Priorities, Priorities...

It certainly has been a while since I last posted so that probably explains why the momentum of traffic on this blog is dying down. Due to the rather hectic nature of the course I'm currently doing, I might not find too much time to come on the net, let alone post new ppieces of writing on my blog. Hopefully an arrangement of some sort could be carried out and I might be able to put up new posts directly or indirectly through people I know. Thanks for visiting,

Nikhil

Our Captor: Morality (Also on Ephilosopher)

Morality today is a concept or rather a code which many of us take for face value. It seems to me that each of us is brought up in an environment which embraces this Moral code with open arms and without any questions whatsoever. It is this moral code, which unknown to us, is destroying the very core behind our existence. Some say our purpose to exist is to think, and while that is a debate in its own right, one cannot argue against the fact that it is our ability to think and contemplate on the world around us that separates us from any other living organism. To put it simply, it is the faculty of thought and reason combined that makes us what we are - human.

This moral code, which is nothing but the product of another human mind, seems to be the single set of rules which plays God with the way we are deemed to conduct ourselves. We do not seem to realize however, that it is this moral code which contrary to our belief and a complete antithesis to the reason for its creation, is doing nothing but enslaving the human mind to needless servitude. By blindly accepting a code which defines the core values of what we call life, have we not conceded that the human mind is incapable of thinking for itself any more? Is it that hard to believe that as our individual selves we, as humans need not conform to some set of rules given the status of divine commandments?

I ask you: Why is it that this moral code that allegedly looks after the best interest of the human race as a whole, teach us that it is wrong to fulfill our own desires and next to divine to go out of our way to make sure others' desires are fulfilled? Why does it teach us that indulgence is a sin and that happiness is something which cannot be experienced without "selfless" service? Time is the great equalizer and life is its medium of choice. Then why is it today, that it is the haves who must give to the have nots for the sole reason that they haven't tried hard enough?

The human mind, in all its glory is capable of accomplishing unimaginable things. How then can we so casually give up its power? In the end, everything that is "moral" can be decided by a basic choice left to the human mind: Yes or no. True or false. Right or wrong. Is it so inconceivable to imagine we are capable of making such choices ourselves? Is it not moral to seek one's own happiness? Is it not moral to fulfill one's own desires? Is it not moral to put yourself before everyone else?

There is a line between self-interest and selfishness. Morality as we know it today renders that line irrelevant by putting everyone else before the individual. It teaches us that the desires of the self must precede the greater good of man. Such a method of thought and reason cannot be practically ideal for a world as diverse as ours. Have we gone too far down the road to realize the fundamental error in our way of life which degrades the happiness of the individual? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps this moral degeneracy that finds itself more prevalent these days is a sign of things to come. It is a sign that the individual is finding a voice in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps, it isn't moral degeneracy at all. It is probably just the result of a rebellion against a system that condemns the desires of the self. It is a direct result of the error in our judgment. It is a result of the human mind's suppression. Perhaps one day, the human mind will reassert it's superiority over dogma. Perhaps one day, the only morality one needs to adhere to, is the response to the human mind's basic choice: Yes or no. True or false. Right or wrong.

On God.. (View my post on Ephilosopher by clicking here)

It seems that the concept of a God is something that mankind has invented more out of necessity than anything else. It seems to me that 'God' is just something we have invented to provide some form of 'valid' explanation to those things we cannot explain. Fear is probably another reason why man has invented this concept of there being an all pervading, omnipotent creator. Since the dawn of man, there has been an innate fear of the elements of nature. As a result of this, the primitive man worshipped what he saw around him in order to avoid incurring nature's wrath. This is probably the origin of the concept of a God. After all, fear is probably the one thing we deem synonymous with necessity.

God as an entity, according to almost all major religions, possesses the power to perform almost any act he/she desires. Then again, I wonder why I use the term "he/she" because if God is truly the creator, he cannot be one of the created. This power God possesses is reminiscent of our need to establish some form of order in our life. By subscribing to a belief in there being a Lord of all things big and small, isn't it a sign of our humanity? A sign of our hope that when things go wrong, in some way, they're all part of some grand plan of the good God's?

More than anything else, I believe the concept of god is necessary in a world such as ours today. Whether a god truly exists or not, one cannot ignore the fact that God is 'someone' most turn to in times of need. Faith becomes a path of healing and comfort. God becomes the unconditional source of love and the epitome of power who has it in his capability to mend all that is wrong. God becomes the universal parent, ever-ready to provide comfort.

When something unfortunate happens, it only seems too convenient to subscribe to the cliché that 'God works in mysterious ways'. Consider this. If the concept of god could be compared to some scientific theory (which I assume it often is) subject to intense scrutiny, things would be something like this. This theory would subscribe more to personal belief than to reason. This theory would contain more assumptions than deductions. This theory would be defended by the one who proposed it with the use of various irrelevant comparisons like 'Take the wind. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there'.

On the other hand, there are indeed numerous things which are currently beyond our capacity to explain. However it doesn’t mean there ISN'T an explanation. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. As far as I'm concerned, the question as to God's existence is something which cannot possibly be answered at this time. I wouldn't call myself a non-believer and I wouldn't ask you to become a non-believer, but I wouldn't call myself a believer too hastily either. Time may tell who is on the right side of this debate, but whether God exists or not, I believe the concept of God is integral to the moral status of the human race as a whole.