myessays

I’ve seen a screenshot of a theory about how all of them are facing in other directions, but because I couldn’t find it anymore…here it is (kind of lol):

President Coin is facing to the left side, such as Beetee and Plutarch. Beetee is probably facing left, because he is just used by Coin for inventing new stuff and still to weak to say or do something against it. Plutarch is not entirely facing the left side, because he has his own mind and opinion about certain things. Effie is the only one facing forward because she’s the one that’s least active in the war and doesn’t have a clue what’s really going on. And then we have Finnick and Haymitch, who are facing right because they do not side with Coin. In addition, there are also facing the “right” side in the war. And also, if there would have been posters of Katniss and Gale, Katniss would probably be facing right, but Gale would face left. (via unknown, lol)

These are my words, but not my thoughts (ok, I added some things but still). I just had to share that, it’s so good!

aerithrayne asked:

"I can't even defend this, why does Riven exist?" Does the fact that she's level 8 (because it looks like a "bubbly" number) compared to a 5 and a 6 matter? Looks like she got ahead, and when Riven does well, she continues to do so. Items, damage, levels. Not that Riven isn't obnoxious to play against (because she is) :s

Actually both of her opponents are level 5 (maybe not a good start to this persuasive post but bear with me)

(post in question)

At first glance it would make sense that a player with their ultimate ability and 7 kills already in a game would be able to demolish two champions that do not have ultimates, especially with flash up. However Rivens advantage is not as strong as it appears at first glance

BoxBox hasn’t recalled in forever, you can see that he has 2000 gold in stock even before dismantling two unfortunate opponents. The gold value of 5 kills is 1600 gold, and that’s if he got first blood which adds 100. Assuming BoxBox also got the solokill on top turret that’s another 250 gold. So at the end of all this he’s actually in the negative for total gold before minions plus kills.

Of course gold is only a buffer to regulate item flow and has no intrinsic value of its own. To get a real understanding of the situation we need only look at items, and even then just the actual combat stats. During this fight Irelia gets no almost benefit from crystalline and none from her boots or potions. Lee Sin has a brutalizer but the hunters machete doesn’t influence champion combat.

Boxbox
  440 x3 dorans blades
+800 vamp scepter
2120 total gold in items

Irelia/Lee Sin
 1337 brutalizer
 400 dorans blade
+300 cloth armor
2077 total gold in items

So you can see that despite the massive theoretical advantage, Boxbox is actually pretty close in terms of items. This is a little more complicated when you take into account gold efficiency of stats which makes dorans a really strong early choice. But this is hard to gauge since Boxbox survived this fight with 240 health and 3 dorans gives only 210 bonus health. He dodged the Sonic Wave so being a lower health percent would not have increased any damage via Lee’s missing health bonus damage on resonating strike. He wouldn’t of lived with 0 dorans instead of 3 since he did certainly lifesteal more than 30 hp and he needed the 21 ad for the kills, but you can see that the gap is actually only in the level difference.

There are other champions that would have won this fight with a 3 level advantage, but few with only 550 hp at the start. The only ones I can think of are Renekton Tryndamere and maybe Darius or Gangplank. The absurdity however isn’t in Riven winning the fight, but the absolute blinding speed at which it was possible. In the span of a little under two seconds seconds he’s able to use almost his entire ability combo while stunning both targets for .75 seconds of it. If he auto attack reset correctly Boxbox would get off 4 auto attacks during this rotation, that’s 2.0 attack speed! 

Riven is a great champion design in that her skill cap is higher than can be reached, you can always pull slightly more dps if you’re just a little faster with your keys (bots programmed to be 100% efficient on Riven would be unstoppable). But the problem is opponents don’t have nearly the same amount of options when it comes to fighting. There’s literally nothing Lee or Irelia could of done despite BoxBox being so low health with so few items. 

It’s kind of like having a 3D character in a 2D game, this design is interesting but it only works if Rivens opponents have as much potential for outplay as she does and there are no champions in the game with this level of potential damage increase through mechanical skill, a topic that I have actually written about before in another post (though there are many that have really high decision making potential which is way healthier for the game)

Anyways that’s basically another small essay so if you have any other questions on specific details let me know and make sure your inbox is open so I can respond privately instead of spamming every ones dash with walls of text c:

I also have an entire tag devoted to posts analyzing league of legends if you’d like to read more from me at techtonicactivity.com/tagged/League+advice

The logic of this question is incredibly fallacious as it proposes the following:

You can save x or y, not both.
x is more important and their interests should be considered more than y.
y is a lesser being and we have a right to exercise our interests over theirs.
Therefore, we must save x because y is less important.

So I will ask you a similar question: your mother and father are drowning, you can only save one, who would you choose? If you chose your mother, does that mean your father is a lesser, insignificant being? Do we have the right to exercise dominion over our fathers? Are their interests not in equal weight to our own and our mothers?

To extend the act of letting one die to the notion that therefore we have the right to exploit them, industrialise them, place them in factory farms… is completely illogical. So omnivores if you are going to make a compelling argument about why humans are more significant beings than animals, at least make it consistent and logical.

I’ve Heard That Murderers Are So Often Vain (Rough Excerpt)

…Of course I loved him, but I felt tired of the same grating sorrow rising in my chest every weekend. I felt tired of seeing him hold hands with other boys, smug in knowledge that I would be nearby when he inevitably drove them off with insult or neglect. Most of all, I felt tired of being a target of indignity. People would see the two of us together and feel this urge to demonstrate to me how little I was worth to him, as though I weren’t aware.

So, one day, without saying anything, I packed all of my things. I took down my artwork, bagged up my toiletries, and removed everything from the closet we shared. I gathered my pens, shut down my computer, and let a few precious books of mine stowaway in my luggage, though I knew I’d abandon them soon enough. I left enough money for my share of the rent for the next few months on his side of the bed. Then, without a word, I left.

Maybe “left” isn’t the right word. In reality, I was just gone. I disappeared from his life and took our memories with me, and when those memories proved too tortuous, I abandoned them as well.

For the first two days, he did not contact me. I did not think he would, because I would sometimes vanish for a day and half, and not say a word to him after some insult that had proven to great for me to sit silently in his presence. On the third day, he sent a text message, asking me “how it was going” with a smiley face. I thought about replying, but deleted the text message instead. The bite of tears in my eyes was too strong and it drained the strength from my fingers.

For many weeks, I just laid down on the floor someplace immaterial, and wondered if I wanted to live anymore. I had been miserable with that man who never loved me, but that misery, and that man–those were the things that had defined me. Now I had nothing but myself, and questions, and the first of those questions was: “Do you want to be alive?”

I wanted to drink. I wanted to replace the expansive desolation in myself with an equal feeling of occupation. I wanted to be colonized by some wicked man with his wicked ideals again, so that I could have some definition or some story line that made my ugly habit of loving things that could not love me back a reality again. My mind was a vast ocean of lethargic tears and maybe drinking helped to shallow that pool somewhat. Maybe it helped me to stop worrying over the fact that I was drowning.

I think that latter part was true. It did help me to stop worrying about drowning in my own tears – but still I remained plunged in the depths, screaming angrily and desperately about the first man that I had ever trusted with my entire life–the first man who saw that trust and gleefuly dashed it against any surface he could as a test of my loyalty. Drunk and emotionally naked, I cried out to God and asked him how I could be so naive. I asked God why it did not protect me from this man and, more importantly, why God hadn’t protected me from myself. Why was I so eager to let a man erase me, but so desirous of my dignity at the same time? Why was I so eager to press a knife into my own throat as long there was another hand to hold mine as I did it?

One day I was at the grocery store around the corner from where I’d been living, listening to the news through headphones and shopping for something. I thought I had gone there to buy groceries, but after about an hour of wandering listlessly with nothing in my shopping cart but apple sauce, a pair of earrings, some candy and a few packs of frozen vegetables, I realized that I was just wandering.

I’d never really done that before; I always made lists and prepared for the week with healthy, sensible, low-cost basics.

I kept wandering for a while and looked at the produce, and I realized that I was doing exactly what the man I’d left had always done.

When he wandered aimlessly about the grocery store and spent his money on frivolous things in spite of my begging him to make better choices more quickly, I could feel my temper braying at the back of my mind, wondering what the hell was wrong with him.

I paused and stared sleepily at the butternut squash, arranged in an ugly way on a black shelf. I hated that damned squash and I felt the strangest sensation drumming in my head as I realized that it was this listless wandering that I’d contracted from that relationship like a virus and taken forward with me. Depression had taken hold of me and, after some period of naked, drunk rage, I’d sunk back into a comfortable river of sorrow that drove me silently to no point in particular.

That night, I bought the dumb, ugly things that I had stockpiled and I promptly went home to throw away every single thing that reminded me of that man and who I’d been when I knew him. I put every single thing into a fucking trash bag, erased every message and scattered every love note to the wind, because I realize that the person who was holding onto those things was a terminally ill creature on life support–begging for a life that was no long his.

That night, I killed whoever I had been before the next morning. I never realized how satisfying murder could be until then. I never realized that I didn’t have to hold on for dear life when I could just let go, let myself plummet to my death and accept it graciously. I was someone who always took the difficult path, but that night I let my former self die so that I would wake up in the morning newly born–possessed solely of and by myself. It was the first time that I was truly alone–not at all haunted by that man I no longer hated or even thought of. I was not lonely. The world was mine again, and I was reborn, free to fly wherever I pleased.

Surrealism:

Surrealism originated in the late 1910s and early ‘20s as a literary movement that experimented with a new mode of expression called automatic writing, or automatism, which sought to release the unbridled imagination of the subconscious. Officially consecrated in Paris in 1924 with the publication of the Manifesto of Surrealism by the poet and critic André Breton , Surrealism became an international intellectual and political movement. Surrealism is defined as the pure psychic automatism by which it is intended to express, either verbally or in writing, the true function of thought. Thought dictated in the absence of all control exerted by reason, and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations.

To understand the definition better, we must first know that automatism means nothing more than the performance of actions without conscious thought or intention. Meaning creating without a blue print. Most artist who worked within this philosophy were prone to inducing hallucinations to reach such level of art without conscious thought. Surrealism takes many forms and has been divided in many subgroups. The top two divisions would be Automatism and Veristic Surrealism.

The automatists believe in the suppression of consciousness in favor of the subconscious. The images produced by such act or hallucination, to them, carried no analytic interpretation or spiritual meaning. They believe that the subconscious images shouldn’t be burdened by such meanings. Art just took its form from a string of unplanned and undisturbed imagery and came to it’s end once it was imprinted on paper.

The Veristic surrealist interpreted automatism to mean allowing the images of the subconscious to surface undisturbed so that their meaning could be deciphered through analysis. They wanted to represent these images with spiritual meaning, a link between the abstract spiritual realities and the real forms of the material world. Basically to them the object stood as a metaphor for an inner reality. Through such metaphors the concrete world could be understood, not by look at the objects, but by looking through them.

Most of the art form that took place within the flourishing period of surrealism was for the very purpose of interpretation. The simplest way to explain the process is by stating the act of automatism was one where the subconscious was driven into the conscious and then frozen unto paper for interpretation. Be it that Sigmund Freud was a figure of importance during this time, his symbolism was used occasionally within the written and visual arts. A perfect example would be Salvador Dali’s use of ants in many of his paintings, they represented his own sexual frustrations.

Surrealism took a step back or faded into the abyss at the start of the second world war. Most of the artist that lived in France during the revival moved to New York and continued their work less noticed. The movement did leave an impact in various places around the world. Places including the states, France, Mexico, and Chile. Of course it didn’t get by without any criticism. The feminist movement criticized surrealists for their portrayal of women. They often presented women in a archaic attitude, such as worshiping them symbolically in stereotyped and sexist forms. Women were often made to represent higher values and transformed into objects of desire and of mystery. They also criticized the movement as an all male movement and all male fellowship, as little to no woman was known or given as much appraisal for their works as the men in the group.

Lastly Freud himself was a critique of the movement. He said what interested him most about the Surrealists was not their unconsciousness but their consciousness. His theory was that the manifestations of and experiments with psychic automatism highlighted by Surrealists as the liberation of the unconscious was highly structured by ego activity, similar to the activities of the dream censorship in dreams, and that therefore it was in principle a mistake to regard Surrealist poems and other art works as direct manifestations of the unconscious, when they were indeed highly shaped and processed by the ego. In this view, the Surrealists may have been producing great works, but they were products of the conscious, not the unconscious mind, and they deceived themselves with regard to what they were doing with the unconscious. In psychoanalysis proper, the unconscious does not just express itself automatically but can only be uncovered through the analysis of resistance and transference in the psychoanalytic process.

A response to why I respect animals, that has been defined and redefined over many years. This will come in handy for those that cannot fathom why some beings believe in equality for all species on this Earth.



Would you castrate an animal without anaesthesia?
Would you work at a factory farm?
Would you take away a baby from its mother?
Would you brand someone’s skin without anaesthesia?
Would you rip out teeth or cut of beaks, toes or tails without anaesthesia?
Would you deny someone the space to stretch or even to stand or walk?
Would you drive a transport truck so loaded with animals some are crushed to death?
Would you use a bolt gun, electric gun, or wield a knife to end an animal’s life?

The answers for most people is NO, because they love animals or they do not want to see them suffer, or for other moral reasons. So unless you can answer yes to these questions you are nothing less than a hypocrite because these are all incorporated into the process from when the animal is born to when it ends up on your plate. And these are uniform standards for the so-called “regulations” you might praise and base as the reason you eat meat. Humane farming is completely voluntary in Australia and only happens for two reasons. One, because some farmers have ethical standards and believe animals need to be treated humanely for better produce. And two, consumer demand which seeks to eliminate animal suffering. So unless you scrupulously research which farms are humane and where their produce is stocked you are essentially funding animal cruelty.



And if your argument is your family only has free-range eggs, grass-fed cows and milk approved by Dairy Australia, do your research:

1. Overall “free-range” eggs at the supermarket are in no shape or form free-range, especially in light of new egg labelling standards drafted by Australian Egg Corporation Ltd to extend “free-range” status from 1,500 to 20,000 hens per ha based on unpublished research. Coles free-range eggs are the only option for conscious consumers which prohibits any body mutilations, growth hormones and antibiotics, and provides efficient outdoor and shed stocking densities whereas Woolworth’s Select is still immensely lacking.
2. “Grass-fed” cows are not cows in green pastures it is simply cows being fed grass rather than grains.
3. Currently to date, IGA is the only giant supermarket to stock one of very few ethical dairy farms in Australia in some of its stores, which is Barambah Organics. There is a wealth of information that denotes Australia as one of the worst OECD countries for their treatment of dairy cows.



These “farm animals” are some of the smartest animals in the world: cows, pigs and rats are amongst the 20 most intelligent animals along with dolphins, chimpanzees and elephants. Chickens are so reprimanded as dumb and stupid and yet scientists have put them in complex situations and discovered behaviour not even apparent in mammals, and more importantly, that it is bad science to assume the closer animals are to a human being the smarter they are.

We base our survival of the fittest argument on our intelligence and cognitive faculties and yet we force these intelligent creatures into such abominable lives and such merciless deaths, when our argument is, in fact, completely baseless.  I consider animals as species that we live with on this earth not a part from. As Mark Beckoff states, to do so would place emphasis on exploiting the weak by the strong which has been the foundation for many ethnic, political, religious, and social conflicts. During the Holocaust they were ‘only Jews’, in Rwanda ‘only Tutsis’, in South Africa ‘only blacks’. Derek Tu Toit asks us to consider that “through out history, those responsible for genocide and enslavement of others have sought to marginalise those they exploit by presenting them as worthless and unimportant”. And finally, this argument is again completely flawed because when we bring to light mentally and physically disabled children they are given the same rights and dignity in spite of the fact that they only survive because we employ our moral compass. To distribute our morality selectively is a contradiction in itself, you cannot be moral and immoral at the same time as you cannot love someone and not love someone nor be alive and dead at the same time. Morality is not just a philosophy, it has been part of human growth and development through the process of evolution. And although this theory is very contentious it provides us with a framework that generally people only elect to use when injustice enters their own personal spheres.

I think what separates us from nonhuman animals is that we are gifted with a moral compass, which allows us to make choices that are not always in favour of our own survival. Where we have the resources we can give animals green pastures, natural food, and cater for their behavioural and physiological needs. Where we have the technology we can end the exploitation of animals for leather, wool, and fur with synthetics. And we have no right to use “tradition” as the basis of our arguments to condone animal suffering, because once upon a time pedophilia, rape, and human carnage were considered "tradition” and now socially recognised as taboos and legally punishable to date.

The establishment makes us believe that we need all these things but when you look at research outside of the establishment you find incredibly contradictory views. For instance:
1. The highest rates of osteoporosis is in countries with the highest rate of dairy consumption.
2. Cancer, heart disease and diabetes are linked to diets concentrated with animal protein and saturated fats.
3. The directors who design the food pyramid every 6 years in the US are from the largest corporations of meat and dairy which eradicates any transparency and they use their own “science” to justify it.
4. The AECL Board of Directors is comprised of managing directors from Farm Pride Foods, Sunny Queen Eggs, and Pace Farms. The three biggest egg producers in Australia. There is no representation for genuine free-range farmers to date and no intention to expand their board.
5. The conglomerates that fund political campaigns are from the oil industry, agricultural industry, the fashion industry etc

We are mere instruments exploited by the wealthiest people and companies in the world to expand their growth and development, even at the expense of our health, animal welfare, and environment.

I am the way I am because I look outside the establishment, and I guarantee if you knew what I knew your life would be very different. Indeed I am a vegan but I do not condemn the agricultural industry, I simply believe that we should improve the standards and have tighter regulations. I do not believe anybody is in the position to deny people their right to eat meat, dairy or eggs… I only believe on this matter that we should eat less for health and environmental reasons as the recent UN report “How To Feed The World in 2050” states: Agriculture, particularly meat and dairy products, accounts for 70% of global freshwater consumption, 38% of the total land use and 19% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions… And this will have to increase globally by 70% by 2050 to feed the world’s surging population of 9.1 billion people. You can call me ridiculous for being idealistic but what I stand for is humanity, because while we have the ability to exert our power over the weak we are also gifted with a moral compass that allows us to make other choices. As Abraham Lincoln recalled at his first inaugural address, “We are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained it may not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature”.

The Importance of Thought

     Alan Watts said, “Nothing so eludes conscious inspection such as consciousness itself,” (Watts).The importance of thought spans beyond the fact that it is inherently valuable for its infinite nature; it is important because your thoughts are the only things that actually belong to you. This may, at first, sound untrue, as it is the case that we live in a world focused around possession and consumption, but first, let us consider the concept of possession. Possession of any object is first and foremost, a trick, and the result of a vast social construct that depends on people having things and needing more things. We need not follow the convoluted origin of this concept to understand a reality prior to its conception: there was a time when nothing belonged to anyone in the sense that we use the word now, but instead, all things were things, and things were to be used as necessary. There was no sense of ownership, or entitlement. This predates the era of modern man, who walked upon newly discovered land, and its inhabitants, and declared, “This is the flag of my king, and this, his land.” One need not ponder ownership of land for long before realizing it is a nonsensical notion. If I were to trace back the history of my yard, and its purchase, I would inevitably arrive at a time when it belonged to no one. The implication is that at some point, someone stood upon the earth upon which I live, and declared it to be his, and it became his, because he said it was.

     I am not, in any way, saying that your things are not your things; I am saying that how your things came to be your things is strange. If you were to ask a person, under the assumption that our idea of ownership is entirely made up, what truly belongs to him, if anything, he may be inclined to answer his body. This is not an uncommon notion, as many people consider their body to be a possession, but falsely so. Alan Watts says of this:

     The root of the matter is the way in which we feel and conceive ourselves as human beings, our sensation of being alive, of individual existence and identity. We suffer from a hallucination, from a false and distorted sensation of our own existence as living organisms. Most of us have the sensation that “I myself” is a separate center of feeling and action, living inside and bounded by the physical body—a center which “confronts” an “external” world of people and things, making contact through the senses with a universe both alien and strange (Watts).

     If you are not satisfied thoroughly by that brief excerpt, I highly encourage you to read The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are in its entirety, especially if you have an affinity for world-shattering self-realizations. The disparate sense of consciousness you feel inside is not your soul; it’s an elaborate illusion. You are one being, subject to one complete experience, and one inseparable sense of knowing. I cannot deny having been host to the inexplicable sense of some ingrained disconnect between two uncooperative and opposing entities, but what I have come to realize is this: the internal rift one feels between two halves is actually one whole, longing for a completeness through inherently unattainable means.

     It is not necessary, however, that you agree entirely, or to any extent, at that, in order for us to pursue an inquiry as to the importance of thought. Firstly, it is important to make concrete the abstract focus of discussion: thought. When I say thought, I am not merely referring to the process of deriving a simple idea, but complex and in-depth consideration of the idea, and the process through which it comes to fruition. I am talking about metacognition, the process of thinking about thinking. Given our capacity for such levels of cognition, we have an obligation to utilize such faculties, but I am not foolish enough to expect that to encourage the general populace to do so, in the same way that I am not foolish enough to expect each individual to exercise and eat well, or aspire to achieve incredible feats of physical fitness solely because the human body is capable, and arguably designed to do so.

     It is important to differentiate the difference between passive acceptance of an idea, and actual contemplation. Take, for instance, the concept of infinity, derived from the Latin word Infinitas, meaning “the sate of being without end.” When we contemplate this abstract concept that represents what cannot be represented, that which spans far beyond the confines of one’s ability to imagine, there are two methods for processing such a vast idea. The first, which most people take, is to accept, without contemplation of the profound and overwhelming implication of what infinity means in reference to all that we have ever known, that some stuff is endless, or goes on forever, or whatever. The second, and far more unsettling option, is to fully entertain the idea, to try, as a single, finite being, to understand what it means to be infinite. I stand by the notion that unless you have almost lost your mind in the process, unless your sanity, and very sense of reality, has almost crumbled into ash, you have not truly contemplated infinity.

     There are four hundred billion stars in our galaxy. There are one hundred billion galaxies. When trying to ponder the number of existing stars based on those numbers, one is tempted to call it infinity, but the provided numbers are numbers, and therefore, finite. What hope is there in imagining infinity when one cannot even process the countlessly finite number of stars? One must focus not on the stars, but the space around them, on the darkness into which they emit light. Stars are drops of paint on an endless black canvas. Space, is infinite. It cannot be confined by a cage of numbers, or a convoluted equation. It is so vast and unfathomable, that we are unable to imagine an arbitrary measurement to which we can assign it. It is literally more endless than the most limitless aspect of the human mind: one’s imagination. This contemplation may seem nonsensical or pointless if one expects to come out the other side with a refined gem of knowledge, or with an unequivocal truth, for he or she is bound to come out the other side feeling unsettled, and disappointed. Of this, Alan Watts says, “You do not ask what is the value, or what is the use, of this feeling. Of what use is the universe? What is the practical application of a million galaxies?” (Watts).

     It is unfortunately the case that many persons are determined to avoid this kind of thought, and for a variety of reasons. Some people are dissuaded from taking part in complex forms of contemplation simply because it is difficult, though I can think of few worthwhile endeavors which are those of ease. Some seek to avoid the discomfort that comes with closely examining oneself, and the world of which he or she is a part, for one may not choose to un-see society’s true face once it has been unmasked, nor may he or she revert to a conscious state of existence before potentially unsavory realizations. Choosing to see the world, and examine it closely, is to welcome the inevitability of seeing its problems, a rabbit hole from which there is no coming back. Introspection, especially, is often an uncomfortable process, for the hardest judgment to pass is that of oneself. Lastly, not thinking, or not having an opinion, is easy. One may avoid the terrifying possibility of being wrong, and the effort of having to support oneself through any kind of logical reasoning. The process of constantly adjusting and reassessing your beliefs based on new information is, at times, inconvenient, discomforting, and arduous, but to not do so is, simply put, a means of intellectual stagnation that serves only to worsen oneself, and all with whom one interacts.

     Furthermore, we are accountable because of this advanced cognitive capacity in a way that no other species of this planet is. Make no mistake; forfeiting the opportunity to think in the way previously discussed thus far does not serve to absolve one of such accountability. I once read this concept refined into a simple analogy, by whom I cannot for the life of me remember, nor find through countless and frivolous Google searches. He explained that our cognitive capacity separates us from other species in a way that we cannot ignore. Our inherent abilities automatically place us in a higher class, one that has a full awareness of the consequences of its species’ actions as a whole. He stated, for instance, that if a tiger were to rip a man’s head off, we would not hold it accountable for such an action, as it is the case that the tiger lacks an inherent ability to perceive the wrongness of such an action. If anything, it seems an oddly normal thing for such a creature to do. However, if a man were to rip off the head of another man, he would be held fully accountable, as it is the case he did so with a full understanding of what the physical ramifications of such an action would be, such as instantaneous death of the formerly head-having man. He also has an understanding that the fellow members of he species would deem such an action unacceptable.

     No mind is exactly identical to another. Just like snowflakes. But less cliché. That means that there are more than seven billion unique humanoid lenses through which the universe is observing itself. Each lens provides a different perspective, however, your obligation is not to the universe, and its endeavor to perceive itself. Your obligation is, and should be, without question, to yourself. Aristotle said, “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” You have the opportunity to thoroughly know something complex and unique in a way that no one else ever will, which is not to be taken lightly, for humanity is derived from knowledge of oneself.

     Now lastly, you may ask what the point is of my writing this, to which the answer is simple: to catalyze thought. If you agree with what I have written, if our thoughts align, that is lovely. If you do not agree with what I have written, if our thoughts do not align, that is even better. Opposition is, after all, a useful tool in helping define oneself, and in determining and refining one’s beliefs. My only objective in writing this, and in tentatively writing about other topics in the future, is to provoke meaningful thought. As I began with the words of Alan Watts, so I shall end. “However much we may now disagree with Aristotle’s logic and his metaphors, he must still be respected for reminding us that the goal of action is always contemplation—knowing and being rather than seeking and becoming,” (Watts).

—William C. Hannan

Watts, Alan. The Book on the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are. New York: Pantheon, 1966.

What is Happiness?

Happiness is like searching for someone all your life and falling in love with them; only to find out they’ve fallen in love with someone else, have gotten engaged; and being cordially invited to their wedding. It’s an interesting feeling, one that’s not easy to describe, because it’s hardly ever felt. You get glimpses of it, like a rainbow after all the rain has washed up half the sky. You see it just slightly between some clouds, and you could try to reach for it, but it dissolves. It doesn’t last long enough for you become accustomed to it.

The most interesting part of it all, is that all of this is all in world where a god exists. Many gods actually. One can never be bored. There are so many myths to choose from, so many books to base your faith on, so many lies to call truth. We live in a world where people bury bibles beneath the grounds they build their churches on for blessings. Where there are more deities than there is money in our wallets for offerings. People spend thousands and thousands of dollars on life coaching seminars, How To books (they probably don’t even read them through all the way. I know I don’t), and therapy; all to find happiness. (The one who chose to marry that person you now hate, but still bought a engagement gift for.)

How can we be happy in a world that so readily offers what they cant explain? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one adult who is truly happy. It’s all pretense. Perhaps that’s the problem. We spend all our lives searching for it, thinking about attaining it, writing dozens of articles on it, all because we cant accept a world, a life, without it. Why? Why do you choose to obsess over someone who chose to marry someone else and not you? Human extinct. It makes us go after what we can’t have, the more impossible it is, the more it’s wanted. It’s part of the human greed. So technically speaking, it would be fair to assume, or to associate happiness with greed, with the selfish desire to feel self satisfaction. What a morbid thought, perhaps morose, but could it be that if we accepted we can’t be happy, we would feel so much better with our lives? That if we lived a life not obsessing over finding happiness, it would find us.

I’m not concerned with the existence of a god or a eternal supreme being. I’m not even concerned with happiness. I realized some time from here that when I feel slightly above average I’m no good. I can not express myself the way I wish to, I lack inspiration, I lack words, and I can not write. So I know that it could happen. Attaining a level of conformity with life and her abnormal way of functioning. Feeling like purely existing is enough to make something out of nothing. I breathe, that means for me, it’s another day to write, another day to think, another day to learn. I can’t speak for society, I can only speak for myself. I can’t explain how to be happy, I can only explain how to not care. Freedom is born from such a feeling. Freedom does not mean going out and doing all your soul or mind desires, because those things could be quite deceiving, and while the idea of killing someone you don’t like is appealing, actually going through with it, isn’t all that much. Freedom means riding yourself of the excess. The distorting obsessions with the material, with the physical, with others; becoming dependent. Accepting your existence. We live our entire life, knowing we are alive till we die, but most die dead, because they didn’t acknowledge the importance of living at the moment, instead spending it fearing what happens once they die. Who cares what happens once you die? Once you die, you’re dead, you are gone. You can’t do anything about till then.

It’s a frighting thought, I know; but we have to get over it. Like rock climbing. If you’re a newbie you better know you’re are going to fall, expect it, but eventually you will get better at it wit practice, and eventually you’ll be doing it naturally. Remember as a society we were actually meant to live in the wild. It wasn’t until someone thought up that there are better ways to live and as humans have some abilities we could use as tools to make life more comfortable, that we went from making fire with a couple stones to electrical stoves. Go back to that inner instinct, your ability to survive whatever life throws at you. Feed it, nurture it, then use it. Every emotion is a thought before becoming a feeling. If you think you are conformed with what you have, then you are. If you think you don’t have happiness, and feel this constant urge to not stop till you find it, you never will. You will die miserable, and therefore have been a waste of space, a thief of my oxygen, and useless. How can men be happy in a world devoid of external significance and meaning? Through the recognition of existence, because existence precedes essence.

Retribution: Revenge in Frankenstein

    “The nearer I approached to your habitation the more deeply did I feel the spirit of revenge enkindled in my heart.” Frankenstein is both a science fiction and horror novel by Mary Shelly. In the story Victor Frankenstein creates a creature made out of corpses only to abandon it immediately after. This initial rejection, plus all the hatred he encounters throughout the novel, causes the creature turn to revenge towards his maker. The novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelly is obviously a work about the limitations of man along with scientific discovery, both of which go hand in hand, but the most important theme of this story is revenge.

     The creature wasn’t always a killer, he was driven to it. At first, the creature was kind and loving. It wasn’t until he was abandoned and hated that he turned to killing for revenge. At the end of chapter fifteen, the creature attempts to make friends with De Lacy who is blind, therefore can not see his grotesque and monstrous appearance. Felix came home and attacked him. “Now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream had vanished,and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” When Victor first brought life to the creature he immediately regretted and abandoned it. Victor had finally completed his life’s dream. He had created his child and then abandoned it like a prom night dumpster baby. “This was the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound which shattered flesh and bone.” The creature is accused of harming a girl because he looks ugly, and therefore, obviously can do no good. No matter how hard he tried to be accepted by society, it would never happen.The creature has been driven to vengeance due to humanity’s shallowness, but more specifically, his father’s. 

     The creature hates humanity as a whole but especially Victor, who he blames it all on. After all, Victor did make him in the first place. He made the creature out of dead bodies resulting in its hideous appearance. No one would ever accept it. “Unable to endure the aspect of the being I created, I rushed out of the room and continued a long time traversing my bed chamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.” Victor couldn’t stand to look at his own creation even though a few minutes before he said it was beautiful. Victor abandoned his creation like a prom night dumpster baby. It makes no sense why Victor would do this. Why did he change his opinion on the creature so suddenly? That proves that Mary Shelly neither was a mother nor had a clue what she was writing about. “The nearer I approached to your habitation the more deeply did I feel the spirit of revenge enkindled in my heart.” The creature’s anger for Victor had fueled its thirst for revenge. If Victor hadn’t abandoned it, if only he had loved it and taken the responsibility of the parent he should have been, the creature would have had some sense of belonging. The creature focused his revenge towards his father who deserved it one hundred percent. 

   The monster acts on his hatred and exacts his revenge. “Frankenstein! You belong then to my enemy–to him whom I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim.” The creature yells this to Victor’s younger brother before killing him. He is killing Victor’s loved ones to get back at him. “More miserable than man ever was before…” Victor was miserable from all the deaths the creature had caused. He was indirectly responsible. “I shall be with you on your weeding night!” Victor refused to create a bride for the creature so he will take Victor’s bride away from him. The creature violently killed Elizabeth the night of their wedding. The creature carried out his revenge in the novel, but he wasn’t the  only one.

   The creature wasn’t the only one out for revenge. Victor was too. “When I reflected on his crimes and malice, my hatred and revenge burst all bounds of moderation.” Victor was filled with anger and thoughts of revenge when he thought of everything the creature had done. Victor felt responsible for all the deaths. “But revenge kept me alive; I dared not die and leave my adversary in being.” Victor was on a quest to hunt down the  creature. He won’t stop until he kills it. Victor never ends up getting his revenge because he dies first. 

            Frankenstein is a novel about the revenge of an abandoned child. The creature was rejected from its version of birth up until the end of its life. It was driven to its murderous ways due to the irresponsibility and neglect of his father and the shallowness of society. If only someone cared for him just a little, he never would have desired revenge or murder.

The Existential Philosophy:

Existentialism is a philosophy which no one has ever owned. It has always meant different things to different people. Never has it been a single doctrine laid by a single person. It is one that has developed over the course of time and has taken many functions appropriately modified according to the time and person. Existentialism in certain ways is individualism. It is a strong devotion to being one self, to putting aside all other sources of influence, and creating oneself from what one is. Websters defines existentialism as “a chiefly 20th century philosophy that is centered upon the analysis of existence specifically of individual human beings, that regards human existence as not exhaustively describable or understandable in idealistic or scientific terms, and that stresses the freedom and responsibility of the individual, the irreducible uniqueness of an ethical or religious situation, and usually the isolation and subjective experiences (as of anxiety, guilt, dread, anguish) of an individual therein.” A rather direct interpretation would be, human beings as individuals are both radically free and responsible of their own lives. Existentialism is a philosophy that doesn’t limit itself to a particular point of view, the list of the different types of existentialism is extensive, ranging from devout Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, to agnostics, and staunch atheists. Since the list is quite long, I will focus on Christian existentialism and Atheistic existentialism.

Christian existentialism can be defined as the state of Perfect Faith. It is where one rises objectivity and experiences God in the pure actuality of an absolute presence. One of the philosophers known for spreading the thought of christian based existentialism is Gabriel Marcel. He believed that man is not simply thrown into a hostile world and abandoned to his own devices or that man is not left to realize his own destiny in total solitude. He believed that a man’s life is guided by values that are not of his own making, but are themselves incarnate and in being. Søren Kierkegaard, also a important to the christian existential movement, stated that human beings must make their own independent choices, which in itself constitutes their existence. To him each person suffers anguish (whether knowingly or unknowingly) until they make a choice about what life style to live. Existentially speaking, the bible does not become an authority in someone’s life until they decide to let it authorize them. The act is one that must taken upon naturally, the bible and its stories are no longer taken as a book of reference or rules forcefully applied to humanity from an external formality, but rather from within the human individual themselves. They live according to values set in the bible as if those were their own.

The term atheistic existentialism refers to the exclusion of any transcendental, metaphysical, or religious beliefs from philosophical existentialist thought. A well known philosopher who helped expand such thought was Jean-Paul Satre. He stated “existence precedes essence”, this contradicts René Descartes “I think therefore I am.” In order to think, one must exist. Therefore one becomes who one chooses to be, after accepting their role as an individual choice maker, without the help of any external source, such as a god or science. Human individuals are given free choice and total liberty to be the person they choose, but in a world where there is no God, that does not mean that there are no set of values. On the contrary, because as beings we no longer have the option to hide behind at set of ridiculously high set divine standards, we as individuals must create our own. Values that measure up to our own standards. We have the responsibility of making the best with what we are given and what is at reach, to fulfill satisfying lives. Satre went as far as calling any religious set of belief Bad Faith. Bad Faith is when a person attempts to escape anguish by pretending that one is not free, to believe in anything outside one’s personal will. In order to become oneself or liberated, one must find their own set of limits and goals. Living in a godless world means that there is no supreme or divine authority for what is good or bad or right or wrong. Which means the only worthwhile goals are those one sets for oneself. Furthermore, atheistic existentialism also tackles death without creating any false delusions or hope for an afterlife saved by God. There is a strict belief that after death there is nothing.

As there are many existentialist who’ve helped form the philosophy, I will also mention a few. Franz Kafka, who was an artist and who believed in the absurd. He didn’t not believe in world order but rather in anguish and living within the social trap of absurdity. Albert Camus was also one who believed in the absurd. He helped push the notion that god existing or not existing doesn’t matter because all choices are made individually, god can not interfere with our lives nor live them for us. Jean-Paul Satre, was of course as mentioned before atheist, he did not believe in a god, he believed in himself, in his own power to be who he chose to be. He also had an interesting view on individual relationships with others, he said that “In love I approach the other as a subject and present myself as an object, as attractive as I can make that. In sexual desire, I approach the other as an object of which I try to gain possession. In these, or in other relationships, my own projects may be crossed and paralyzed by the projects of ‘the other’.” Therefore to Satre the natural attitude among human beings is not one of love, peace, and harmony, but hate, conflict, and strife. Friedrich Nietzsche believed that Christianity as a philosophy was under euthanasia. Yet, he believed in a type of salvation without a savior, he believed that a person could raise themselves above the banality and absurdity of his existence by his own inner strength. Fyodor Dostoyevsky is probably one of the biggest voices of the movement. He is know for saying “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” He too believed in the absurd, he thought the world had not particular order and that everyone lived a life equated to insanity.

As diverse as existential writers/philosophers can be/are, there are a few basic principles which they all share in common. One, existentialism focuses on attention and concern on the individual over group or masses. Two, rationality is imperfect and unreliable. There are various things we can not explain within our own rationality, because real human life goes beyond the boundaries of any rational system we create to try and explain it. There is no fixed definition of a human being. Three, we define ourselves through our own actions and choices. We have the power to create our own lives and are responsible for what we do and what we are. Lastly, human beings can not meaningfully contemplate the universe from any point of reference other than as mortal human beings.