Category: Philosophy

  • Destiny…

    Some believe that the future is written and cannot be altered, others believe it can. Some believe it’s not written at all, and lies completely in your hands. Unsurprisingly so, I believe in neither, at least not within the context of its common interpretation.

    I often wonder what fate really is, and if it really is as rigid as we often believe it is. Someone recently shared a post that suggested that it is largely our inability to control the choices of others, and therefore their choices result in our destiny, and how we react to it is what completes the cycle. I think this is only a small part of a much bigger picture. 

    Consider this scenario. I’m driving down a road, and there’s a huge rock in the middle of the road which presents me with a few options:

    1. Avoid the rock and drive on unharmed or undamaged – and people will say that it was in my fate/destiny to have seen the rock and been able to avoid it in time
    2. Apply brakes and stop before hitting the rock and escape unhurt or undamaged – and people will say that it was in my fate to have seen it and brake in time to avoid injury
    3. See the rock and choose to do nothing because I was feeling particularly morbidly destructive at the time and die in the crash – and people will say that it was in my fate to die that day and if it wasn’t the rock, it would be something else that would have caused my death anyway
    4. Not see the rock because I was texting someone and crash and die – and people will say that he was too busy with his mobile phone, that’s why he didn’t see the rock

    There’s probably many more scenarios that could play out but the point is, I had a choice in what I was focusing on and how I was going to respond to the presence of the rock, and each sequence of events and related decisions had pre-defined outcomes. And in this, I believe, lies the secret of destiny.

    Destiny, for me, is not a prescribed outcome regardless of the efforts of my life. Nor is it a cast-in-stone destination that I will reach regardless of what I do or don’t do towards achieving it. If that were true, we’d all be able to laze around and never have to worry about anything, because it’s all pre-ordained already. Well, I believe that it is pre-ordained, but just not in that context.

    I often toy with the analogy of a software developer and the code that they write. That code gives ‘life’ to a certain number of functions that have specified behaviours that are limited only to the permutations possible through the available configurations made possible by that code. Let’s assume for a second that that code had a sense of self, or a conscious nature with an associated intelligence to act out the possible permutations defined by the developer. In that case, every single one of those sequences that play out could be defined as destiny within the context of that code. 

    Extrapolate that example onto a grand scale and note how the same laws apply to the universe, and humans. The laws of nature have been defined. Pre-determined. Hard coded and configured. We have the intelligence and the limited ability to manipulate those configuration permutations in seemingly infinite ways, and because of the number of variables that give rise to infinite variations, it appears impossible to predict the outcomes accurately, except where the known variables are limited to what is within our grasp to compute. Man has never created anything. We’ve only manipulated what we have in order to arrive at new configurations of what already exists, regardless of how complex the manipulation may be, it will always be nothing more than that. A manipulation of what exists. 

    With this in mind, destiny then becomes a sequence of events that are triggered entirely by choices we make, and actions we take, with one caveat. There’s always a caveat. Each person acts with independent thought, despite many displaying behaviour that suggests that they’re possibly incapable of such an act. How our choices interact with each other is what makes life a challenge, or a pleasure. How we react to those interactions of choices is what determines our fate and well being. 

    Whether we choose to actively participate or not is irrelevant. Because every breath forces a reaction, every thought prompts an action, and every action spawns a reaction. So the only time we stop participating is when we die. At that point, the impact of our actions continue to survive beyond our lifetime, but we are then unable to influence the outcomes of any further interactions of choice. 

    The future is therefore what we make of it. What effort and focus we put in, directly influences what we get out. But don’t mistake this for karma, as in if we do good, we should expect good in return. It doesn’t work that way. Our choice to care about someone that may not choose to care in return (for whatever reason) will result in our good being repaid with bad. That is destiny and karma will never be able to explain that.

    We alter the course of our lives with every thought and every act. We develop trends through the consistency of our actions, but at any given moment a single act or coinciding set of choices could alter that carefully constructed path and destroy every aspiration or ambition we so meticulously planned for. However, this ‘configuration’ is not limited to only what we can observe or manipulate physically. I believe it extends to everything we sense, feel, think, experience, or contemplate.

    Imagine that every single thing that you can fathom, tangible or intangible, physical or spiritual, all has a value that gives it a weighting within this grand scheme we call destiny. How much we accumulate of the various values would determine the course of our lives. Take this a step further and imagine that even prayer has such values assigned to it. The accumulation of this value on a spiritual plane would have an influence on our experiences on a physical plane, which results in apparently amazing outcomes that would not otherwise be explainable. 

    The complexity of the laws that govern all this is mind blowing to say the least. The fact that a finite set of laws exists is unquestionable. If there was the slightest hint of randomness in any of it, things supposedly left to chance, there would be unpredictable chaos at every turn. But there isn’t. Even when things go really pear-shaped, after a suitably rigorous post-mortem, the sequence of events that gave rise to the apparent chaos is quickly unravelled. Which confirms that chaos in fact does not exist. 

    There’s so many more thoughts on this that I need to articulate, but it’s too many to effectively translate into words right now. This is the first time that I’ve attempted to share these ideas at all even though it has been plaguing me for many years now. I wonder if it will make sense to anyone else at all?

  • I am not a liberal

    I am not a liberal. I think liberals are people who have a desperate need to be liked by everyone, that’s why they’ll never have the back bone to stand up for anything that would offend the opinions of others, except those that are already marginalised. The popular opinion is all that matters to liberals. 

    One can argue that they have conviction in their beliefs, but that doesn’t excuse their naivety in life. Extremism results from excessive liberalism. Moderation is not practised by liberals, because they tend to be liberal in the extreme, which makes it ironic that they would be able to point a finger at anyone that chooses to oppose their views and establish boundaries. Liberalism will only ever work if we lived in isolation and had no influence on anyone else. Then, by all means, do as you please.

    Liberals are so focused on individual rights that they lose sight of the rights of society. The more ‘free’ we become, the more social ills manifest in our liberated communities. Countries with the greatest social ‘freedoms’ also have pervasive mental ‘disorders’ and high suicide rates. But of course, according to the liberal, it’s your life, so you can do with it as you please, including throwing yourself off a building or taking an overdose, because the rights and responsibilities you have to those around you doesn’t count for anything, because your rights over your self come first.

    It’s again ironical to note that it’s this same self-centred philosophy that creates fertile ground for the mental ‘disorders’ that are ravaging our ‘first world’ societies because in every single case that I have been exposed to, such mental ‘disorders’ always have a very strong, if not predominant theme of betrayal by others. That betrayal takes the form of many things from infidelity in relationships (the most common cause) to a lack of acceptance in society (bullying, etc.). But it’s more convenient to suggest that a chemical imbalance makes us feel like we’re tainted or damaged or not good enough, rather than to acknowledge that we have a moral deficit in our progressive communities. 

    Progressive? I think not. 

    When will the liberals figure this out?

  • Look To This Day!

    Listen to the Exhortation of the Dawn!
    Look to this Day!
    For it is Life, the very Life of Life.
    In its brief course lie all the
    Verities and Realities of your Existence.
    The Bliss of Growth,
    The Glory of Action,
    The Splendor of Beauty;
    For Yesterday is but a Dream,
    And To-morrow is only a Vision;
    But To-day well lived makes
    Every Yesterday a Dream of Happiness,
    And every Tomorrow a Vision of Hope.
    Look well therefore to this Day!
    Such is the Salutation of the Dawn!

    ~ Kalidas

  • Is there an argument against God?

    My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

    C.S. Lewis

  • The Purpose of Life?

    In my efforts to discover the true meaning of life, I keep thinking about the differences between the principles of atheists and theists. The former professes that there is nothing beyond this and therefore whatever we do we either get punished or rewarded for it in this life but entirely within our control with no consequences beyond death. The latter professes that of everything we do in this life, we’ll reap the rewards or punishment in full in the after-life, whilst also benefiting, or being required to persevere in this life, which ultimately adds to the rewards in the after-life.

    If we are to assume that the atheists are right, I can’t help but wonder how that would play out because there’s so many more questions that arise as to the purpose of life. If we only had this lifetime to worry about, then why restrain ourselves at all? I mean, if I go off the deep end and abuse, molest and destroy anyone and everything at whim, why should I bother about the repercussions if I believe that there is no accountability for a life poorly lived except whatever physical pain, suffering or discomfort is imposed by my fellow man in this lifetime? Why should I entertain the idea of wanting to improve the quality of life of others if any efforts of mine cease to benefit me the moment I die? Why should I care if others live a better life as a result of my efforts? Shouldn’t my efforts then be solely focused on my own gratification since I will only reap the rewards during this lifetime? And since this lifetime will occur only once without any second chances, isn’t it even more critical that I not waste any time in benefiting others unless there’s an inherent benefit for me? This potentially starts a vicious cycle of licentiousness since instant gratification is all we should live for given that we could die at any moment, and given that there would be no account after death.

    Now let’s assume that the theists are right.

    Suddenly my moral compass would be guided by the dangling carrot of a reward that far outstrips my efforts, and makes my sacrifices seem noble. Because now, I can focus on improving the lives of others, treating them with kindness and all those other wholesome ideals, while living in perpetual hope of attaining a state of bliss that will cause me to instantly regret why I didn’t sacrifice more or apply myself in even greater measures during my lifetime. Suddenly, I need to make the most of this lifetime because it is a precursor to a much greater experience. It’s almost as if I’m earning my credentials to lay claim to a specific level of comfort or pleasure in the next life. So I need to follow specific rules and live within specific guidelines that ultimately work towards determining my quality of life in eternity.

    But here’s the real clincher for me. Assuming that the atheists are right, theists would live an equally inconsequential life within the context of the individual, but would inherently be driven to strive more for their fellow man than atheists. To me, the logic dictates that atheism depends on the benevolence of the individual, whereas theism depends on the benevolence of the Creator. Given the state of this world, it’s safe to assume that benevolence in man is a rare commodity, and I call it a commodity because we live in a time when everything has a price. Look at the disparity between the spend and effort to resolve first world problems versus third world problems, and immediately the void of benevolence in man is blatantly obvious. 

    So how does it end? We already protect profit margins more than we protect life, that’s why we pay trillions in bail outs to help those nations that refuse to live within their means, and count every penny and attach inhumane conditions to the contributions we make to feed a starving child, or provide drinking water to the thirsty. The attribute of humanity itself, except by individual choice, is not a prerequisite to live a life as an atheist, whereas it is a precondition to achieve anything meaningful as a theist. So what’s the point? I guess, for me, the point is that if my life were to cease to have meaning beyond my current existence, I would have lived a more fulfilling life as a theist than an atheist, although it can be argued that the selfless efforts of an atheist are potentially more sincere than those of a theist.

    However, judging the intentions of man is impossible, even by the one reflecting on their own intentions, and therefore the measure of sincerity cannot weigh in on this argument. Self-preservation drives most of our motives, and therefore, in the absence of accountability to a greater power, or at least the belief in such, what else would there be to keep us honest and true? 

  • Trials and challenges

    Trials and calamities are a test , and are a sign of Allah’s love for a person. They are like medicine; even if it is bitter, you offer it despite its bitterness to the one you love – and for Allah is the highest description.
    “The greatest Reward comes with the greatest trial.

    Saheeh Hadith, Al -Tirmidhi (via samahcookiekhan)

  • On Atheism and Theism

    This is a subject that has fascinated me for a long time, and will continue to do so for an even longer time. So when I came across this in a book that I’m reading (which is extremely rare for me, to read a book that is), I just couldn’t help myself but share it because of the eloquence in how it explains my perspective on the subject.

    “…the parable of the feeble-minded person who thinks that the light of the sun is the result of its rising, is like the parable of an ant which as it happened upon the surface of a sheet of paper, was endowed with reason and thereupon watched the movement in the process of writing, only to think that it was the work of the pen, but would not go beyond that to see the fingers, and behind the fingers the hand, and behind the hand the will which moves it, and behind the will a deliberate and an able scribe, and behind all, the Creator of the hand, and the ability, and the will. Most people do not look beyond the nearby and earthly causes and never arrive at the Cause of all causes.” ~ Imam Al-Ghazzali (The Book of Knowledge)

    The reason I’m so positively incensed about this is because recently I’ve been plagued with the arguments of science and religion on so many blogs. And the one thought that always lingers in my mind is that science will always be on the back foot because it is always an observation of what has been. Never will it be able to advise on what is to be, or why, only how. It will always be an observation after the fact, and never before, since it is aimed at establishing the knowledge of how everything relates to everything else.

    Anything before the fact is considered mere theory and therefore subject to change, interpretation or perspective. This does not imply that our ability to predict future events based on established relationships between different events or forces is not part of science. It is, but it is also entirely dependent on what is known, and will therefore always be a work in progress. Weather forecasting is a typical example of this.

    Therefore, in my mind at least, the belief in science as the ultimate pursuit of knowledge to define the purpose of our existence is inherently flawed. But this is just my opinion, and I suspect that I may be blissfully unaware of numerous refutations that have already been compiled in defense of science and atheism, of which I have no knowledge because of my aversion to read lengthy discourses about the philosophies of others.

    Am I naive, or perhaps ignorant? Am I over-simplifying a complex issue? Or does this perspective hold some merit?