Disclaimer: Everything on an extreme is a potential opposition. I'd appreciate no lashing out for points of view i'm still trying to fully see.
Point of view is questionable. The ideal of an absolute truth is something far to big for my own self to fully understand. The deeper issues of life remain in question format and the facts I hold to be true are mostly physical (ex. Pain, Happiness, Awake, Tired, Etc).
People with different points of view can show harmony and rejection all to well. Some one who could relate to myself might shun another, however someone I could relate too would have been someone I would of shunned two years ago. Exacts and absolutes are far too costly and sometimes honesty is more than I personally can offered. An open mind is something to be praised, not necessarly feared. If it is to be feared, and it very well should be, it should be a reverant fear. However, this is getting into situation ethics and this would drift thoughts far off course.
Logic is something one learns, not necessarly something that can be taught. The orderly, set ideal thoughts of past, present and future situations that can lead to a more tangible ideal is my own definition to the word. My dictionary gives me a definition that I can understand, due to my pre-existing thought of the word. The dictionary definition is, “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.”
So logic is a series of thoughts that link to another thought of a potential standard of living. The hard thing about a topic such as this is that in my opinion there is no set, one definition. A lot of blogs are going to be written and some of us will agree and others of us won’t. That’s just the way it is. But the topic at hand is how one should think using logic. There’s far to much here to write about, so I belive I’ll shift my thoughts to one ideal and try to focus it into clarity. The only way I’ll fail this assignment is if I walk away with out a clearer view on whichever topic I choose.
A lovely example of fine tuning a thought would be dealing with death. When the “Good Book” talks of death, “G-d” Clearly makes a pressing matter that, “Thou shalt not kill.” However, what a hypocritical thought brought to the minds of Mankind who know the history of “G-d’s people.” Death and Judgement is prevalent within the ancient society that G-d chose for his own. There’s an extreme two point view of Kill or Live, however like any thought there is the middle ground.
Considering this blog is in the persuit of knowledge, lets discet the thought at hand. To kill something, someone, I would have to take the life of that individual. Let that sink in, to take the life of. Now, according to the “Good Book,” I shouldn’t take the life of any human being. However, lets say the translation was skewed and the thought kill is replaced with the thought of murder. Now with this in mind, to take the life of another human being by my own choice and in my own heart and actions is wrong. However, there is still more middle ground to be covered.
Hypatheticaly I’m married. Hypatheticaly I walk into my home and, forgive me for the visual, my wife is being raped. Honestly, I’d kill the man. The hate in my heart with that thought rises. Is this wrong? It can be argued that psychologically I wouldn’t be in my “right state of mind” so I could get off for manslaughter, most likely. However, if my wife was raped and the man who did the crime got away, if I found him, I’d still like to kill him. However, I honestly can’t say if I would or wouldn’t due to the situation, this gets into situational ethics or maybe even teontological ethics.
So within myself, I’ve justified killing a man while he raped my future wife infront of me and have made side note that I’d still like to kill him if he got away, yet unsure if I would or not. Another major issue with death is war. Is war justifiable? Some argue yes, others argue no. Some are still in favor for the war that’s lingering on today, despite the fact no weapons of “mass destruction” were found or that new arguments are being made about who was really behind 9-11. Either way, some argue yes and some argue no.
Maybe it’s experience that deems major issues justifiable in the hearts of man, in the messes of men. My childhood friend joined the marines to prove he was a man to his father. Only after he joined did he find out his father is AWAL from the navy seals. So my friend keeps going back and forth to the middle east. As children we played with toy guns and what not, pretending to be in war. While my friend was home on leave, while he saw his child for the first time, he told me it was nothing like the games we played. He told me a story of himself and his men pinned down in a hot spot. They only had one option, in a narrow alley way, to walk as fast as possible through and shoot at anything they could. Half way down the alley way or so he comes across a little baby girl, naked. With out thought he picks this child up with one arm and fires his rifle in the other. He told me it was as if he was saving his baby girl and he couldn’t describe it fully. He started to cry and walked off holding his head alone. I suppose his point of view will be different than anyone elses, only due to his experience.
Is death okay? No, obviously we’re dying because mankind has a desease we can’t seem to get rid of in the natural. Is it okay to kill another man? Well, that depends? Anything is justifiable with enough time and thought. When it comes down to it’s finality, my hands are up in the air. So I’m going to end this with two quotes. “Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back.” Death is coming for you, wether you like it or not. The second quote is, “…what’s it to you? You just follow me.” So the logic I’ve found in this is that I honestly don’t know if I’ll ever kill someone or if someone will kill me. I wish it wasn’t this way, but it is. So myself will still continue trying to find answers to the grey issues in life and maybe one day, in a better time, I’ll smile with a better view on the situation.
