The Problem of the World (#48)

A free person is only a free person if they are able to think freely and act freely. But what does freedom consist of? It seems that the fundamental characteristics of a free person, or a free society harbor these qualities:

-Freedom of thought
-Existentialism
-Humanism
-Skepticism

When the freedom of thinking is controlled by entities such as absolute principles, organizations, governments, religions, it becomes what is known as dogma. Dogma is a set of prescribed principles that tell you how to assume or think about something without giving any sort of reason or evidence to why that something is a principle. In short, dogma is nothing more than something "telling you how and why to think" without any reason.

Surprisingly most people are controlled by some form of system of principles; dogma. This is where being a skeptic is important, because almost anything can be considered dogma if it is held to be an absolute for all of society. Dogma is merely just another system of control that limits individual freedoms at an astounding level in every facet of our society.

Accepting principles without evidence or reason makes you nothing more than a confused sheep looking for a path to follow. The herd then controls your thoughts, and by controlling your thoughts, controls your actions.

My fear about our society is of ignorance. Ignorance controlled nations for centuries, it controlled societies, it controlled people, it controlled everything. Ignorance and fear are the ultimate controlling forms of persuasion, and combined together they faciltate the control of large masses of people, socities, nations, global powers. My fear is that thinking and philosophy is starting to be looked at in a negative way. Thinking is becoming the uncool and weird thing to do in "normal" social situations.

Some examples of societies that are known to be deprived of intelligence and manipulated by fear:
-North Korea (modern)
-Cuba (I dont think its as bad as it used to be)
-The former Soviet Union (for obvious reasons)
-Germany during the WWII era
-Aztecs-China (Not as bad as it used to be)
-Vietnam

And of course there are many more, but I just threw up a list of some more commonly known societies that have been controlled and manipulated by ignorance and fear.

My greatest fear is that the United States and many other nations, and more importantly the world is starting to become a controlled entity on the national and global level. Looking at the list I created above, those nations used ignorance to lessen any opposition they might have on trying to control their society. Then they instill fear with physical force, to make way for their ultimate control.

Our modern day Pop-culture creates and actually encourages ignorance and stupidity. There is nothing in modern day pop-culture that encourages science, reasoning, thinking, language, politics, or government. The modern pop-culture does a good job of creating a "stupid environment" that demotes any form of free thinking or creativity of an individual.

This stupifying is whats done to any country that is under control by a controlling government, but in the United States case (and many other places), the stupifying is done by the culture itself. How ironic. I'm sure most controlling societies would long for this passive ignorance. This stupification renders the country perfectly to be controlled by simple dogmatic thought by any organization or government. Added with ignorance, the fear is present as well. There is much less abstract thinking occuring in social situations, and because of such much more people conform blindly to the majorities will for fear of ostracization and being outcasted. Modern cultural norms are the new "old religious propoganda".

Because the United States is becoming more and more ignorant I feel that our freedoms are being withered away.

The Void Paradox -- Ethical Philosophy -- (First Draft) #47

I didnt feel like copying and pasting. But if any of you have the determination to read it. Go ahead. Its a Moral Ethical Social Political philosophy that I call the Void Paradox.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=52137634&blogID=290575129

Existential Dilemmas -- Systems of Control (#46)

The existential dilemma that plagues my mind -- systems of control. I hate systems of control, because they limit freedom. Since I am one to love freedom and love the idea that I am a self-reflective human being that can choose his own actions, decisions, and thoughts (free-will), I cant help but be completely disoriented by the mass amount of systems of control that exist in our life and universe, I am 'distorted and disoriented' because I hate the idea that i'm not in control of my life. Ironically in the same way I am fascinated by systems of control.

Some of my greatest concerns are that of causality and the idea of causal determinism (control). It severly bothers me that I may not have any control over my actions or events that happen. If causal determinism is true, then, as many would argue for, free-will does not exist in terms that one could have the unwavering ability to choose another course of action according to the nexus of time. The causal-time nexus is ultimately just a chain of links that are connected together, and it suggests that time is tenseless. If time is tenseless, it therefore means time is impossible to change, which means all courses of events before, now, or in the future are already set. And if that is the case, then free-will from a first glance does not exist.

Existentialism is the idea that the individual makes life what he appears to be, for himself. The individual can and does have complete control of his or her life. Existentialism promotes the idea of creating your own purpose in life, because as being an existentialist, you understand that life is essentially meaningless and purposeless. For some, it sends them into a depth of perceptive hell in which they cannot escape, some become nihilists and even kill themselves or go into a depression in which they assume that the only purpose (which isnt even an intrinsically real purpose in itself) is to end, because nothing matters.

But existentialism promotes the individual. Being an existentialist means you take responsibility for your actions and that whatever you think you are is what you are; if you think you are "bad" then you are "bad", if you think something is "depressing", then it really is "depressing" to you, if you think something is "frustrating", then it really is "frustrating". No one can tell you who you are, except yourself. You take responsibility for your actions and the meanings you give to the world, no one else decides that for you, unless YOU accept for yourself that THEY are deciding an action or thought for you.

Most people at some point in their lives go through an existential crises of some sort, where they question whether or not a god exists and the ideas of afterlife, and many take many different paths after their existential introspection. Most people take the religious route and end up dogmatically accepting whatever their supposed religion teaches them. When someone undergoes an existential crises and experiences the feeling or reality that life is essentially meaningless, one is offered a choice to accept or reject the notion of purpose and reality, and from there there are multiple paths that are offered. If they take the path of religion they believe (for the most part) that life has purpose and when you die you still exist in some salvation.

If someone takes the path of existentialism, they now have a void to be filled. If there is no purpose, and life is essentially meaningless what does one do? In order to fill that existential void one has to create smaller individual puropses according to ones lifestyle, feelings, and desires. For some reason most people cant accept that life is meaningless, so they turn to religion (which fills the existential void, or according to maslows pyramid: self-actualization).

For the others that turn to existialism, multiple things can happen, for some existentialists, they cant accept the fact that life is meaningless, so they commit suicide or go on long bouts of depression in which they dont know what to do. For some others, they reject the notion of not doing anything, and they agree with the idea that "If life is essentially meaningless why do nothing?". The existentialist goes out and creates a purpose in life to their own liking. They create meaning by the choices and decisions that was created by themselves.

As to come back to my original point of Systems of control, causality poses the worst threat to anyone in terms of their free-will (their choices and freedom) and it is of concern to the existentialist. If causlity is true, and free-will (freedom) doesnt exist, does that mean that being the existentialist and all the choices I make arent even choices I am really making? Existentialism suggests that the individual can reject anything (and accept anything) that is given to him, including any system of control (even causality).

However, as much as I tried to find flaws in every system of control that exists, it merely occured to me that the flaw in itself was a system of control meant to blind you from the truth. And the truth is -- that causlity exists and is the ultimate system of control that cannot be escaped. This only bothered me even more, as I hate the idea that I am not in control of my life.

I then recently had a revelation in the idea of free-will and determinism. I had found that maybe there is one possibility that free-will can co-exist with determinism, hence why I am a compatibilist. This recent revelation that has really got me worked up into researching more and more about philosophy, existentialism and the positions of free-will, and this revelation could change everything and it is this:

Freedom and Control (two opposites) may ultimately be interconnected in such a way that human beings cannot, at a first glance, comprehend, and as such we see them as distinct entities. My reasoning for this is the fact that I may have seemingly stumbled upon some sort of "law of nexus control" (the idea that control is connected TO something, and that something is freedom) that would allow for "freedom" and "control" to exist simultaneously in any environment.

I am suggesting that you take away the notion that freedom or control are distinct elements; They are not. Here is the real truth: it is this 'law of nexus control'. Your own control is your own freedom, and your own freedom is your own control. Whatever you cannot control is whatever you dont have the freedom for, and vice-versa; whatever you dont have freedom over, you dont have control over. To say it in more positive terms: When you have control of something, you have the freedom to do THAT something, and vice-versa; When you have the freedom to do something, you have the control to do THAT something.

This 'law of nexus control' would suggest that anything we are controlled by (or seemingly control) we have freedom with, because in vice-versa terms, our freedom is our own control, so whatever we control (or controlled by) we have freedom with. This MAY suggest that causal determinism (a system of control) may allow the possibility for people to actually have choices (and freedom), and thus free-will. This "law of nexus control" is not fully complete; i'm still developing it and i'm trying to think about ho, why, and what all of it means for the world, but hopefully I have stumbled upon the idea that free-will can exist.

(Unless you take it to even more extremes and say that my desire for freedom caused me to find this "law" and write this blog, which was ultimately determined because of that desire for freedom.)

Psychology: Coping Mechanisms of Reality (#45)

The ability to cope with reality is what determines their personality because of the experience that coping mechanism produces. These mechanisms are the mechanisms that stay in place, and become their personality's coping mechanisms (probably starting from birth). This 'defense mechanism' stays in place until that person learns to become an individual, and learns to use both mechanisms depending on the situation. People either becomes someone who learns to integrate themselves with "reality" and thus are not intent on changing anything or having genuine "realities", or they become someone who changes "reality" and has an intent on doing something unique and genuine from there own thoughts.

Generally, starting from late elementary (grades 3-5) and onward, most kids become challenged in their thinking process from social situations, and during the road to becoming a content self-actualized individual, we face many challenges, and many of those challenges are unwanted challenges. These unwanted challenges produce thoughts about learning to "cope" with the situations (Almost always these situations are social).

People cope either by enduring the situations and becoming apart of it. These people will act like their friends or acquantainces, or from what they're supposed to do from experience generated by their culture.This type of coping should be considered eduring coping; where one makes his or her behavior a copy of the situations rather than trying to find some way to change it. These type of people accept many things, no matter how good or bad they are, and say theres nothing they can do about it so they should just accept it. This type of coping mechanism is the most common because it requires less freethought and less responsibility. These type of people just "act like everyone else" at a party or change for example. These people change their attitudes, behaviors, and values based on the social norms of a culture or goup rather than challenging, changing, or creating their own.

In my own opinion they have an abundance of will to the construct belonging (according to maslows hierarchy), and this will seems to dominate any form of their logic proccesses.

The other type of person is more uncommon. This type of coping mechanism changes the "reality" around an individual, they bend "reality" to their will. These type of people change situations and often are the leaders of the situation. This type of coping is harder because it requires more courage to stand up for wha you really think and try and change the situation. This type requires more thinking, more action, and definitely more responsibility because it leads to new "unforseen" consequences and results. This type of coping would be considered changable coping.

An example of changable coping would be: Instead of drinking because its "fun", according to everyone else around you (and the culture that emphasizes it), this individual goes out and creates his own form of fun. This individual does something for the individuals own genuine thoughts, rather than "becoming like the rest of the masses".

Its possible, in my opinion, that Schizophrenia is a result partly of the changable coping mechansim. It is partly because the individuals will is split between satisfying the cultural norms, values, and laws, and following its own desires and biology. The culture represses this individuals thoughts or desires. It represses this person from trying to change things to the way this person 'wants them to be' (and it could be a negative thing too, like murder). So this schizophrenic person then has imaginary thoughts that appeal to them and "help guide" them along in changing their reality, without ever having to honestly admit that they have wronged against their social contracts and laws. Apparently self-deception truly is the most powerful form of mind control. (Think Donnie Darko for this last paragraph.)

Flaws in the idea of an "Afterlife" (#44)

I don't believe that anything happens after you die, I don't think there is reincarnation, I don't believe in any of that. When you die, I don't know what happens, we probably physically die and our body's biological structure decays into atoms of other elements and becomes more substances that are part of the earth. That's my assumption, at least.

I am an atheist when it comes to my beliefs in god, and the afterlife. I am agnostic in a sense when it comes to the philosophical study and talks of religion, so I'm pretty open minded when it comes to religious affiliated talk. To me believing in nothing after death is a completely logical (and there is very little room for error that I know of) way of believing in what happens after you die. I actually changed into an atheist from an agnostic because of all the flaws I found in the idea of heaven and hell and afterlife.

When I kept on finding flaws in the idea of religion and after life, I dropped from my mind the idea of a heaven and hell. It all seems too absurd, I found people justifying their behavior and actions based in the name (and hope) of an afterlife. I find it absurd that people do things in life that are supposedly good, all for the hope of going to heaven. People don't do things because they value doing that particular thing that is "good", people usually do something because they are afraid of going to hell and not being accepted into heaven. Now, I found this rather questionable, because a lot of major religious figures, and value in our human society, all preach the idea of no judgment towards others. So, apparently in order to go to heaven, you are judged based on a set of circumstantial choices, that these religions supply you, about what your supposed to do, otherwise you go to this bad place. What kind of fairness is that? I thought were not supposed to be judgmental?

The counter argument is that apparently god is all powerful and our creator, so therefore that automatically gives god the power to judge and direct us where he feels. I find that even more absurd. So basically this god is a selfish and unforgiving god that uses his power to justify his actions of judging and directing us towards our consequences? That's a god? This god certainly isn't a nice god, and this god is apparently extremely childish. Look at some of the things people on earth put up with, and still go on, and this god cant take some people making mistakes and/or cant forgive us for our thoughts and actions? No, if this god is all powerful and really did create me and doesn't have a sense of other peoples values then I want nothing to do with him then. Maybe god understands this, and doesn't see a need for a heaven then. What if that's the case?

I see heaven as more as a wish fulfillment mechanism, almost like a defense mechanism for humans, as a way to cope with the idea of death. Most people long for heaven, but probably would go crazy if they could consciously think and act in a heaven for a long time, because they would get bored of everything after a while. And some people say "No, one can never get bored in heaven." But I disagree, there are even stricter laws in heaven. You cant do certain things that are deemed as bad, immoral, or unethical, or even THINK in certain ways, because if you do then you will be sent to hell. There is no violence of any form, no drugs, no destruction, no immoral things; no bad things can happen. People want conflict and action in there lives, and in heaven I don't see any of that happening. Most people don't know what to do with themselves already in their lives, what chance to they have in heaven.

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon." -Susan Ertz, Anger in the Sky

But who defines bad? Apparently, according to everyone, god does. But as I said earlier, why does he get to choose what is right and wrong? Just because he's my creator? And therefore I should bow down and accept this? No. I never asked to live…or maybe apparently I did. Whatever the case, there is no way I would want him to dictate my values, lifestyles and thoughts. What kind of freedom do I have then? If god dictates all of my actions and thoughts, either purposefully or inadvertently, and if I'm a bad person, why did he create me in the first place? So I can fail and be sent to heaven? Why didn't he just create me there? If he created me and dictates my thoughts and lifestyles, then I have no control over where I go. So, he basically creates someone so they can be put through hell or heaven? That's fair? Why didn't he just create me where he wanted me to be? If there is a god, he certainly doesn't believe in morality.

If god exists, I would hope he judges us and sends us to places that create the illusion of control and fulfill that existential need of purpose that all humans desire. I would hope god sends us to our own place that fulfills all of our individual needs, rather than some generalized values that he made up; That's not a god in my opinion then. Ultimately, I wish there was a heaven, or reincarnation or something, But I've trained myself to think logically, analytically, and truthfully. Hence my logic refuses to believe in an afterlife and god, and it probably always will.

Democracy and Revolution (#43)

Democracy and Revolution

The idea of a Democracy was impossible to many peoples minds during the 17th century when the American Revolutionary War started to come into reality. The revolutionary war, of course, wasn't called the revolution or the revolutionary war during that time period. Rather, people that were fighting off the British were considered traitors and rebels, the modern day terrorists of that time.

Now-a-days, we have a new label for any dissenters of certain avenues of thought, and they are called terrorists. Our Forefathers feared that the United States wouldn't stay a democracy, or would even split apart and become separate entities, but above all they feared that democracy was merely another test type of government that would inevitably fail and fall apart, because of the minds of men.

Many people say that, the time of democracy 'fading' has come and past, and that the United States will stay a democracy (and therefore all the ideas the US stands for will stay "in the ring"). Most people think that, from studying history, that the Civil War (and many other time periods, I was just throwing one out there) was when the United States almost became a different type of government and country. Most people think that time when the United States almost disintegrated has come and past, but I believe we are on a new confrontation on whether the united states will stay a democratic nation, with modern day technology and a rapidly changing culture things may change.

This new confrontation is about Democracy and the United States, the new changing culture and beliefs of our Democracy pushed into reality because of new security enhancements and newer systems of social control and conformity. With the combined efforts of these new ideas of social control and physical control we have something not called a democracy but rather, something more like a controlling state of government.

For an example of social control, an idea festers throughout our culture on how to "better" our society by changing the way people think, with the idea that changing the way people think (into their own "perfect" ideals) will ultimately create a more perfect society.

An example of physical control would be restricting movements, abilities, and activities with new laws and "morals" from our government and culture. A new form of government would be bred from the combined efforts of social control and physical control. This new government, some kind of socialist-dictatorship type of government, seems to be manifesting under the name of democracy. Democracy is not dead yet, and with the minds of many, there is still possibility that democracy can stay alive forever.

Many people though, get confused on what the idea of democracy is. Even hierarchs in power seem to be inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) creating a controlling type of society, in the name of righteous ideals: "justice, good, right and wrong, god, freedom, laws, morals, etc". We are becoming a nation bent on justifying our actions based on those ideals of righteousness that we made up or were "taught". We will justify our actions no matter what the outcome, no matter the consequence and screw everybody that isn't on our side. If you dissent against the ideas of what our government or culture provides you, you can be labeled a terrorist, or some sort of vigilante rebel.

You might be targeted and monitored, which doesn't always matter, it can be disconcerting, but isn't a threat. It starts to matter (and thus become a problem)when arrests start being made on things like swearing, or disagreement of an idea that some hierarch or politician thinks about what is right. It starts to matter when you get arrested or hurt by the government for doing some miniscule act against the law, when it doesn't really harm anything, say for example something like Urban Gymnastics (I just threw something I like to do out there). When you start getting arrested, killed, or displaced from the country based on your ideas of certain things within the law, out of the law, and even the law itself, then there's a problem with our new democracy and its laws and ideals.

My other main concern with the United States is this new surge of social coercion and control. Social control has been around since the beginning of time, and it occurs within every species, especially ours. However, this new surge of social control with the advent of certain acts, like columbine, Virginia tech, 9/11, et cetera, all cause the public and certain prominent people to polarize certain views of how society should act and behave.

For example there is this idea about "teaching" people, from when your a kid, how to be right, or how to act, what is right and wrong. That's not teaching, that's breeding, THAT is manipulation and coercion. How can you know that you are have the correct ideals of what is right and wrong; who is to say that you know any better than anyone else what is right and wrong. If we start to teach our kids how to be a certain way, and you also teach them that it is wrong to be ANY OTHER way besides this way, then you make yourself nothing more than a controlling parent, a dictator in your own den.

If you do not allow dissent from your opinion then you aren't allowing someone freedom to think. There has been many criticisms on parents and society to teach people from birth how to act right and good. That mentality is very basic, very primitive, and the idea seems promising from a first glance, but it offers no form of other thought, no new forms of imaginative thinking. It doesn't allow you to think any other way, but this way. It destroys freethought--the very thing this country was built on.

If we are to start to teach people how to act, or what to think, and allow them no other way to think, then we would be in an age of oppression. The oppressors would be the people in "power". If people in governmental power created the notion that all people are to think alike and play "good" citizen, as to prevent certain acts of terrorism, domestic or foreign, then they create a reaction to the action; which is nothing less than control, and a dictatorship.

To sum up, with the new rise in many peoples desires to have everyone act a certain way, be a certain way, think a certain way, and if you think any other way then you are a terrorist, or some sort of rebel, or psychopath. And of course in our society if you are a rebel or psychopath, or weird, or a terrorist,or just some outcast to the norm of a culture, you have to either be altered (mentally) or eliminated for the sake of "good, god, justice or freedom"; if this is true then this is nothing more or less than a controlling society.

If the government starts to make laws trying to teach people how to act, how to behave and be "good"; if they warn people that dissenting from the thinking the government provides the individual, then that person must be changed, then we're in nothing more than a dictatorship, or some form of a new socialist type government. With the new advent of many formations of laws and technology, the government can almost grasp a firm grip (either inadvertently, or purposefully) on what we call Democracy, or what the United States stands for. To paraphrase what Thomas Paine said, "the least controlling government is the best government"...control can be impeded with a balance of opposition.

Democracy is a constant balance of powers, a struggle per-se. In order for a democracy to survive there must be balance of powers throughout the government and the society where democracy resides. Balance should occur not only in government positions themselves, but also from within the individual branches of governmental powers. Balance should occur, above all else, in the non-governmental part of a democracy, it should come from the individuals in the society. And when I talk about balance I don't mean just protests, I don't mean to sound radical, but rarely things get done (and things have rarely changed) through peaceful and lawful protesting, and law enforcement are always itching for the urge to blame and use a number of "violent" protesters as a scapegoat to access more control, or as a means to elevate their interest level in their job.

I'm also not condoning the use of violence or destructive means to get to an end, but rarely during the American revolution did prominent individuals (like our forefathers or revolutionists) stop their acts in the name of the curent law, and sometimes the acts were violent, or terrorist-like (but it was just war, right?...sarcasm). And of course there were times when the acts themselves weren't hurtful and didn't do any real harm to anyone. The law was the problem during the revolution, now our problem is social control and too much physical power in a government body, or individual embodiment of a group integrated in some higher power within society.

With too much pressure on individuals by their friends, parents, teachers, media and government on how to be right and act right, people will often follow what the group says about the correct form of behavior in how to act. But there is no 'one' correct way to act, but rather, a balance of ways to act. The way to act, is, to think for yourself, whatever means that is. There should be someone to balance your behavior and acts, or complete your behavior and dispositions. But if everyone thought or acted the same then this country and this world would be nothing more than control, constant political, social, control and propaganda.

To restate: Our Forefathers feared that the United States wouldn't stay a democracy, or would even split apart and become separate entities, but above all they feared that democracy was merely another test type of government that would inevitably fail and fall apart, because of the 'minds of men'. If we hope to retain the true form of a democracy, and all that the United States stands for we should, as individuals, intervene into government relations at any and all levels of government and societal hierarchy, without this form of intervention, then as the forefathers of democracy thought: this country is lost and democracy no longer exists.

The Emotion "Happiness" (#42)

Happy is defined by Dictionary.com as:

1. delighted, pleased, or glad, as over a particular thing: to be happy to see a person.
2. characterized by or indicative of pleasure, contentment, or joy: a happy mood; a happy frame of mind.
3. favored by fortune; fortunate or lucky: a happy, fruitful land.
4. apt or felicitous, as actions, utterances, or ideas.
5. obsessed by or quick to use the item indicated (usually used in combination): a trigger-happy gangster. Everybody is gadget-happy these days.

This should be taken into account : Definition is only supplied by a societies acceptance of the word itself. So, the individual can actually distort the word itself and thus happiness becomes a word used only in its context by the individual using it.

BUT, as I intend to write upon, everyone knows by intuition when they are happy. Or do they? In a general context most people know what is implied by happiness or what it means to say to be happy, but what most people cant understand is that, as one of the definition above says, to be happy is to be in a state of contentment or state of pleasure. If that is what it means then technically you can be happy at any moment, happiness becomes a mindset. If happiness is about being content, it is possible to be content while being completely pissed off, or extremely sad, or bored.

The idea of being happy that your pissed off sounds completely contradictory, but it is not altogether impossible. I used to say "Man I love it when im pissed." And logically it is a contradictment, because the emotions happy and "pissed off" are different, thus one may think it is impossible for those two states of emotion to be the same in the human mind at one single moment. If happiness is a mindset, then the mindset can be manipulated to understand that you can simultaneously be content while being pissed off; you can be content that your pissed off, or you can be content that you are sad, given the situation is good enough to justify your feelings to feel good about being angry or sad. All in all, you can be content that you are pissed off, thus happiness becomes possible at any moment in time.

Many people think logically that if your not a happy person you must be depressed, or a horrible individual, but that is not correct as I pointed out. Our society breeds us into thinking that if we are not a happy person then theres something wrong with us that must be fixed. Society breeds us into thinking that if you dont look or appear happy you are bad. If someone is bad, they must be avoided, right?

So the mentality that if your not happy, then you must be bad, can produce many people to avoid others out of their first assumptions, and even try to hurt or betray you as an individual; thus a form of conflict arises. But theres many solutions to this problem. The idea that our society thinks that "to be happy" is only possible from one source of reaction situations, and that the emotion happiness cannot be attributed to other emotions or feelings is a false sense of what the human mind is capable of.

*Thought of the blog: I see the positive things in people, so if I seem pissed off to you, its probably because I see no positive in you.*

Reasons for Fluctuations in Life...(#41)

Humans throughout history have always had some idea on how to make life better and more perfect. It seems to me that this thought is only created through the human mind because it needs direction and reason; the human tries to justify its existence, and this is one way.

Human perfection is imperfection; real perfection is not human. Humans are complex beings that generally have very specific and obvious needs at first, then these obvious needs get mixed up with feelings and emotions that drive humans more often than the simple and obvious things that we know we should do, or accept, but cant accept. Besides all of our basic needs like food, shelter, sleep and other basic needs we will want more.

We humans have a serious social connection, like many other things. Humans have a big desire with 'Belonging'; we want love, we want to love someone else, we want friends, we want respect, and we want someone to be there for us as well, like an authority figure to help us out in the "worst-case-scenarios". Sometimes this social desire is so strong, especially now-a-days, that people can, and DO, go at great lengths to be able to achieve the sense of belonging in the world. More often times than not, you have to sacrifice serious parts of yourself in order to be in synch with society, you have to sacrifice some parts of your individual self in order to have that sense of belonging. Thus if we have to destroy parts of ourselves to be part of society, we then are not ourselves anymore, we're just another cell in a body; that is not the perfection that humans feel they want. So then, what is the perfection humans want?

Humans dont want an obvious life, they dont want to be bored, and they dont want to be controlled, they want a "good" and "happy" life, and humans especially dont want to feel that everything they've done is worthless. Emotions like good, happy, ecstatic and pumped up (not being bored), interest, the desire to be free, and self-worth are emotions and drives. Emotions are often what drive us humans to do our actions, rather than pure and obvious thoughts about the simple and obvious truths about life; we'd much rather do things because they feel right, rather than because of what logically makes sense.

If I were to say life is essentially meaningless, it disturbes many people. Many people will immediatly deny the statement that life is essentially meaningless, and try and find some way to prove the statement wrong. People usually can't find any proof, as they really search for the meaning to try to prove that statement wrong, so usually one of two things happen: the person accepts the meaninglessness and tries to create smaller individual meanings that are essentially meaningless, this is reffered to as Existentialism. In the other circumstance the individual turns to religion (or religious type dogmatism), using religion, the idea of heaven, and the idea of a god-like being that knows everything and that this being has meaning for us, as a way to justify, without solid proof, the meaing and worth of our actions, thoughts and life itself.

Humans are constantly trying to justify all of its desires, making it a completely selfish being. However, it is because of a society that allows us to be able to justify many of our actions and worth, it is becuase of a society that helps the individual survive and have an "interesting life", by allowing the individual to easily access food from a giant grocery store, to allowing it to have fun by having groups of people getting together in an organization to play a game of football. It is because of society that allows us to be able to satisfy our desires.

And this brings me back to my original point, human perfection is imperfection and heres why. As I said earlier, humans are social creatures like many other things, and we HAVE to sacrifice or give back to the society in order to be a part of it. If we arent a part of society than we cannot get our human wants and desires.

This simple contradiction is what causes many, and quite probably most problems in life, from simple ones to very complex ones. From relationship problems to world problems, it is this constant human contradiction that causes us our problems. We want to satisfy all of our desires as an individual, but then we have to sacrifice our desires in order to get them..that is the constant human contradiction; individual vs society.