Your gateway to endless inspiration
I have come to a conclusion, after mulling it over for a while, that happiness has been been cast off and melancholy embraced perhaps not because of the evil and dark being more beckoning, nor is it because of the naivety associated with joy, though perhaps this might be one, for effervescence is so often confused with gladness that it is no surprise that it is seen to be foolish, but because it has become now that stillness and silence are symbolic of melancholy, while happiness is characterised by permanent high-spirits. Contemplation and reflection are few things that bring inner tranquility, for many it is the source of peace. Thus for some any absence of continuous childlike behaviour becomes sadness and for the others any presence of natural laughter and to not always be lost in a maze of cluttered thoughts becomes immaturity. I’m somehow both of these people.
An interesting thing that I’ve often had conflicting opinions on is the conflict between ‘knowledge needs to be applicable in real life for it to have any value’ and the opposite, ‘knowledge has an inherent value which is acquired through its possession’. I’ve always felt both were unjustifiable premises. Note the word used there - value. What does the word mean? Does it even mean anything? It is a term that fundamentally relies upon the importance the reader or writer places on varying subjects. Is it wise to try and reach an universal conclusion on this? Reason would say not, yet it is the philosopher’s aim to resolve the differences. How is one supposed to accept his thesis for or against one of these? Will not the degree of stress he places on places on matters such as utility and realism influence his reasoning and conjecture? And would it not be assuming a priori that the purpose crucial to him is one vital to a significant sect of the populace? What does an inference need to possess for it to be denounced as truth? Is a thing true in the same practice if it only applies to a specific few? What indeed is true? What is truth? Is it something that lies beyond the material? Perhaps as Nietzsche says, there is no thing that deserves the mantle of ‘truth’. We live briefly, with the knowledge that life is an arbitrary happening and distract ourselves from nihilistic dejection with the illusory hope of happiness and attempt to elevate our lives through awareness of the anthropological nature of things such as good and evil. What after all is there to live for? Does one really need a ‘why’ in order to find the ‘how’?