Breath is an essential part of life. We do it from the day we’re born, until the day we die. We inhale and exhale over and over. In meditation, practioners often focus on breath, which seems to have calming or grounding effect. It seems that everything we do is interconnected with breath.

We do other things, of course, we refuel, and we excrete waste. We eat. Our body breaks down the food. What the body doesn’t use up is pushed out the other end. It seems that breathing and producing waste is what people do most of the time.

Now, here some argue that we think, socialize, and the like, but honestly, myself included, most of what people think isn’t of much use. By this, I mean it isn’t original, or it isn’t useful. Maybe, for example, a person doesn’t like Trump. This is, hardly, original.  They decide to form a group and protest. Will the protest result in a new president? Most likely the answer is a resounding no.

To sum things up, people are breathing excreting machines. There’s nothing, essentially, wrong with that. It’s just what people are most of the time. Human being are very sensitive creatures. If their breath or their ability to refuel is taken from them, then they perish. People can learn to make better use of their time. That’s why it’s important to keep in mind that us people are alive for a very limited amount of time. We take a very limited amount of breaths. Use them wisely.


The Truth Part II

Objective truth is an interesting notion. Us finite creatures like to think of it as both existing and accessible, and perhaps, most importantly, capable of informing our morality. I would, however, like to point out that morality and truth-seeking can only really matter to the “developed.” Those starving can only truly care about staving off their hunger and, perhaps, their loved one’s hunger. I, suppose, that might be tipping my hat to Maslow. Still, if one doesn’t think this true, one only has to look at the looting that takes place after a natural disaster.

Furthermore, even in a culture that is developed, one has to ask if objective truth can truly be found. It is quite popular today for people to think that science and philosophical debate can shine a light on objective truth. Unfortunately, people are not rational humans at heart, and as Nietzsche pointed out time and time again in Beyond Good and Evil often a philosopher’s  argument says more about the philosopher than the truth.

The problem, at base level, with trying to use logical methods to carve out objective truth is that human beings are not inherently rational beings. Thus, this begs the question of whether or not human beings even have the ability to discover objective truth. It is as if we can only see through a people through a windshield of car, while driving through a snow storm. We are prone to error, and these errors can be dangerous.

This is to to say, a little knowledge, without enough knowledge, can be dangerous. First year med students are known to want to over diagnosis themselves and their families with horrible illnesses, it is for this reason medical schools don’t give them prescription pads. Nevertheless, we give philosophers and clergy free reign over what constitutes objective truth.

On the other hand, objective truth may be out there, but can humans grasp it? I would argue that this is not clear, and this why much of the time we need to operate in probabilistic and pragmatic truth. It matters that Janet isn’t lying when she says John raped her. It matters that the engineer who worked on the bridge did his math correct, so I can be sure my car can go over it safely. It matters that the underlying mathematical system is sound. I can be reasonably sure, that everything shown on the Ancient Aliens program is horse shit.

Finally, some want to argue that we need to have one undefined axiom and rely on that for system of truths. They, conveniently, want to add God as this axiom. The problem, however, is that the really is no sufficient reason to think that such an entity exists, and its existence raises more problems than it solves. Even if it did exist, this beingm almost by definition, be incomprehensible to us finite creatures, but this isn’t the way most monotheistic traditions see God. Instead, the Western traditions are absolutist and ingrained with either “believe in our God and in our way.” The being the believe is defined with omni properties, acts a certain way, etc. Without these notions, the whole structure of their truth and morality falls apart. I would argue the falling apart of the absolutism of the monotheistic Western God is partially responsible for the chaos and culture wars we see today in the West.

I Really Want to Know…

This is going to be a simple post. I want to know why minors, say 14 of age, can’t consent to sex with adults, but they can be charged as “adults” for crimes. It seems that we all know, when thinking about our past, that our decisions regarding sex were immature as younger teenagers. Most of us would claim that a 4o something having sex with a 14 year old is molestation, but yet, we can AND do charge 14 year olds as adults.

Yes, we want justice for things like murder and burglary. I’m not saying teenagers shouldn’t be punished for crimes, but they are NOT adults. We will prosecute adults for having sex with someone under, usually, around 16, even if  the child says “yes.” Why? Because, they are not adults. They do not have adult brains, and they are not finished maturing and developing. Thus, they cannot give consent to an ADULT sexual experience. I agree with this sentiment whole heartedly.  What sense does it, then, make to treat them as adults in ANY other circumstances?

The media certainly doesn’t help in certain criminal cases involving minors. They like to show the shocking cases of particularly brutal murders by young teenagers, and we are tempted to call them monsters. There is an immediate gut reaction to want to punish as much as possible. There is a reaction in us that wants to make an exception to the idea of the immaturity and underdevelopment of minors in these cases.

This is my questions to my readers: if we can’t trust young teenagers with such a simple thing as deciding on adult sexual encounters, how then, can we trust their decision making process, in the realm of ADULT crime?


Please, I want to know your thinking. Please feel free to comment.

Life is Fragile

Life is fragile, and I don’t mean this in just the sense that we will all die one day. Everything in your personal life can fall apart, quite easily I might add. A person can, unfortunately, develop a mental disorder. Unexpected bills can pop up at the same time a person loses their job abruptly. We are all just a few short steps away from staring at the abyss. I’m not being pessimistic. I’m making a point. Everything we loves in life whether it be our health, our sanity, our possessions, or even our relationships can wither away in what seems like an instant.

Most of us teeter around thinking if we work hard and make good decisions everything will work out. Or a person may think if they have God on their side, they simply cannot fail. Well, I don’t think either of the those notions are true. Now, certainly, making good decisions and working hard can, perhaps, curb the probability of the good life in one’s favor. Still, nothing is guaranteed in life, so we end up walking around in self delusion.

Perhaps, this need for self-delusion is why people “need” religion in the first place. Perhaps, they just need to believe everything will work out the end. Unfortunately, this is often enough not the case, and yes, peoples’ lives, even religious peoples’ lives, can end up in complete tragedy.

I am not, for one moment, trying to make believers seem either weak or crazy. I cannot blame them for their needs. I think the beautiful, although inaccurate, belief that everything is going to be okay, is unavoidable. It is a very human need, and without it being fulfilled, one can easily become neurotic.

Still, I do not suggest we walk around ignoring that everything in life is fragile, but if one does work hard and strives to make good decisions, one should not dwell on the possibility that everything could be ripped out from under them. It’s simply not beneficial to our mental state.

Is God Evil?

“Killing must feel good to God, too. He does it all the time, and are we not created in his image?” -Hannibal Lecter from Hannibal

The above quote is from the short-lived show Hannibal, but it is very similar to quote from Lecter in the book Red Dragon by Thomas Harris.

Anyways, I’ve been reading the Hannibal Lecter series, and I’m well aware, as far as books go, the Lecter series is mostly just “junk” entertainment. Still, Hannibal’s view on God did make think. The God I usually consider is the western monotheistic concept of God. That is to say, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He’s also self existing and eternal. So, most of my arguments of God do not consider that western philosophy of religion and theology are patently wrong about the properties of the deity, but what if a deity that is evil or just simply not omnibenevolent existed?

Well, there would still be the problem of omniscience paired with omnipotence. However, the problem of evil would completely dissipate. I find this interesting.

Now, I know the Hindu deity Shiva is said to be both a destroyer and benevolent entity. It would be interesting to debunk Shiva or Shiva like conceptions of deities, but of course, I’m from the west. So, I haven’t had much need to do this.

I’m NOT saying I just converted to Hinduism. I still doubt there is a deity. What I am saying is that it is interesting, and it leads me to think that I haven’t paid enough attention to Hinduism as far their argument for a deity.

I think at base. We could manipulate any characteristics of God into anything we want, and we could call this entity a deity.Still, it would be a created entity and not a God.

I guess I’m rambling now, but I thought it was interesting. And, I thought I would share my thoughts with my readers. Please feel free to comment!