Simulation Hypothesis

Are we living in a simulation?  

Anyone who has watched The Matrix may have an idea of what is the Matrix in the movie. It is a computer simulation of the reality. So the instantaneous answer to the above question for most of us would be; "Bah humbug! We are not living in a computer simulation”. What if I tell you we might be living in one? In fact, Elon Musk, himself said there are one in billion chances of us not living in a simulation. 

In 2003 Nick Bostrom from the Oxford University published papers citing a thought experiment. The experiment has the same advantage as an argument as religion does, it is unfalsifiable. Pretty much like solipsism, I wrote about Solipsism for my A to Z challenge's post last year read it here.  In his papers, Bostrom puts forward the three arguments and argues that at least one of them is true. You can read Boston's proposition in details here. 

• The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; 

• Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); 

• We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. 

We as species may go extinct before further advancement in technology. It could be an asteroid that hit our planet or we end up nuking the whole planet. As a matter of fact, Earth is on the brink of mass extinction in the light of climate issues; we can be one of the species that may get extinct.  However, we are in a very safe place compared to other animals, such as polar bears. (Read my post on polar bears here). However, the perception of a likelihood of this fallout depends on how much brunt of climate change you are facing at your location. My city, Delhi, is breaking the 'hottest ever' record every given year. Sigh! Still, some of us have more chances of survival and overall chances of human reaching posthuman stage are strong. 

Reaching posthuman stage will be marked by the integration of technology in our day to day life. The technological revolution of our era is enjoying an exponential growth. I remember when I had a lousy video game player to play Super Mario. It was amazing to the past me, such good quality! Had someone told me that in a matter of few years this would be ridiculously lame I wouldn't believe. Now the games are better and realistic. Many experts say that it will still get better with time up to a point where the gaming worlds like the Sims will be indistinguishable from the real world. Your player may even experience real distress on that "Game Over" mark. 

The odds are in favour of integration of consciousness into the computers. In the light of substrate independence, the current technology is making and attempt to "upload" the consciousness/mind to a computer. This technological advancement will bolster the chances of your player having a consciousness and independent thoughts. So, in future when you lose a game you may end up troubling the poor guy living inside the game. However, if that happens we might not choose to put such technology in use to trouble or little game player or would we? That is the ethical question for future people. 

Now, with the ability of computers, we already run simulations some awesome simulations. Check our Millennium simulation project here and Illutris project here. Over time, there are chances that, people will run independent simulations on their personal computers just for fun. It could become a fad, like one of those Farmville games. Now that we have given those simulated people the ability of consciousness. They somehow could evolve and built their own simulation, I know! It sounds crazy, right? Now, what if there is a chain of simulations inside simulation inside simulation... People, in each simulation, having their own set of individuality, like we do! Moreover, we do intend to make more and more real-ish simulations. At some point, we may want to see our history simulated. We may want to see the Greeks doing their parliament meetings. We would just make a computer program run the simulation to watch Socrates making his case to the people of Athens. That would be quite educational. 

Now that we know it is possible, in future, how can we be sure it is not already happening? How can we be sure that someone from an advanced civilization didn't want to see what earth was like at this very time?  How can we say we are not their simulation? After all, there are no grounds to prove that we are the ground reality. This is the Simulation hypothesis and that leads us to the last point on the Bostrom's list. We are almost certainly living in a simulation. You may check out this Ted talk by the Nobel Prize Winner George Smoot trying to convince you about living in a simulation here.

If you find this thought distressing, don't worry! It is just fun to have some counterintuitive thinking once in a while. Nevertheless, in the end, it doesn't matter if we live in a simulation or not. Our "reality" is already subjective. Our lives will go on just the way they do...

On a Scale of 1 to 10, (1 for we are the ground reality and 10 for this is a simulation) what is your point - scale opinion on, If we are living in a simulation?  Feel free to express your opinion in the comment section below. 

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here!

Find me on the following: Social Media

·         YouTube 

·         Twitter

·         Instagram

·         Goodreads

·         Tumblr 

The Origin Of The Creator

Language is one of the cornerstones of our human civilization. Animals, other than humans, have the ability to communicate via signals and sounds to alert and acknowledge their fellow beings. That kind of communication is sufficed to the survival of the organism. However, we humans don't merely survive. As we tend to have a more innovative set of skills and abilities. 

Language is one of those skills that somehow evolved extensively in early human. The cognitive evolution of human mind gave early humans the ability to make up stories and tell stories. This was an upper-hand and offered them an opportunity to come together as a species.

With the ability to exchange ideas and stories came along the stories about the creation and the creator. Language helped in forming stories about the origin of humans such stories helped building the society as we know it today. It can be debatable whether, without religion and creation stories, the course of human history would have been the same. The rise of human and his dominating the planet is a benefit of creation stories.

Human children have relatively longer nurturing requirements. A human child needs years of parental involvement for food and protection. Under such circumstances, Humans are bound to be emotionally and psychologically attached to their parents. Thus the idea of creation centers a parent figure to humans collectively. The grander parental figures serve as a source of comfort and a sense of well-being. 

This faith in the higher beings enforced a relation amongst human with the advent of culture and a state of law-ness. It transpired the state of authority over human actions. Thus, brings a state of cooperation amongst beings.  People believed in the same set of gods had a firm belief that 'someone' is keeping track of their actions and society turned more trusting towards each other. 

The gaps in human knowledge were filled by the idea of gods controlling the world. If there was a natural calamity they knew whom to calm and pray to. The communities got bigger and organized; this strengthened the species against predators. It was because of the idea of God that early men organized thousands of individual in a single band. This association was the result of a firm and mutual belief in the same divine story. 

This capacity of storytelling and basing the social organization on the same belief worked amazingly. In ancient days the polytheistic religion prevailed. This added the benefit of inclusion of more and more people together by acknowledging each other's Gods. This is a thing Romans were known to be doing. They included the local Gods of the conquered areas into their own Gods.  This accommodation could not work with monotheistic belief.  With the passage of time rise of monotheism replaced the polytheistic with Constantine's conversion to monotheistic Christianity and dilution of paganism. That led to a new era of the God. Today our world is predominantly monotheistic. 

The oldest surviving religion, Hinduism, have traversed into a monotheistic origin of various Gods and Goddesses. To me, the ardent survival of it is quite fascinating. The flexibility and ability to reform have been the key to bolstering its own self. Ahem Ahem! * Looking at you the contemporary Hindutva agenda.* 

History is evident that, as the time passes the idea of God/Gods are bound to alter. Thinking that it will remain as it is, is a myopic point of view. It will change into something that is more suitable as per the need of time. 

Any theories on how the world's religion will be in 2000 years? Assuming, the human race will survive the imminent climate change. Let me know your thought in the comment section below.

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here!

Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube 

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr 

Memento Mori

When I was a little girl of nine or ten, I was playing on a summer noon on our porch. I clearly remember that afternoon. As that very noon I was a spectator to a tragedy. A little bird crashed into our veranda's fan. It was an instant death. Being present there I felt the agony of death in its last squeak. I couldn't do much for the bird I wanted to save it, of course, but sadly could not bring it back from the "other side". I did the only logical thing one could do. I decided to organize a small funeral and bury it. I selected a spot under the cordial tree and buried it with made-up rituals.

It was a long evening and by the end, while I was covering it with mud and a thought crossed my mind. 'I must mark this exact spot. I should have wrapped the body in a hanky'. Even when the burial was not complete I was thinking about the exquisite skeleton of a house sparrow. The telly those days had a lot of news of finding the bones of dinosaurs. I, being the nerd that I am, wanted my own skeleton of the future generation of dinosaurs. By the end of finishing the bird's grave, I secretly decided I am going to get my skeleton. I marked the spot with a little stick flag. Over the next few days, I enquired the grown-ups about, how long it takes to get a skeleton from a buried body? (Wonder why no one thought it was weird!). Different people gave different answers. I came to a conclusion that for a bird a month was enough. I lost my patience on the twenty-fifth day.

I dug the marked grave and found only a skull and few thin rib bones. I think my digging disturbed the tiny bones and I couldn't find the whole set. I decided to keep the skull only. I prepared a cool spot to place my collection in my private museum. A green plastic basket padded with cotton, on my study table. I kept it and was proud of my possession. It made me remember the last squeak of the bird. My desk resembled one of those old paintings of human skulls on a table. Thinking about the classic painting having pretty much same work desk as I did, made me feel sophisticated and nerdy at the same time. Until my Mum spotted it... sigh!

Those old paintings that inspired me to decorate my workspace, where I use to complete my homework on multiplication assignments from school. Is a specific genre of art called Memento Mori (also vanitas). It depicts the symbolism objects that signify death (namely skull) To remember the infallibility of Death. Such artwork is an artistic expression to remind that death is the objective truth to all and one must spend life wisely.

If you are a Shakespear's fan you must have read The Tragedy of Prince Hamlet, one of my absolute favorites. Shakespear, being the genius that he was, used the symbolism with a skull in the Hamlet.  In the play, Act-5 scene-1, Hamlet holds up the skull of Yorick,  King Hamlet's jester, and remember's his childhood memories with Yorick. It is a brilliant scene ...  I will spare you by not writing the whole scene, but if you are curious you may read the scene here. I think Shakespeares perfected the notion of Memento Mori in that very scene.

So where does this term comes from? In the Roman days, when a general would win a battle, there use to be victory parades with the crowd use to cheer and hail the victor. In all that cheering and hailing there was one appointed servant who would whisper a Latin phase in the general's ear

"Respice post te, hominem te esse memento, 

memento mori - nam mors indecepta"

("Look behind you, remember that you are human, 

remember that you will die—for Death is infallible.")

Its purpose is obvious, to remind the General while he basked in the glory of his victory that his demise is still inevitable. Probably to keep him grounded. Frankly, If I was the General I would be pissed. I mean, let me have my moment of fame and glory. Jeez! what a killjoy!

I know death is a not a topic anyone wants to talk about happily. Heck! I even wrote about Immortality on my previous post. However, Once in a while, it is wise to stop and think about Death. A reminder of death makes you consider what you want to do with the life you have.

What do you want to do with your life, any bucket-list entries you would like to share? let me know in the comment section below.

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here!
Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube 

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr

L'amour: The Second Hand Emotion

One of the most obscurely used terms for a certain emotion is love.This post is dealing with the special sect of love. The romantic Love. The movie screen, grand and cliched love.  Back in the 90s, most of the movies, in Bollywood, had a central theme of love. The story of the movie was essentially bound around this very emotion. As the trend changed the central theme of movies varied as well. Frankly, that really baffled me as a child because all I had known about movies in India, during my few years on earth, was it had to have a love story. Lacking that would feel like something was missing. #HopelessRomantic from the start.

The basic theme of love as the center of a story is somehow a product of Shakespeare's work and popularity. His play the Romeo and Juliet is the epitome of the given standard of romantic love. There were, of course, many older texts based on love, but none were so swelled with the passion of Love. Romeo and Juliet placed romantic love on a pedestal of emotions.

The inception of the idea of love, as such, with a goal of "lived happily ever after" became a part of our society. Marriages were slowly replaced, from the classic economic and social tool to a fulfillment of one's emotional need of a perfectly suitable partner. Love was no longer a reasonable 'dealing' with families involved. Love broke free from the clutches of idealistic orders to a rebellion of following one's heart.

It was the brilliance of Shakespeare to identify the emotional, psychological and social state of people of that time and bringing it all together in a dynamic manner. During the time of Shakespear people were being diagnosed with the psychological sicknesses. He took that tragedy of the human condition and made something quite profound. Something that is an exhibition of his excel in human behavior.

The behavior of a person towards love is innate. However, the culture of the expression of that love has environmental influences. Shakespear made love, The love as we know it nowadays. The emotion we see expressed so passionately shown in movies and books. What was express the contemporary romantic love is what we learn from the society and culture around us. In a way, the means of expression is handed over to us. It is a second-hand emotion. The feeling is intrinsic, but its execution is culture driven.

Here is an idea that I would like to propose, In a way, this romantic love diminished the idea of 'self'. It occurred to me that my regular catching up with my friends often involved questions on my well being followed by inquiries about my relationship status. These casual queries are pretty common for singles. / Cut to: A soft  nudge on the elbow in a wedding with a whisper "You Are Next!"/ Ugh! Spare me the cringe.

It has become a task, a goal to achieve as basic as graduating high school. It also took away the individualistic identity of a human. People start looking for "soulmates" in order to "complete" themselves. As if something vital for their existence is missing. We already are complete and fully functional beings. Romanticism hijacked love and made it a project. Love is no longer just a feeling like other feelings it is a glorified goal.

Our evolutionary and unconscious goal, as a species, is to carry on the life. Regardless of the romanticization that would have gone on. This idea of romantic love addresses our core question of being. Why are we here? The idea of romantic love also helps us cope with it. We justify it, when we are in love, as the prime source of satisfaction and meaning of life. Our existential crisis of the meaning of life is assuaged by it. This belief gives a grand start to a relationship.  

On the contrary, to make a relationship survive one has to put this idea of love in the backseat. Both parties need to work on the relationship constantly to make it work. It often happens that one person becomes the 'taker' and other becomes the 'giver'. Eventually, such dynamics collapse and the relationship falls apart. For love to last and be truly fulfilling it has to be balanced throughout the duration of its course.

We often hear that the essence of love is trust and compromise. Nothing is idealistic, both people in one way or other need to be compliant to make the ends meet. The trust in not only that your partner will not turn into a jerk and cheat on you. The trust that when you put altruistic efforts into the relationship they will make sure you don't lose yourself in those attempts. They will make sure that it is fair to you. With that thought, I will end the blog with a quote from a book I recently read.

"Against all the evidence of his senses, 

a man who is in love declares that 'I' and 'you' are one, 

and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.” 

~Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

What Is your opinion on love? Let me know in comment section below.

Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr

We Are Not Idiots

Ancient Greece, as per me, is second most fascinating classic civilization. The first is, obviously, Roman civilization I can go on and on about Romans, but some other day. Greece in 500 BC had a democratic government. That basically excluded citizenship to slaves and women and the democracy was basically by the able-aged free men of the population. Still, that was the ancient democracy. The land of great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Greeks, back then, talked and debated about the social set up and how should their government run. How to vote... Who can vote and so on.  Being a part of this discussion in politics was an honorable thing.

On the other hand, people who didn't take interest in and contributed to the politics of the land were called Idiots. Idiots didn't have the same meaning as it does in our times. An idiot was someone who was not a part of political democracy. The root of the word originated from the Latin word 'Idios': meaning the self. A private person who didn't get involved in politics was considered to be the default state of being. Opposite of which was basically a citizen. In Athens, the Citizenship was granted by education and involvement, not by birth. Idiots had a lower social status in Athens. However, the current definition of 'Idiot' is a foolish or ignorant person. If you think about the evolution of the word, 'Idiot' it makes sense.

We, the population of the contemporary world, are not 'Idiots' in the ancient sense of the word. In fact, this is the era of political activism. We live in the age of the internet with so much information at our disposal. We get flooded with feeds on our social media. However, those feeds are selectively shown to us by the algorithms of the social media sites. What we get in our feeds depends on our search history and our 'reactions' to the feeds that we come across. This kind of selective partakes lands us in a filter bubble. Due to the iteration of the algorithm, the posts that we receive goes on shifting towards extremes in the spectrum of opinions. Thus, firing up the social and political divide even further.

The result is highly polarized parties. Partially, because of total inability to a casual access to opposing viewpoint. The end is, well, pretty much what we have on political commentary on the internet. Divide, names calling and troll attacks. What I do to not be a part of this Filter bubble is deliberately expose myself to voices from both sides. Listen to what they have to say and form my opinion based on information I receive by my own judgment.

I have my opinion on the political state of the world and I reckon, you have yours. We both come to our conclusions and opinions based on our experiences and lifestyle. I am a classic liberal, and I stress the word classic because I don't agree with some of what contemporary left has to offer.  The range of issues in the political sphere is very large and it is unlikely to fit in two columns. namely right and left.

Furthermore, in present times the divide is pretty much between two options only. The people of one side are expected to be in line with their side on almost all the issues. This is not practical. The effect of this is bitterness amongst people. Yes, It is as ridiculous as it sounds. This election term, be it in India or US people are actually fighting over political opinions. Friendships are turned sour based on whom you support. 

People locked up in their own media bubble, accusing each other of being evil, racist, deluded or even lacking basic intelligence. As my habit of skimming through both sides, I found that each side is dumbing down what other party presents to the discussion. Maybe it is the time we all just give each other a chance to have a different opinion and try to understand each other's viewpoint. Have a civil debate, if you must, or agree to disagree on the grounds that they have all the rights to have their opinions. We can't agree on all the issues and humanity as a whole will never agree on all issues monotonously. If there would be a uniform agreement that would be a very boring world!

On the note of disagreement, currently, in India, a wave of cow vigilantes are bursting in and killing people for possessing "Holy" cow. Such crimes are very much based on religious agenda of Modi's Hindu right-winged political party. The people being lynched by Hindu mob of fanatics are predominantly Muslims. It is a sad state and the government should address it. However, the government is failing to rightly address the issue. No serious efforts are taken to control and punish the criminals. It should be government's priority to protect the people.  

As an adult, I experienced the political situation of/and after Charlie Hebdo terror attack. I remember going on twitter and seeing people (Famous political figures) condemning the cartoons after the attack. Claiming what else to expect if you publish cartoon portraying Muhammad. It was a shocker to me as for the first time in my life I had seen this level of desensitization. I was politically ignorant about the Dutch cartoon aftermath, at that time. But regardless, It is questionable what inspired people to come to the opinion of equating publishing cartoons to inviting death. Ugh! Are they justifying Islamic terror with published satire? If you hold that opinion, I disagree.

In the present time, we have freedom of speech, at least some of us do. I do in my country or do I? (in the light of last year's sedation episode some legal citation needed). I can speak on a range of topics and it will be lawful as long as I am not inciting violence. However, because of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I do restrain from criticizing things that fall under certain religious texts. Especially after reading holy books I don't rate or review them on public platforms. Not because I don't have a conclusion on such books, (Believe me, I have a lot to talk about) but because I practice self-censorship. No, NOT out of respect, but ... fear for my own well-being. This fear is absolutely legitimate from what I have experienced so far in a socio-political environment. Here is a little vocab lesson I would like to include (for people to read between the lines (wink-wink)) Phobia is an irrational fear. Let us call a spade a spade.

I am a proponent of free speech, I believe everything should be up to analysis and criticisms. That shouldn't pardon the most sacred subject in this domain. I find it absolutely dishonorable when governments try to curb that freedom. I find it even more dishonest when zealots and extremists have the power to make me check my speech. I think we should be able to have the comfort of mental and legal freedom of speech. If you cannot name Voldemort, how can you expect to have the courage to fight him? Many Ideas and Ideologies are not apt for current societies and need reform. The reform can come from open dialogs...

Do you have freedom of speech in your country? Do you speak your mind on every issue? Let me know in the comment section below

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here! Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube 

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr

Goals Of Art: L'art pour L'art

Creating art is cathartic. Our daily life is filled with the beating of routine in a certain fashion. The daily schedule and keeping up with it somehow diminishes the human essence that is essential for emotional well-being. At a point, the daily life monotonous and devoid of emotion needs purging and my art is my refuge.

I have a keen curious way of reasoning that leads me to try to find out more things about the world be it Science, Art, History, Politics, etc.  In this pursuit of knowledge, I find myself in a position where I form my own opinions and I am grateful for that. I personally cannot find harmony in accepting what I am being told. I need to investigate. Taking up Ideas as heredity is not in my book. It is like being robbed of what makes us human. Namely, thinking, reasoning, creating and finding solutions to intricate problems.

I like to create art in many different forms but oil paints are one of my favorite artistic expression. I can forget the existence of the world when I am lost in my attempt to make that one stroke right. I don't give any care even if it's apocalypses outside my window. It is my personal trance. The process of painting is not only where my mind finds solace, but it also helps me learn patience. It helps me to appreciate things that we often just walk by without noticing. I pay attention to the visual inputs in daily life to try to accommodate it in my next painting. There is so much it makes me notice, but most of all it helps me to try become a better version of myself.

I paint, mostly with the backdrop of some symphony by Mozart, occasionally some podcast. As I paint I am in my own mind rummaging thought and ideas along with getting that brush stroke just right or least satisfactory. Each of my painting is a safe keeping for the thoughts that crossed my mind. It is an accumulation of emotions that I am reminded of when I look at them, almost like a secret language that only I decipher.

Art is an answer to our existential crisis. Art is an emotion but it is not just that ... Art can be a means of improvement. Art can be employed in social and political reforms, as it has been in history. Being able to attract attention gives it the power to direct attention to an issue. Isn't this what we see in protests with signs and performance arts!

It happens quite often when you look at some picture or a painting and it gives you an uncomfortable feeling. Something that makes you rummage through your soul to identify and uncover. That is the power of art. Art is not just pretty landscapes, rainbows and butterflies. It is also the difficult issues and questions that we shove under the rug to get rid of. It may or may not be the intent of artists to question the observer. Every piece of art is created with some unique circumstances and that adds to its meaning and beauty.

Throughout the human civilization, people have expressed their feelings in the various form of arts. Every culture produces artifacts. It is present in museums tourist destinations. It's what is common among all the humans irrespective of geographical locations. Moreover, one can appreciate art better if I know the underlining circumstances of it, craftsmanship required and political/social implication of it.

It is the very thing that set us apart for all the organisms on the planet. In fact, even amongst all the other homo genus (Neandertals, Denisovan, etc) artifacts were exclusive to the Homo Sapiens. Throughout history, humans have left an exclusive mark on Earth in forms of artifacts, that are impressively intricate. Art is not just the production of an object art is purging of the soul.

Art has a place in all of us. So what is your account of art?  Do you enjoy creating or appreciating art? How does Art make you feel? Let me know in the comment section.

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here!

Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube 

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr

Forgiveness

Have you ever thought about how many things that are considered righteous and pious are contradictory to the principle of evolution? We humans reached the top of all the living beings on Earth by practicing all instinctual things. But as time passed and cultures developed the very core of out flourishing became taboo. Many things that were the heart of the reward mechanism of our brains became associated with divine prohibitions. Nevertheless, it worked out and those prohibitions shaped our society as it is today, but that is the topic for another day.

Forgiving, for instance, is something we learned is nobler. If someone hurts you, be it anyway physical or emotional, the person who forgives is having an upper-hand in the conflict. Forgiveness has the capacity to assuage the mind of the hurt person. It just gives this awesome feeling of closure even in the absence of apologies. I agree with the stance that forgiving can be sometimes good deed. Moreover, It is obviously instinctual that as time passes and anger subsides and we eventually forgive the person who did us wrong.  Nevertheless, it will be quite ludicrous and childish to never -ever forgive. To err is human, to forgive is divine. Yadda yadda yadda ...

That said, I beg to bring in another point of view in the forgiving scenario.  I would say it is not always the best case to forgive. To forgive is often considered to be the most healthy alternative, but it's not! You are permitted to be bitter and you are permitted to be furious at the person who did you wrong. It is NOT healthy to suck your emotions in because it is noble to be forgiving. Placing this more popular belief on forgiveness above your own feelings of resentment is an act of self-harm. You are allowed to feel and register the betrayal for as long as you need to. Being treated badly by someone is a very fair reason to be pissed at them.

More than often we find people saying "I forgive you" to an unapologetic wrongdoer. If that satisfies them, good for them. However to practice altruism at the cost of your own mental wellbeing is not a good idea. Frankly for me even if someone apologizes I am not obliged to forgive them until I feel they are fit for my pardon.

Apologies should not be obscure. Sorry, is just another word if it doesn't manifest the understanding of hurting and makes a promise to not violate the equilibrium of trust again. It lies in the hands of the wrongdoer to demonstrate that they understand what they did was wrong. Moreover, for the wrongdoers, it's never too late to learn the golden rule "Treat others the way you would like to be treated. Act with compassion and empathy."

Be it the forgiveness for a what-so-ever reason, namely for the nobler one or over time by subsidence of anger, It should not by default mean you are to give them the same position as before. One example of such case is a cheating spouse or partner. If someone is cheated on and their partner apologizes and is forgiven ... A let bygones be bygones kind of situation almost every time leads to a series of cheatings. The thing is after every act of cheating the person's sense of guilt is subsided as they face no repercussions for their actions. Here goes the saying, once a cheater always a cheater. The responsibility of making amendments is with the guilty person and not otherwise.

If you forgive and the wrongdoer don't face any consequences of their actions how does this improves the situation? So if one find peace in forgiving one should not act in self-harm by giving the offender same privileges as before. Forgive eventually, but don't place the knife in their hands to stab you again. rather move on. I understand it can be difficult if the offender is someone you love...

With that thought, I would like to get back on evolution side of the issue. Had we forgiven the predators, back in hunters and gatherer era, you would not have been reading this post, nor I would be writing it. Homo sapiens would have been eradicated. If one is wronged, forgiveness and inviting the wrongdoer back is not noble but silly in the evolutionary sense of the way. We learned to protect ourselves from being hurt. We apply what we learn by our instincts for future dealings. If it was natural to accommodate forgiveness as it is taught to be divine, the rattling of a rattlesnake would not have been registered as a warning sign for rest of the animals.

For me personally, as a typical INFJ, my most typical reaction to betrayal and hurt is cutting them off from my life. #FriendshipOver. I don't give much thought to them after that. (but as my physics teacher would say, exceptions are always there. ) The resentment is wholly justified as taking offense in your own mistreatment is an act of self-respect. I have enough self-esteem to understand that being a part of my life is a prerogative, not a default.

Sum and Substance: No one owes a place in someone else's life. They have to earn it and work for it. If someone doesn't work for a place in your life they shouldn't have one.  If they hurt you or mistreat you it is your right to protect yourself even by the means of cutting someone out off your life completely. You are not to be told to forgive someone and feel "divine".

What is your opinion on forgiveness? Do you forgive people who hurt you or hurt someone you love with no exceptions? What popular moral codes do you find to be misaligned with your principles in life? Let me know in the comment section below

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here!Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube 

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr

Eudaimonia: The Upbeat Background Emotion

The material possessions and things that we achieve in life don’t give us the consistent feeling of happiness. The foreground happiness is fragile, as it should be. I mean, who would want to be happy all the time? I don’t! I want to feel all the possible fragments of emotions throughout the duration of my life. None of them should entirely cloud my emotional state throughout. 

Still, in the vaguest way, we all desire something in life. Something that is not quite tangible ... it is a state of mind that gives us the ultimate satisfaction of a life well-lived. The euphoria of getting a new possession dies out in a couple of days, you may think you got used to your new Car. It just doesn't make you feel the same as the moment you first bought it. Likewise. sometimes, relationships fade off to routine after a span of time especially when they are not taken care of routinely by people involved. Regardless the start of it gives us a sense of satisfaction. As if these things are some sort of instant and short -lived doses of that very desire. 

Satisfaction, perhaps, or the pursuit of happiness may be the nearest translation of the greek word Eudaimonia. It cannot be quite translated to the exact sense of the word but we get the gist of it. The state of emotion that we seek in life that makes us feel happy regardless of the instantaneous foreground emotion that we may be tackling. 

Aristotle, Greek Philosopher, Places this idea of Eudaimonia in the terms of being virtuous. I find myself in agreement with Aristotle. Doing the right thing is what makes life satisfactory. But what is the right thing? It appears to be obscure to say “Right thing”. Right thing can be presumed to be subjective. 

Aristotle said it to be the virtue of the golden mean. Pursuing the right balance between two extremes. Let’s take an example of criticism. While criticizing, one must find the balance in approach between the two extremes of sycophantically praising the given subject/object and rejecting the subject/object of criticism in a harsh way. The right balance would be between the two that will lead the criticism in a constructive direction and make room for improvement. In doing so the person who is criticizing is not only helping the person towards whom the critic is being made, but also himself. By doing the virtuous thing he/she is living a eudaimonic life. This principle can be applied in almost every aspect under the sun if we give it a thought ... love, relationships, pursue of goals, chores in everyday life. Eudaimonia is not a state that one reaches in life is the way of life that has to constantly be iterated.

I find this ancient Greek philosophy to be very much in sync with the modern psychology. Namely, Maslow's hierarchy of needs in order to attain self-actualization, but that is a topic for another day. 

What is your opinion on the goals of human life? Do you agree with Aristotle's idea of golden mean or do you have some other measures of defining virtue? Let me know in the comments section. 

Thanks for visiting my Blog; it’s always good to see you here!
Find me on the following: Social Media

• YouTube 

• Twitter

• Instagram

• Goodreads

• Tumblr