A question of loneliness

So, here's a story about a guy who decides to kill a bunch of women in a health club because he couldn't understand why women didn't like him. He hadn't slept with a woman for 19 years, and as he watched young couples in their 20s together every day, he felt desolation at the thought of living his life alone for the rest of his life. At the end of this desolation, he decided to kill himself, taking several others along with him. This is an extreme example of what a person might do once his loneliness consumes him, but for most people, loneliness occurs without them realizing it.

Loneliness happens when there's a lack of purpose in one's life, and as this void seeps into one's consciousness, it manifests itself into different symptoms-- for example, a deep feeling of boredom, an unexplainable desire for excitement, or something to do with friends (clubbing, dining, rafting, skydiving, or what have you). This social interaction masks and compensates for this void. That isn't to say that people who have friends are lonely, but rather, lonely people need friends because this social circle creates a sense of purpose and meaning in life. Afterall, what does the phrase, "have a life" mean? It is, in fact, referring to social life and the activities within. Friends, husbands, wives, dogs, cats, they're all included.

This sense of meaning goes deeper than one's driven purpose in life (i.e. why am I here?) as it fulfills its fundamental essence. In some of my evolutionary arguments, I often ask, "why do we have a face?" Did we "evolve" to have a face just because its convenient for our eyes to be right on top of our noses? No. This is why I'm a creationist, not an evolutionist. We have a face so it can be seen by others-- this is the purpose of one's face... i.e. a man exist not for himself, but so that others can see him.

Is it any surprise, then, that social networking like facebook, friendster, etc, on the internet have grown to the size that it has? These sites exist because people need them. They need them so they can tell their friends what they're doing, what they're feeling, what they're eating, what they're living. But why? Why do people need to broadcast to their friends what they're doing or whether they feel happy or sad? The answer is that they need to do this in order to validate their lives. For example, there is no point in winning the lottery if you're the only person that exists in this world.. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, then the tree might as well have never existed.

Understanding this is the beginning to the wisdom of faith. A person in whom God lives, is never lonely, because he is never without purpose.

"If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you." - John 15:19

What is Truth?

Discussions related to philosophy and/or religion always interests me, partially because I have an opinion on just about anything and everything. So, this blog post is particularly interesting as it asks the question, "what is truth?" It's not referring to secular truth, or reality as in the words of agent Mulder, "The Truth is Out There," but rather, a truth of consciousness or life.

Truth is fundamental, as realizing the truth leads to a greater understanding of everything in life, such as vanity, pride, faith, honor. When someone asks, "what is love?" the typical response is usually, "love is that 'special' feeling that you have for someone'... but I reply with, "love is faith and honor." This answer is murky because while you have a pretty common understanding of "faith" through a worldly view of religion, what exactly is the meaning of "honor" ? By knowing and understanding the truth, the meaning of "honor" becomes self-evident, and a whole new world suddenly opens before you which reveals the Christian saying, "God is love." At face value, this is nothing but a fortune-cookie statement that most Christian dogmatist say (just as they would say, "Jesus loves you"-- but I reply, "except for those people who goes to hell"), but by understanding the truth, you can see this statement with a new, unfathomable depth, and then you'll realize just how deep the "rabbit hole" really goes.

The realization of truth is characterized by a freedom from inner hypocrisy-- by this I don't just mean the type of superficial hypocrisy where you say one thing but do something opposite (this just makes you a slumdog liar), but a hypocrisy of character where your actions defy or contradict your inner beliefs. For example, have you seen a vegetarian who vehemently refuse to consume any sort of meat for reasons of animal cruelty and driven by a self-righteous motto of "we're evolved human beings, there's no reason to be such a brute", but has no problems wearing leather shoes, eating an egg, or buying a car with leather interior? You kind of get the picture. As another example, I've conversed with Jews who believe in polygamy simply because it exists in the Bible, and therefore his conclusion was that God permits it. I said,"you can't have more than one wife, because when you lust for one, you will commit adultery to the other."-- this contradiction was largely ignored, and he continued to believe in a dogmatic way.

So what is Truth exactly? If you go to other websites, you will get nothing but synonyms (sincerity, enlightenment, blah), or different theories from people who tried to figure it out but never really connected all the dots. I'll tell you exactly what it is: Truth is an inner consciousness. This kind of spark in consciousness is the type that allows one to wake up one day and suddenly ask, "who exactly am I?" or "why am I here?" --- by this I don't mean the type of philosophical inquiries that sometimes pop into your mind when you're bored to tears (what is my soul partner doing right now? gee), but the type of inquiries that will keep you up at night and sweating in a panic. Some people are incapable and will never have this truth, and they will live all their lives in an utterly banal, superficial existence--- like the Stacie Orrico song goes, "is there more to life than just another temporary high?" For these people, the answer is a resounding NO.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

In the book, "The pig that wants to be eaten," the Euthyphro dilemma is posed this way:

And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I am the Lord thy God and I am the source of all that is good. Why does thy secular moral philosophy ignore me?"
And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, 'To answer I must first ask you some questions. You command us to do what is good. But is it good because you command it, or do you command it because it is good?"
"Ur", said the Lord, "It's good because I command it?"
"The wrong answer, surely, your mightiness! If the good is only good because you say it is so, then you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?"
"Of course!" replieth the Lord. "I tested thee and thou hast made me pleased. What was the other choice again?"
"You choose what is good because it is good. BUt that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So we don't need to study God to study the good."
"Even so," spake the Lord, "you've got to admit I've written some pretty good textbooks on the subject..."

Source: Euthyphro by Plato (380 bce)

The author here is trying to make a point that "good" and "God" are not synonymous, and that "secular morality" exists-- i.e. there exists a universal definition of "good" and "evil" in which God is not involved. However, the argument presented is flawed and a contradiction by nature ... it's analogous to questions like, "Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" or "If God is good, then how come there are hungry children who are dying every day?"

The argument is started with the assumption that torturing infants is not good. This is a clever mechanism of identifying with the reader's most fundamental instinct-- i.e. infants are innocent--- and turning this assumption into an axiom. But the problem with the argument is that it has no foundations to stand on. If the argument supposes that God is "good," and that torturing infants is "evil," then the question of God turning the definition of "evil" into "good" is a contradiction... in other words, the philosopher is theorizing the possibility that God would turn into an evil person, which is a contradiction of the initial assumption that God is "good."

On the other hand, if the argument supposes that secular morality exists, and that there is a universal definition of "good" and "evil", where did this definition come from? Did it come from God? Or was this definition somehow dropped into the primordial goo millions of years ago that eventually evolved into our DNA? If you're an atheist, probably the latter. My point is that the initial argument neither proves the existence of secular morality nor clarify its definition.

Lets take the supposition that torturing infants is "evil"... but what if that infant is Adolf Hitler? Would killing Adolf Hitler the infant be an "evil" act? or a "good" act? Of course, philosophers don't have the power of prophecy, so it's easy for them to say torturing infants are evil. God does have the power of prophecy.

In fact, the definition of "good" has already been shown in the Bible when God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac. It is good because God commanded it. What Abraham thinks of "good" and "evil" is irrelevant.