, and inevitably, the most asked question of the times is “what are you doing after graduation?”  Most will reply that they are seeking a job in a field which corresponds to their major.  Some of these people will actually like their major and are excited about working in it.  The majority however, are going with the flow and either say that they don’t really like what they will be doing, or they claim that they do with feigned excitement.

Then, out of this group of people who are not really interested in their chosen paths, there are a few who will know what they are truly passionate about.  Out of those, some will plan on pursuing it at some level, and the rest will be to fearful to take a chance on what they truly love to do.  I can understand these people, even the ones that don’t pursue out of fear have something to live for, they can still cultivate that interest in solitude.  But what I don’t understand are the rest of the people that are uninterested in their paths, and also have no idea what they really like to do.

We as human beings have been able to use our innate cleverness to rise above the daily struggle for food and survival.  At some level, I like to think that all this progress was made to give us the chance to attain a higher level of satisfaction.  Satisfaction that is gained through pursuing to do with our lives what makes us happy.  The group of people that are choosing uninteresting paths are doing so out of necessity for money, for stability, for survival.  If we do this, then we’re just propelling ourselves back to what we already broke away from.  If we sacrifice our passion for stability, we might as well go back to hunting and gathering in the forest, because we are giving up our uniquely human opportunity.

The people without passion perplex me.  What drives someone to survive when there is nothing to greatly stimulate them?  Most people who don’t think they are passionate about anything might be overlooking important aspects of their behavior.  If we took a little time to question ourselves, we might discover a hidden interest we never noticed before.  Maybe passions are sought out.  Maybe we have to try out everything we can in the hopes of finding something that truly captures us.  Isn’t it worth it to take a chance on being rewarded our our work internally at the cost of a stable but suppressing job?  Or at the very least, cultivating a passion on the side while holding a stable job.  But with no passion at all, I fail to see what reason there is to keep struggling.  I fail to see the great benefit in my humanity.

Photo by ASPatrick

One of Sigmund Freud’s most popular theories is that of the “id”, “ego”, and “superego”.  In this theory, he states that the id is our most basal state, it is driven by the pleasure principle.  This means that it seeks pleasure in the form of food and sex and avoids pain.  Later in his career, seeking to answer why humans so often engage in self-destructive behavior, he theorized the existence of a “death instinct.”  This was also part of the id.  Basically, he thought that eventually, the id becomes tired of the constant struggle for survival and pleasure and seeks to end its own existence.

This theory could explain why we are so drawn to escape from ourselves through movies, music, and books.  It could also explain the blatantly destructive behaviors such as aggressive behavior and war.  The theory is interesting because it offers a biological explanation for a lot of our negative behaviors.  It almost excuses our inability to change.  I say almost, because fortunately, we also possess the ego and the superego.  The job of the ego is to control the id.  So it follows that even if this death instinct exists and is some sort of biological trait of all human beings, then it is also in the biological capacity of all human beings to recognize it and choose to control it.

We can examine ourselves and see whether we take part in certain activities because they provide an escape or because we genuinely enjoy them in the present.  I’m sure almost everyone will experience at some point in their lives this death instinct because anyone who becomes aware of the cyclical struggle for survival will feel its pointlessness.  But the benefit of recognizing this is that once we are aware of the futility, instead of succumbing to our biological natures and seeking destruction, we can choose change the the struggle for survival.  We can choose to learn more about the world or who we are as human beings, or even if there is a purpose to us or anything else.  We may never find the answer to any of these questions, but in the process of contemplating them, we can live up to our own potential as humans.  We have the characteristics of animals, but we also have more that we can choose to utilize.

There is a whole universe of thought and ideas and possibilities that can never all be explored by one person, to choose to end the struggle would be to think that there is nothing else of interest left.  On the road of becoming more aware of ourselves, there is always a phase where it feels tiresome to keep on going once we recognize the struggle, I’ve seen it many times in people that I know.  This is the toughest part and one that has to be overcome in order to be able to think clearly and leave the struggle behind completely.  Our id will call for us to destroy ourselves, but we have to remember to use our ego and superego, our higher thought, to control it and put it back in its place.  It’s time for those that consider humans to be different or superior to animals to earn that distinction.

Photo by hr.icio

One of the core beliefs that every person holds, whether they are aware of it or not, concerns a basic fact about human nature.  This belief will either be that human beings are self-interested and individualistic, or that we care about others by nature and not just ourselves.  Which side a person chooses will largely be determined by their experiences and upbringing.  The person who has been affected most by the selfishness of others or is selfish themselves, will choose to justify their behavior by claiming that humans are selfish by nature.  The person who has always been treated kindly and favorably by others will believe that human beings are good and caring of others by nature.

I am defining self-interested/selfish as prioritizing one’s own benefit above that of everyone else, even if it means breaking rules that they have set forth for themselves.  A caring person would be one that thinks of how their actions might negatively affect other people and follows their own rules even to their detriment.

I am more inclined to thing that more people are self-interested, but I don’t think this is a characteristic of humans as a species.  I think this is a learned behavior, something that can be changed, something that is not inherent in us.  There are people who do care about others genuinely, and there are people that don’t.  It is wrong to make an assumption about our race as a whole in order to justify one’s own behavior.  I am not claiming one view to be better than another, that’s a much deeper question of whether there are a set of morals to be followed.  What I’m more concerned about are the people that choose to represent themselves as something they are not.  Most people who are selfish will not want others to see it.  Some of them don’t see it themselves.  But if a person is unwilling to be honest about this belief with the people around them, or to themselves, then there is obviously some sort of conflict in their minds.

If we choose to hide something, then we are admitting to ourselves that it is an undesirable trait.  If we know that we are acting undesirably, then why keep doing it?  The true self-centered person will not choose to masquerade as a a caring member of society for the benefit of others.  So before we can even begin discussing whether it is right to be self-interested or caring of others, we have to first be honest about what we truly believe.  If people are trying to be perceived as caring and act selfishly, then they must choose which one they really agree with.  Most of the time, it is this way because they would like to have the benefit and convenience of being self-interested with the benefit of being viewed as caring.  To me this is an inconsistent behavior.  One of the first steps to becoming aware of who we are is to solve these inconsistencies in our ideals or beliefs about ourselves and the world.  An inconsistent person is one who will always be clueless about who they really are.

Photo by Stephen Brace

Lately I’m confronted with more and more people that act inconsistently with their goals.  The ideas they express in conversation remain as just that, they never seem to implement these ideas in their life.  Some of the time these people are not really committed to what they’re saying.  Maybe they’re taking part because they’re trying to project a certain image of who they want to be viewed as.  But I’m talking about the people who do believe in the ideas they express.

I have friends that constantly talk one way and act a different way.  When we have conversations, they will say how they wish it were this way or that.  They even know what they have to do to get there, but they just don’t act.  I think it just comes down to being lazy or afraid of the process.  Most people become too comfortable with the way they are to act on most of their ideas.  The people who do end up changing drastically seem to be the ones who experience some sort of jarring event in their lives that takes away their complacence.  I can understand how it’s easy to turn away from the work at hand by settling for the way things already are, but with that sort of thinking, any potential for learning and growing is eliminated.

It seems a waste that someone not follow through when they’ve already done the initial steps of thinking about what has to be done.  Changing oneself is never going to be very easy or comfortable, but if we constantly wait for what’s easy, we will never end up getting anywhere.  “That’s just the way I am,” this is one of the phrases I most dislike hearing.  I think it’s incorrect to define yourself as your behaviors and attitudes at any one point in time.  These things are ever-changing over the course of our lives.  Just the fact that they have the potential for change points to the idea that they are not your definition.  Your habits don’t decide who you are, you define what your habits will be.

If we can view our outer behavior as something that is dynamic and ever changing, then we make ourselves able to constantly change along with life, as we must.  If we start to attach our being with our habits, then we weigh ourselves down and have to face lots of work in order to change anything.  If we are dynamic and not defined by habits, then we will be indifferent to any change as it does not determine who we are.  It will be simple to cast off one thing and add another.  Our potential for change is determined by the way we define ourselves.