^^ Greetings everyone!
I am very sorry for my long absence as I have been very silly. I have had great difficult discovering any thoughts that I may write in a concrete manner. However, as of late, I have been considering the idea of the self a greater amount and found this very interesting indeed. Some happy thoughts for this are below.
Within the last post concerning this topic, we considered the consciousness. I became confused as I wondered if the self could remain constant over certain period of time. As I considered this, I have pondered more about the consciousness.
If we define the consciousness as as deicision maker part of the self (or at least, the decision maker part is a sub part of the consciousness) then we can see that the self does perhaps change constantly. I believe this because the "world" or "reality" or "perceptions" that the self experiences change constantly. And therefore, the decision maker is constantly coming across new decisions and, ultimately, this alters the consciousness due to these decisions being carried out. And, since the consciousness is a part of the self, the self too must change (although we could consider this to be a very small amount of change).
Because of this however, I wondered again, what is the self? This is changing constantly and so how could an individual be an individual if they are not the same individual after the smallest amount of time has passed.
Perhaps we consider a string that connects all of the experiences with one another and this is the true self, a soul. Perhaps this could encompass the entire eself as time changes from the instance the conciousness is created the instant the consciousness passes away (assuming this takes place - which I cannot ultimately know for certain).
But in this case, the consciousness is merely a machine that carries out actions and thinks based on the self. In many ways the self is a condition the includes all experiences and what not before a point and the consciousness acts based on this.
During one day, as I was walking within my happy University, I pondered this and wondered if the self could be modelled as a continuous mathematical function. Then, the problem of the self at one instant in time may be considered as a limit. (^^ I am very sorry if this is very silly of me).
Following this, I wondered, what could this function be dependent on? Well, if we suppose that there is only one time line, (and alsoassuming my constant consciousness theory), we could have the function as dependent only on time and genes (if it is possible to model genes in some way). This is because genes for an individual's (one that may be conscious)body are most possibly unique and therefore would include implicitly the starting position within the physical world of the individual. Then, the factor of time would determine the self at any on time. So if we were knew the gene pattern of the individual, we need only consider the time.
In many ways, I do very much believe this idea of a function as an analogy to how the self may be considered and I am very sorry if this is very silly of me.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Defining the Consciousness
^^ Good evening everyone *Blesses*,
I would perhaps initially wish to wish my Sister and Brother-in-Law happiness with their new human son.
Today, I do hope I may speak of the consciousness and self (or soul or Cartesian Mind etc.). Although I do believe that I have been using these little terms as I type, I am very sorry as I have not rather fully defined these terms. In many ways, these may be considered the part which makes the decisions for the individual in question, and receives sensory information. In many ways, this is the "driver" of the body.
^^ I do believe I have stated that I personally feel the self is rather seperate from the body, yet they are both connected and one may not survive without the other.
First, let us try to consider what the self is. Within a previous post, I have argued that all experiences in the past form the self (that is, when assuming my constant consciousness theory), and also an unknown element if we assume the constant consciousnes theory is incorrect. Considering the first part, we may then define that, in part the self is a collection of past experiences in the form of memories. The self may also include instincts.
Now, before we progress any further, we must initially analyse a particular problem. Because memories are a fundamental part of the self, and memories are constantly changing, so too must the self. Therefore, what is the self? What am I? I believe humans often consider individuals to be constant (at least in part). For example, I may be hungry at a time of 17.00, but I am currently eating a cheese sandwich. Therefore, I am not longer hungry at 17.10. We may therefore conclude that the individual is no longer the same individual ten minutes later, since an individual cannot be hungry and not hungry at the same time.
So, the consciousness has changed. And we can may keep narrowing the time difference until we reach on single point in time, in which time has been frozen. What is the consciousness then? Well, in many ways, at a frozen point in time, it is not a consciousness, since it cannot think or make decisions when frozen at one point in time. So, let us consider an extremely small point in time.
But, has the consciousness not changed during this time? I do believe it has, since it must have experienced something in this time and this may influence the thinking it has.
^^ I must say, I find this amazing.
We return to the question, what is the consciousness? It cannot be defined at any point in time, but it is constantly changing. It is a constantly changing entity. Yet, I (and many self aware individuals do so I believe) consider myself to be one. Is the consciousness an illusion? The memories that an individuals has, in many ways, are not their own, but stored within the brain and the consciousness obtains these memories from the brain along with sensory messages.
In many ways, I may visualise the consciousness as similar to an infinite sequence tending towards a limit. And each point in time is an element of the sequence.
^^ Phewy phewy, I am very sorry as I do believe I must stop for the moent as the pixies warn me that I may begin happily circling. I am very sorry if this has been silly of me. Your comments are very welcome and I do believe they would help me very much in thinking about this. Thank you very much.
Thomas.
I would perhaps initially wish to wish my Sister and Brother-in-Law happiness with their new human son.
Today, I do hope I may speak of the consciousness and self (or soul or Cartesian Mind etc.). Although I do believe that I have been using these little terms as I type, I am very sorry as I have not rather fully defined these terms. In many ways, these may be considered the part which makes the decisions for the individual in question, and receives sensory information. In many ways, this is the "driver" of the body.
^^ I do believe I have stated that I personally feel the self is rather seperate from the body, yet they are both connected and one may not survive without the other.
First, let us try to consider what the self is. Within a previous post, I have argued that all experiences in the past form the self (that is, when assuming my constant consciousness theory), and also an unknown element if we assume the constant consciousnes theory is incorrect. Considering the first part, we may then define that, in part the self is a collection of past experiences in the form of memories. The self may also include instincts.
Now, before we progress any further, we must initially analyse a particular problem. Because memories are a fundamental part of the self, and memories are constantly changing, so too must the self. Therefore, what is the self? What am I? I believe humans often consider individuals to be constant (at least in part). For example, I may be hungry at a time of 17.00, but I am currently eating a cheese sandwich. Therefore, I am not longer hungry at 17.10. We may therefore conclude that the individual is no longer the same individual ten minutes later, since an individual cannot be hungry and not hungry at the same time.
So, the consciousness has changed. And we can may keep narrowing the time difference until we reach on single point in time, in which time has been frozen. What is the consciousness then? Well, in many ways, at a frozen point in time, it is not a consciousness, since it cannot think or make decisions when frozen at one point in time. So, let us consider an extremely small point in time.
But, has the consciousness not changed during this time? I do believe it has, since it must have experienced something in this time and this may influence the thinking it has.
^^ I must say, I find this amazing.
We return to the question, what is the consciousness? It cannot be defined at any point in time, but it is constantly changing. It is a constantly changing entity. Yet, I (and many self aware individuals do so I believe) consider myself to be one. Is the consciousness an illusion? The memories that an individuals has, in many ways, are not their own, but stored within the brain and the consciousness obtains these memories from the brain along with sensory messages.
In many ways, I may visualise the consciousness as similar to an infinite sequence tending towards a limit. And each point in time is an element of the sequence.
^^ Phewy phewy, I am very sorry as I do believe I must stop for the moent as the pixies warn me that I may begin happily circling. I am very sorry if this has been silly of me. Your comments are very welcome and I do believe they would help me very much in thinking about this. Thank you very much.
Thomas.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Considering the Considerations
^^ Good evening everyone,
I must say that I have many thoughts that I would wish to speak of. However, when I sit at my happy computer and wish to write them, little pixies have taken them away. Alas, today I have remembered one such thought.
I believe this is very much exploring how to feel about exploring such matters. I do feel that exploring the metaphysical and questioning the foundations of what one has believed in the past may perhaps result in a human feeling upset.
For instance, considering what I have typed in the past, there appears to be large amount of suffering taking place. Yet, it seems that as long there exists life, there exists suffering in some form. We may consider great examples such as genocide (I believe an act very similar to this is widely accepted in human society - that is, the mass slaughter is individuals for "food"), famine and other such matters (I also include non-humans in this). Perhaps even if genocide was halted as such, there must still be some form of balance in place as there is limited space upon Earth, the Solar System and eventually the Universe.
Also, I believe we may consider even if complete peace is achieved. Peace is often considered as tranquil and still. Although, peace very much defines a lack of conflict and violece (if not, let us define it as such in this case). Peace also require a system to be in place to secure this peace.
Perhaps we may consider to western cultures. Stress and depression are often present for one example.
^^ So, I see this is very difficult to know how to feel. In many ways, it very much seems best to always try to be happy. To see happiness and good in your own little universe within your mind. To marvel at the wonders of what you may perceive. As I do believe that being upset and not taking action shall perhaps only cause more suffering, if only to yourself. Relieving some suffering is perhaps a much greater act than relieving no sufering also, although a complete removal of suffering may not seem possible.
I must say that I have many thoughts that I would wish to speak of. However, when I sit at my happy computer and wish to write them, little pixies have taken them away. Alas, today I have remembered one such thought.
I believe this is very much exploring how to feel about exploring such matters. I do feel that exploring the metaphysical and questioning the foundations of what one has believed in the past may perhaps result in a human feeling upset.
For instance, considering what I have typed in the past, there appears to be large amount of suffering taking place. Yet, it seems that as long there exists life, there exists suffering in some form. We may consider great examples such as genocide (I believe an act very similar to this is widely accepted in human society - that is, the mass slaughter is individuals for "food"), famine and other such matters (I also include non-humans in this). Perhaps even if genocide was halted as such, there must still be some form of balance in place as there is limited space upon Earth, the Solar System and eventually the Universe.
Also, I believe we may consider even if complete peace is achieved. Peace is often considered as tranquil and still. Although, peace very much defines a lack of conflict and violece (if not, let us define it as such in this case). Peace also require a system to be in place to secure this peace.
Perhaps we may consider to western cultures. Stress and depression are often present for one example.
^^ So, I see this is very difficult to know how to feel. In many ways, it very much seems best to always try to be happy. To see happiness and good in your own little universe within your mind. To marvel at the wonders of what you may perceive. As I do believe that being upset and not taking action shall perhaps only cause more suffering, if only to yourself. Relieving some suffering is perhaps a much greater act than relieving no sufering also, although a complete removal of suffering may not seem possible.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
An Intention Fulfilled
^^ Greetings everyone, I hope you are well.
In this little post, I believe I very much wished to state that I have very much already typed the main beliefs that I bless me very strongly, and one such belief is that that all individuals are equal. Not just humans. Not just one particular type of human. All those that are conscious.
^^ However, I do certainly possess many more thoughts to speak of. I apologise greatly as I have not posted very frequently as of late, however I find great difficulty in ordering my thoughts and knowing which to type.
Therefore, I believe happy future posty pixies may be a little shorter than those previous and the content a little more scattered and wobbly. I may also attempt to clarify points within my previous posts that I feel my be a little fuzzy.
Thank you very much for reading.
Thomas
In this little post, I believe I very much wished to state that I have very much already typed the main beliefs that I bless me very strongly, and one such belief is that that all individuals are equal. Not just humans. Not just one particular type of human. All those that are conscious.
^^ However, I do certainly possess many more thoughts to speak of. I apologise greatly as I have not posted very frequently as of late, however I find great difficulty in ordering my thoughts and knowing which to type.
Therefore, I believe happy future posty pixies may be a little shorter than those previous and the content a little more scattered and wobbly. I may also attempt to clarify points within my previous posts that I feel my be a little fuzzy.
Thank you very much for reading.
Thomas
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Considering Beliefs
^^ Good evening everyone,
Today, I believe that I shall speak of beliefs for a second time, yet more specifically about Scientific beliefs and those established Scientists who shun other beliefs in such a way that there is very little difference to their shunning and those of the infamous religious leaders of old.
I have one particular Darwinist in mind when speaking here as he is often a controversial figure and is a good example of what I wish to speak. Often they state that Scientific theories have evidence, which is what religious beliefs do not have.
You can refer to one of my very first posts to see that I believe that any belief should respected. This is not to say that I must follow it blindly, yet respect the belief of the other individual as I am only perceiving and they are only perceiving also.
Therefore, considering the evidence of Science. I find this very interesting when individuals preach their sciences. I believe this is often because one "proved" theory in science uses information from another, and that from another. There may also be physical evidence, such as fossils etc. Again perception comes into play here and, ultimately, I believe that a large amount of what an individual believes is based on informed evidence by other individuals.
^^ I believe Biology is a happy example as it is based on a number of fundamental Sciences. Those are Chemistry, then Physics then Mathematics. I believe it would be difficult for one individual to consider all of the evidence (and view each experiment and conduct them themselves)from each field so that they built their own Scientific knowledge individually. Therefore, I believe many Scientists rely on the work of previous Scientist's observations and experiments.
My little intention here is not to cause doubts in Science if that is what you believe in, yet to preach open minds towards those who do not believe in particular areas of Science, and my main argument still lies in an earlier post - that is, an individual only views matters from their own perspective. And therefore, so does another and they have as equally strong reasons for believing in what they believe.
Many Scientists state that they do posess open minds, yet contradict this by stating that an individual who see "evidence" and chooses not to believe in the Scientist's conclusion is insane.
End.
^^ Thank you very much for reading everyone. I apologise if I have been horrible in this post.
Thomas
Today, I believe that I shall speak of beliefs for a second time, yet more specifically about Scientific beliefs and those established Scientists who shun other beliefs in such a way that there is very little difference to their shunning and those of the infamous religious leaders of old.
I have one particular Darwinist in mind when speaking here as he is often a controversial figure and is a good example of what I wish to speak. Often they state that Scientific theories have evidence, which is what religious beliefs do not have.
You can refer to one of my very first posts to see that I believe that any belief should respected. This is not to say that I must follow it blindly, yet respect the belief of the other individual as I am only perceiving and they are only perceiving also.
Therefore, considering the evidence of Science. I find this very interesting when individuals preach their sciences. I believe this is often because one "proved" theory in science uses information from another, and that from another. There may also be physical evidence, such as fossils etc. Again perception comes into play here and, ultimately, I believe that a large amount of what an individual believes is based on informed evidence by other individuals.
^^ I believe Biology is a happy example as it is based on a number of fundamental Sciences. Those are Chemistry, then Physics then Mathematics. I believe it would be difficult for one individual to consider all of the evidence (and view each experiment and conduct them themselves)from each field so that they built their own Scientific knowledge individually. Therefore, I believe many Scientists rely on the work of previous Scientist's observations and experiments.
My little intention here is not to cause doubts in Science if that is what you believe in, yet to preach open minds towards those who do not believe in particular areas of Science, and my main argument still lies in an earlier post - that is, an individual only views matters from their own perspective. And therefore, so does another and they have as equally strong reasons for believing in what they believe.
Many Scientists state that they do posess open minds, yet contradict this by stating that an individual who see "evidence" and chooses not to believe in the Scientist's conclusion is insane.
End.
^^ Thank you very much for reading everyone. I apologise if I have been horrible in this post.
Thomas
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Considering the Equality of Life
^^ Yaye, good evening everyone,
I am very sorry for my absence during this previous number of days.
This day, I do hope it is alright that I speak of my beliefs concerning those who are non-human. I believe this state of belief for me is now very natural and therefore I may find difficulty in explaining. However, to perhaps understand how I feel, we just need to consider the areas explored in the previous posts.
Perhaps it is best to first consider some arguments that humans often provide to why a non-human animal is not "equal" to a human. I believe this term, "equal", often means that the human thinks that they are more entitled to privileges than a non-human.
1) One argument may be "The human race is a superior species". By considering the selves and consciousnesses involved, we have already argued that superiority is there merely by chance, and therefore that actual self is not really superior.
I must state that I believe that evolution is correct in many wats (though it is possible that the beliefs of others are possible). Yet, there appears to be some implications drawn from evolution that I feel do not really follow. I believe that evolution really just explains one part of how an individual came to be that individual.
I feel that many evolutionists seem to draw a hierarchy of species. And, if an individual is believed to belong to a particular species, they have a greater right to life and happiness (by happiness, I define a form of contentedess, that involves no suffering for the individual). Why? Well, the argument just seems to be that they are part of that species and a member of one species must help only members of that species. Helping is good, but why the prejudice? Every life form is an individual, not a species. The little pixies in my head become very upset when the the word "we" is used in a global sense (for instance, as part of a news article), but this excludes non-humans. For instance, "Wasps like to eat our food". Why are the wasps not included in this "we", but I am? The food that you eat is not mine. Also, we could argue that possession is relative anyway, so it is the food of nobody.
I feel that because humans believe that they understand evolution, that they must "follow it" blindly. I once asked an individual why they favoured their grandaughter over their adopted kitty. They replied by saying that the grandaughter was "one of their own". (I am very sorry for this, my beliefs are very eccentric I believe, however please refer to my introduction at the top of the page). Yet, why do genes mean that you must favour that individual? I do believe there is difficulty, as we could ask "why favour any individual"? This is my personal belief, yet I believe all should be favoured equally. Though, this produces a very, very, very, very large number of complications as the balance of life does not particularly allow for this. Thus, one potential answer for this is provided in my previous post. That is, is a death necessary?
2) This is perhaps the more complex matter to consider. "You cannot prove that non-human animals feel as much as humans". I believe this is certainly correct and I find this a difficult problem to consider. ^^ I have so many ideas in response to this that it is difficult for me to order them.
First, the primary sense that a human possesses for detecting feelings is through communication. By viewing individuals that belong to many species of mammals in particular (though I believe best to think of individuals as individuals), it is very possible to see feeling and suffering. We cannot prove this. Yet, I can see the way a mother greets her child, or the way they act if the life of the child is lost (for example). This may not be proof. However, if a human tells me that they are suffering, this is not proof either. Both of these are interpretations. A form of communication. As individuals, I believe we must decide for ourselves, if we can.
There is also another response to this. That is, the level of feeling. In many ways, I do not have a response for this. Simply that an individual must consider carefully before potentially causing suffering of any kind before they do so. Is this necessary for the absolute well-being (life) of another individual? Do you consider that individual more important? Each case, each individual must be considered carefully. One individual many not have certain feeling that another does, bt they may have different ones.
I am very sorry for I do not appear to possess many answers here. ^^ I would be very grateful for any comments, as I find great difficulty in knowing which of my ideas to type, and how to order them
Thank you very much for reading.
Thomas.
I am very sorry for my absence during this previous number of days.
This day, I do hope it is alright that I speak of my beliefs concerning those who are non-human. I believe this state of belief for me is now very natural and therefore I may find difficulty in explaining. However, to perhaps understand how I feel, we just need to consider the areas explored in the previous posts.
Perhaps it is best to first consider some arguments that humans often provide to why a non-human animal is not "equal" to a human. I believe this term, "equal", often means that the human thinks that they are more entitled to privileges than a non-human.
1) One argument may be "The human race is a superior species". By considering the selves and consciousnesses involved, we have already argued that superiority is there merely by chance, and therefore that actual self is not really superior.
I must state that I believe that evolution is correct in many wats (though it is possible that the beliefs of others are possible). Yet, there appears to be some implications drawn from evolution that I feel do not really follow. I believe that evolution really just explains one part of how an individual came to be that individual.
I feel that many evolutionists seem to draw a hierarchy of species. And, if an individual is believed to belong to a particular species, they have a greater right to life and happiness (by happiness, I define a form of contentedess, that involves no suffering for the individual). Why? Well, the argument just seems to be that they are part of that species and a member of one species must help only members of that species. Helping is good, but why the prejudice? Every life form is an individual, not a species. The little pixies in my head become very upset when the the word "we" is used in a global sense (for instance, as part of a news article), but this excludes non-humans. For instance, "Wasps like to eat our food". Why are the wasps not included in this "we", but I am? The food that you eat is not mine. Also, we could argue that possession is relative anyway, so it is the food of nobody.
I feel that because humans believe that they understand evolution, that they must "follow it" blindly. I once asked an individual why they favoured their grandaughter over their adopted kitty. They replied by saying that the grandaughter was "one of their own". (I am very sorry for this, my beliefs are very eccentric I believe, however please refer to my introduction at the top of the page). Yet, why do genes mean that you must favour that individual? I do believe there is difficulty, as we could ask "why favour any individual"? This is my personal belief, yet I believe all should be favoured equally. Though, this produces a very, very, very, very large number of complications as the balance of life does not particularly allow for this. Thus, one potential answer for this is provided in my previous post. That is, is a death necessary?
2) This is perhaps the more complex matter to consider. "You cannot prove that non-human animals feel as much as humans". I believe this is certainly correct and I find this a difficult problem to consider. ^^ I have so many ideas in response to this that it is difficult for me to order them.
First, the primary sense that a human possesses for detecting feelings is through communication. By viewing individuals that belong to many species of mammals in particular (though I believe best to think of individuals as individuals), it is very possible to see feeling and suffering. We cannot prove this. Yet, I can see the way a mother greets her child, or the way they act if the life of the child is lost (for example). This may not be proof. However, if a human tells me that they are suffering, this is not proof either. Both of these are interpretations. A form of communication. As individuals, I believe we must decide for ourselves, if we can.
There is also another response to this. That is, the level of feeling. In many ways, I do not have a response for this. Simply that an individual must consider carefully before potentially causing suffering of any kind before they do so. Is this necessary for the absolute well-being (life) of another individual? Do you consider that individual more important? Each case, each individual must be considered carefully. One individual many not have certain feeling that another does, bt they may have different ones.
I am very sorry for I do not appear to possess many answers here. ^^ I would be very grateful for any comments, as I find great difficulty in knowing which of my ideas to type, and how to order them
Thank you very much for reading.
Thomas.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Considering Superiority/Inferiority
Good afternoon everyone,
I am very sorry for my earlier post. I have been thinking very much since I posted earlier and have been rather upset about the example that I used at the end, as I feel this did not portray what I wished. What I wished to portray is the following.
Suppose we have two individuals. One, named Grak was born with sharp claws. The other, named Hak was born with stubby fingers. Let us assume Grak and Hak have a can of baked beans and there is an infinite supply of beans in the can. Therefore, Grak is superior at opening tins of baked beans. However, let us consider their actual selves. Grak did not choose to be superior in this way. It is only by chance that Grak is superior in this situation, and so I believe it would be unfair to say that Grak deserves to eat all of the baked beans and Hak must starve and die.
Let us see matters through the perspective of Grak. It is not necessary that Hak must die in order for Grak to survive and be happy. Thus surely it is best that Grak shares his baked beans and allows Hak to live.
Perhaps we may now expand this to all life. By "this", I means the decision that can be made by a consciousness whether to end the life of another consciousness if they have the power to do so. As I have explained, I believe that the individual with the power is there often by chance.
Let us assume that Ted is the individual with the power, and John is the one Ted is deciding to kill.
Also, let us assume they are almost identical, except for the position. So they have the same needs to survive and the same feelings and the same capacity to suffer. Thus, I believe there is no need at all for either Ted to kill John unless it is absolutely necessary for Ted to survive. However, I believe it exactly the same for John as well. I believe perhaps the problem is that there is no rule here and either poor John or poor Ted must end their lives in order for the other to survive. Really, it is their choice to decide.
I believe this is an awful situation to consider, but one that I believe must be considered because in many cases an individual dies when it is not necessary for any other individual to survive. In the situation above, both individuals are equally matched in terms of power in the situation. However, I witness executions most days in which the power is unequally divided and the death is unnecessary. Namely, between a human and a fly for instance.
End
^^ I do hope you had fun reading. In case you missed, I typed an entry earlier today also titled "Considering the Self Part 3".
I wish you well.
Thomas
I am very sorry for my earlier post. I have been thinking very much since I posted earlier and have been rather upset about the example that I used at the end, as I feel this did not portray what I wished. What I wished to portray is the following.
Suppose we have two individuals. One, named Grak was born with sharp claws. The other, named Hak was born with stubby fingers. Let us assume Grak and Hak have a can of baked beans and there is an infinite supply of beans in the can. Therefore, Grak is superior at opening tins of baked beans. However, let us consider their actual selves. Grak did not choose to be superior in this way. It is only by chance that Grak is superior in this situation, and so I believe it would be unfair to say that Grak deserves to eat all of the baked beans and Hak must starve and die.
Let us see matters through the perspective of Grak. It is not necessary that Hak must die in order for Grak to survive and be happy. Thus surely it is best that Grak shares his baked beans and allows Hak to live.
Perhaps we may now expand this to all life. By "this", I means the decision that can be made by a consciousness whether to end the life of another consciousness if they have the power to do so. As I have explained, I believe that the individual with the power is there often by chance.
Let us assume that Ted is the individual with the power, and John is the one Ted is deciding to kill.
Also, let us assume they are almost identical, except for the position. So they have the same needs to survive and the same feelings and the same capacity to suffer. Thus, I believe there is no need at all for either Ted to kill John unless it is absolutely necessary for Ted to survive. However, I believe it exactly the same for John as well. I believe perhaps the problem is that there is no rule here and either poor John or poor Ted must end their lives in order for the other to survive. Really, it is their choice to decide.
I believe this is an awful situation to consider, but one that I believe must be considered because in many cases an individual dies when it is not necessary for any other individual to survive. In the situation above, both individuals are equally matched in terms of power in the situation. However, I witness executions most days in which the power is unequally divided and the death is unnecessary. Namely, between a human and a fly for instance.
End
^^ I do hope you had fun reading. In case you missed, I typed an entry earlier today also titled "Considering the Self Part 3".
I wish you well.
Thomas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)