- in the name of Allah -



sometimes I find that caring can be just as detrimental as being apathetic, though in some ways that might make sense. imagine living life on any/either extreme; what does that set you up for? granted that life, in reality, is often always never unanimous or one-sided or open-and-shut as people think it is, it would mean that attaching dogma of the soul to either end of the spectrum is akin to asking for a letdown, in more ways than one. I find that neutrality is one of the safest places in life, somewhat akin to being in one's own world, except for allowing empathy with anyone and everyone else while maintaining a distance. lately I've been thinking about theories, not specific ones, but the idea of how much they really mean to people in everyday life. as it turns out, I honestly cant say I'd give a damn about them.

in some ways, the truth is always clear. its that people never want to see it. seeing personalized plates with personalized palattes makes more sense to most than seeing a whole, USDA Grade-A egg in the place of a steamed crab. it isnt always easy to distinguish truth, and it probably is a fact that every single position in life, from those of criminals to those of saints, has a main, central focus, that is, at surface, impeccably sound. I take that to mean that the truth, or parts of it, lies in everything. nothing can be a complete lie because we have the ability to attribute meaning, something no machine or statistical formula can do. but, is partial truth enough? I dont think it is. to this day, I dont know how people can look beyond what they want to see, without affecting their vision with their own bias. I think that I see the truth, as distateful or disliked it may be, and yet it is better that I do so instead of ignoring it or blasphemying it. in any case, the truth cant entirely be found within the self, simply because human beings are incomplete. we combine the good with the bad, and live as if everything was ok (or not). because of this, we have to look outside ourselves, get in touch with our inner humanity and soul.

eventually, we should ask "can life exist without purpose?". if you think it can be lived without purpose, I'd suggest go jumping off a bridge. if you think it can't be, I'd say you're on the right track. wonder why? let's use the basic instict of the nature of reason itself. we observe a law of nature that says actions which animals do tend to have meaning, to achieve some productive or destructive end, though never denying themselves the right to be. if I were to take the reason/logic from that statement, put it in a chair beside me, and interview it, the very first self-right it would claim would be that of existence. what thing would want something less than self-perpetuation? hence, reason firstly would want to "live" and not die, that being the order of nature. if it asserts the right of existence, we should probe deeper and likely we would reach the point of contention of all theologians and philosophers: what was before then, if it was meant to exist? in what defense would reason reply? in the very least, it would probably lead us to seek answers of more depth, more sophistry perhaps, than ones we usually settle for.

but a simple analogy may suffice: were life to be without purpose, then it would like having a bottle without a bottle cap; looking at whats inside cant quench your thirst, so what else is there except to open the bottle and find out whats inside?