Less Cynicism, More Love

In my younger days, I always considered myself to be the pessimist, the realist, the anti-hero, the "we-would-eventually-die" type of guy. Perhaps all of these attributes were rooted in my personal belief that in order for people to get the best out of themselves, they must always expect the worst. However, as I grew older, I realized that all of these negative assumptions are more of a hindrance rather than an encouragement.

Case in point, I had a tendency to view people in a darker light before. When I saw individuals, I didn't just look at them; I scrutinized their every movement. I felt like people always have skeletons in their closets. For instance, when I was in high school, I was often disturbed by school personnel (ehem, nuns, ehem) who were all that. Those who lived saint-like lives and advocated for a world of peace and plenty. Before, just looking at them made me sick. I thought that these phony penguins were hiding something beneath their habits. They were very much like Transformers-they were more than meets the eye...but not in a good way.

"Shut your face klutz."

Okay, enough of the presupposition of people. Since I'm in the course of talking about moral values and stuff, my outlook in life, especially before college, revolved around the reality that shit happens. On the plus side, this perspective made me accept things as they were. No whining, no useless complaining, no juvenile claims. I could say that I was more mature than my actual age. (In terms of thinking of course. I still enjoyed video games, pro-wrestling, toys, etc.) However, this pragmatic point of view led me to believe that being truly happy is impossible.

When the whole global situation is experiencing a great amount of political turmoil, economic instability, and is dominated by despotic lobbyists, it's quite easy to think against positive ideals. Here in the Philippines, the political story has always been part of the same plot. The rich and powerful guys claim to champion the masses out of poverty. Yet, all this sloganizing has led to nowhere. I was merely a pawn of this powerful machine. And thinking negatively seemed to be the only option.

The champion of massive bullshit.

I hated abstract ideas. Love, compassion, care for others, unity, peace, harmony, camaraderie, cooperation. All of these, to me, were just tools used in propaganda to garner the support of the people. I thought that these words were only meant to make an essay look elegant, or to make your teacher appreciate all the gibberish garbage you have to say. To me, things like these did not exist. The fact that they are not quantifiable and far beyond human understanding, I knew that appreciating moral humane values was falling into the depths of meaninglessness.

I was wrong.

All the while I have failed to look at what has been in front of me: my family, my friends, my girlfriend, the people I meet, the strangers I see, humans! If the simplest truth is that we're alive, then the natural thing to do is love and appreciate! (Sorry for being too preachy.) I now see that being a realist does not necessarily mean having to surrender these humane ideals. Living a life that is worthwhile necessitates that one must be able to acknowledge its existence. Quite simply, how can one understand something he/she neglects? The truth is, nobody knows what we're really doing here living on Earth. But one thing's for sure, we're alive.

Yes you are, Emo girl.

Love therefore, is a beautiful reality. A reality that we must all achieve. Our purpose as human beings is not merely to survive and engage in struggles of power, but to rise above these inequalities and to continue to live. This may sound cheesy, but that's what pessimmism does to a person. When a human being can no longer grasp the beauty of transcendental things, he/she ceases his/her sanity. Following this scheme of things, if love is reality, and insanity is expanding this reality, does it mean that engaging in love is crazy? I say no. In fact, love accedes reason; it just does not mind.

When we make sacrifices, for example. We limit or fully abolish the things that mean a lot to us because of love. Let's say sacrificing your food because you see someone very hungry, even if you're famished as well. This instance clearly depicts where reason and love wrestle with each other. Your hunger seems to be less important when someone appears to be hungrier. This fascinating act of sharing and sacrificing, as ways of articulating love, is the reality that we, as humans, must appreciate and look forward to.

Stop. Look. Listen. Love.

Being pessimistic is like sitting on a rocking chair. There is movement, but it's not getting anywhere. To love means to move. To act upon something because of love entails the reality of living, and not merely surviving. So long as we look forward to something positive and become less skeptical, things would be a lot better. These three things may very well be the most saccharine tips I have ever heard, but amazingly, they work: live, laugh, love.

Moving People

Today in Psychology class, we studied about the Neo-Freudians, who were basically psychologists who based their studies on Sigmund Freud's basic theories while deviating at other points. One of these psychoanalysts is Karen Horney, who offers a feminist criticism of the Freudian concept of "penis envy." But aside from this, she also mentions about how children carry with them a basic anxiety that is created when they face a complex world of adults. To cope with this anxiety, Horney (pronounced as "horn-eye" for those of you dirty-minded people)presents (1) moving towards people or socializing, (2) moving away from people or isolation, and (3) moving against people or competition.

(Sorry for the lengthy introduction, just kept on typing.)

Anyway, what I propose is something different. A kind of movement that would acknowledge the inner greatness embedded in each human being. I'm not saying that I'm an expert in psychoanalysis or I could justifiably and concisely critique Horney (again, "horn-eye"). I just want to include a more philosophical perspective to the preceding psychologist. To me, attaining self-actualization and minimizing anxiety not only requires moving along with, away from, or against people, but also involves moving people.

But what exactly do I mean by this? The simple truth about people is that they could not exist without other people. They may choose to live in solitude or become antisocial, but the fact of the matter is, everything they would do involves, either directly or indirectly, the entity of another. No man can sufficiently sustain his emotional, psychological, physical, spiritual, intellectual, biological, and other necessities by himself. As the old adage goes, "No man is an island."

Not even you Noland. Sorry bud.

With this as the foundation of my argument, I think that people have the ability to go beyond merely socializing with people, fighting with them, or worse, not wanting them. The fact that we are humans entails an obligation to care for one another. Noticeably, Horney's anxiety coping mechanisms connote some sort of selfish desire. The fact that the three proposed actions are employed by humans for their own well-being clearly shows how self-interested they are. Moving people, on the other hand, presents what I'd like to call "selfish altruism," where inspiring others motivates oneself to continue doing what he or she has been doing all the while. If moving towards is being sociable, moving away is being alone, and moving against is competing with others, then moving people is inspiring and motivating others for the sake of one's personal fulfillment. In essence, the pursuit of happiness is determined by the pursuit of people.

But this is not a novel idea. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, philosophers like Aristotle have already managed to examine the purpose and the ultimate goal of man which is happiness. In the Ethics, Aristotle mentions the importance of virtue in human life and how it serves as the best way to successfully achieve true happiness. Moreover, he views true friendship as not merely a relationship of pleasure or utility, but as a mirror of oneself's goodness. Hence, what you see in others is what you see in yourself. The reciprocity in this virtuous and good friendship shows a unity among men (and women, I'm not sexist) which uses a "pay it forward" type of scheme where one good deed exponentially spreads throughout humanity.

I can't help but agree with Aristotle, or with any other person who believes in this simple idea. What bothers me though, is the inability of man in this time and age to contemplate and to concretely apply good deeds. Perhaps this is a result of modern technology and its consequent effects to the dehumanization process. Today's modern life has become more complicated than ever. Well if that's the case, then I guess it's time to move.

Even Luda agrees with me...in a different context of course.

Getting Scientific

Here's my Science and Society (Sci10) Assignment

It is obvious that further advances in fundamental physics and cosmology are required before it will be possible to know the ultimate fate of the universe with any level of certainty. However, several theories have been proposed to at least explain, according to evidences in the universe’s present condition, the possible ways of how the universe, with everything that physically exists, would “end.”

Not this Big Bang.

(1)In my opinion, the scientific theory that best explains the ultimate fate of the universe is the “Big Freeze” or “Heat Death” theory. According to this understanding, the universe’s continued expansion would basically result to a state that is too cold (absolute zero temperature) to sustain life and even motion. It could occur under a flat or hyperbolic universe, because such geometries are a necessary condition for a universe that, as suggested by this theory, expands forever. In its concept of Heat Death, this theory entails that over a hundred trillion years, the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy, a degree of disorder, in which there are no energy gradients needed to sustain information processing, of which life is the most fascinating form. This approach is applicable to all spatial models, but presupposes that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.

Essentially, the reason why I, and a majority of the scientific community, accept this model is because it is supported by the evidence of an increasing rate of expansion in regions farthest from us. Also, the large amount of dark energy in the universe, which has been suggested by scientific findings, corresponds well to this theory’s idea of a universe that expands forever. In fact, even without dark energy, an open, negatively curved universe would continue expanding forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy thrown into the equation, the expansion not only persists but accelerates, and just how things develop depends on the properties of the dark energy itself, which remain a mystery to the scientific world. In contrast to other theories like the “Big Crunch” or the “Big Rip,” which both operate on a closed and sphere-like universe, the Big Freeze offers a more long, slow, and gradual decline of the universe. Although the events that come after this event, such as the formation of antimatter and its eventual collapse, this theory is the most feasible, considering the evidence the present has to offer.

(2)In effect, this theory argues that all matter, including our galaxy, our solar system, and naturally, our planet Earth, would slowly evaporate away as a weak form of energy. According to research, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy may collide with one another and merge into one large galaxy. Over time, the orbits of planets, including our own, will decay due to gravitational radiation, or will be expelled from their local systems by gravitational disturbances caused by encounters with other stellar remnants. After all nucleons (neutrons and protons) decay, the universe would be left with only black holes, ever more widely dispersed as the universe continues to expand. Of course, as already suggested, these black holes would leak away, as Stephen Hawking points out, until an unfathomable number of years. Following this, the universe will exist just as empty space and weak radiation at a temperature infinitesimally above absolute zero, as presented by the Big Freeze. Experts say that at the end of the universe, time itself will lose all meaning and basically result to futility for there will be no events of any kind, and subsequently no frame of reference to determine the passage of time or space.

(3) In the present context, an average human being may tend to ask, so what? These theories are, even if supported by some evidence, are still quite speculative, especially on the things that would happen after their respective catastrophic events. Even if they were true, these theories have no direct effects on humanity, especially in this time and age. However, if one considers these as representations of how science and technology has developed over the course of history and how the field of cosmology has revolutionized modern thinking, these theories about the ultimate fate of the universe could be very beneficial to mankind.

Still, these theories cover a bigger scope which, I believe, would come after the extinction of life, in the distant future. Therefore, we must focus on a crucial problem which has a direct impact on mankind. What will be the ultimate fate of life on earth? To answer this question, I believe that we should look at the different existential risks that have the potential to abolish, or radically restrict, human civilization and could, in due course, cause life extinction. These potential risks could be classified as natural or ‘man-made.’ The natural dangers involve volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, meteor impacts, and other cosmic threats while man-made (those aggravated by man’s actions) include global warming, nuclear wars, global pandemics, and chemical experimentations.

I would like to focus on the latter for I think that these man-made risks are something that today’s science and technology could address. With this put under consideration, this generation must look into and focus on the possibility of man destroying man. These problems include nuclear warfare and chemical experimentations which pose a great threat to the prosperity and the existence of the whole human race. While global warming is also a great threat, I think prioritizing the risks of nuclear wars would make the whole global warming case easier to solve. The logic behind this is quite simple, how can we save the planet if we can’t even care for and make peace with one another?

This brings me to the current issues we have today that may very well be the seeds to a wide-encompassing problem to the world. One is the growing tension between the United States, along with its ally Israel, and Iran. The U.S. basically sees Iran as a threat because of the Middle Eastern country’s nuclear enrichment plan–a project that Iran has repeatedly stated to be of peaceful purposes. Another is the CERN Large Hadron Collider which basically smash together opposing beams of either protons or lead nuclei with very high kinetic energy. This program has the potential to create low velocity micro black holes that could grow in mass or release dangerous radiation leading to doomsday scenarios, such as the engulfment of the Earth.

"Those paranoid Americans. Let's build a nuclear plant to annoy them."

How then can science and technology, as a field of study, intervene with the aforementioned issues? The answer to this question is simple: it shouldn’t. Once scientific exploration delves into the realm of events that could lead to harmful effects to the existence of life on earth, then it ceases to become an exciting field of knowledge and instead, becomes a dangerous one. Yes, scientific and technological advancements are very important in the lives of human beings. However, if these advancements go beyond the transcendental things that make us ‘humans,’ then science would ultimately defeat its purpose. If the world won’t realize this predicament, the end of the world may be sooner than expected.

My God My God

Here is my first assignment for my Theology class. Reread it today and felt like posting it, so stop asking stupid questions.

I used to believe in a personal God. But over the years and after reading some articles regarding the existence of an omnipotent being, I have been more convinced that God is more of an idea rather than a person of great power. I am aware of the fact that there are things that even scientific knowledge cannot explain or give greater detail about, but to accept that a theistic God is responsible for the existence of all things, to me, is somewhat obsolete and lethargic.

Ironically, I was a very faithful person when I was young. More than a decade ago, I used to devotedly attend Sunday Mass with my grandparents, who were very active in participating in religious activities. My parents were always busy at that time so I basically grew up with my lolo and lola. My grandparents were nice company, but they always reminded me to always pray to God. They were very strict about following God’s commandments and glorifying Him in all aspects of life. Probably because I was too young and naïve back then, I never questioned the existence of God, and I allowed every idea about him to come to me smoothly. My understanding of God during that time, caused by my belief that my grandparents knew best, was that he was a mystical being who controls everything in the universe and we, as humans created by him, should obey his orders and devote our lives to him.

But since then, I had doubts regarding who or what God truly is. Just to set things straight, I believe in the existence of God. However, I reject the notion that God is a person of great power. I firmly believe, at present, that God is a mystery which the human mind can never fathom. To me, God is beyond good and evil, beyond reason, and beyond personality. Personally, This view gives me the vigor and enthusiasm to search for the true meaning of life and God.

Having read some works in college tackling some issues about the existence of God, I accept that there is, indeed, a God, for again, there are things that even science cannot fully explain. To recognize that there are limits to what the human mind can know seems to complement and indicate the existence of a complex, inscrutable, and unconquerable idea–God. This conviction roots in my belief that one cannot trust the human mind too much, for human thought processes and perspectives are subjective and very difficult to identify. Thus, human knowledge is fixed; humans decide what is right or wrong, what is pleasant or unpleasant, what is real or imaginary. Personally, I think that this scheme of things justify the existence of God.

But God’s existence as a Father, as a Supreme Creator, and as an omnipotent being, as far as the prior claims are concerned, is, to me, a case of submitting and settling to a concept of an ultimate being for the sake of having something graspable within the confines of human knowledge. This father-like figure of a God, in my point of view, is only necessary for reverential purposes and should be treated as a symbolic approach to God’s existence. I have observed that all the time, people worship and pray to a Holy Father, to a ‘Him’ instead of an ‘it.’ I understand this nonetheless, for it is hard to worship something you do not know anyway. But aside from that function, I find no other significant reason to believe in a theistic God.

With my idea of God being a complex ideal brings about instability in our relationship. Currently, I am in a phase in my life where I question the purpose of prayer, which I have been told before to be a way of communicating to God. Since I believe in an impersonal God, I think that communication with it would not be sensible. Also, I believe that praying is against the divine plan. The universe tends to unfold as it should, and praying seems to serve no function. But I’ve read some forums online about how it’s not a matter of what ought to happen, but an act of obedience to God. This argument, however, is against the basic principles of God as an idea, not a person.

That being said, I still feel that my view of God is still in the process of searching for a true and solid foundation. I don’t feel stable and contented at all in respect of how I make sense of God in particular and the universe in general. Now, I favor the impersonal God. But in 10 years, perhaps I would agree with the idea of a personal God again. All I know is my mental wheels are still spinning and I look forward to other conceptualizations regarding the existence of God.