So, how do I put this? I want to write but hesitate to write quite often. It's not because I have no passion for writing. I only have doubts about my own skills. It's a typical growing process, so I'll pay no more heed to it and just move along with my mediocre skills. Today's topic is literally 'nothing'.
In the heat of my past posts, I'm still not concerned about the coherency of any of them and don't care either. Last year I wrote a ridiculous post on my sentiments of 'romantic' love and, I still abide by those sentiments- as I always have- and always will. I still don't find it to be a coherent solution to our primordial needs. Elimination of emotions and intimacy are an obligation to evolve further (Ignore the last sentence please; I know humans will legitimately commit suicide if they were refrained of that 'need' of theirs).
Leaving personal contemplations of my world aside, let's get to the top of this stigma. I haven't discovered anything, nor am I willing to discover anything - as it all happens by probabilistic chance.
Leaving personal contemplations of my world aside, let's get to the top of this stigma. I haven't discovered anything, nor am I willing to discover anything - as it all happens by probabilistic chance.
Why am I hesitating to write a proper post so often ?
Mostly because the ideas that come into my mind aren't often synthesized enough to be simulated into 200 paragraphs or less. It's really complex to write about a topic that's so profound and intriguing and, that's because of the amount of information that the topic itself yields. Yes, I could somehow push in a few paragraphs by using second hand or expert sources that argue in favour or against the topic, but that too would conclude an unsatisfiable verdict to the predicament of the topic.
Based on that rationale of mine, it has become quite tough on me really sit down and be solipsistic about whatever interest I have in mind. I just shouldn't 'have' or 'want' to assess or evaluate a certain idea or axiom without knowing of the clear paths or divergences that may be in the possession of its most favourable leaders. Even with that on board, the issue that comes next are the relevance and desirability of the ideas themselves. Is it significant for me to actually spend or invest my time playing around this idea? Is it productive enough for me to preach this idea to the very people- whose existence I deem as meaningless as mine ?
Yes/No ! It's both yes and no for both of those questions. It's supposed be seem absurd but coherently that's how it plays out. Rather than pondering around on the efficacious range of those ideas, it's only significant to wonder about their profundity - as that's what humans will really care about naturally rather than collective distribution of usefulness. If it drives enough principles to drown in its own medicine, then it's way more worth than the mumbo jumbo one spits in the heat of a drunk debate infamously carried out by 'illiterate' politicians and public speaker ( Even though a lot of politicians and public speakers tend to go to prestigious schools or universities, their capability to analytically understand or assess issues are far worse than the attention span of a 2 years old babe).
To sum it up, it's hard to rationalize on any topic, considering that the lack of a holistic process gives rise to superstitious beliefs among the crowd. In order to assure the continuous approach towards such topics, it's within the best of humanity's procession to apply a great level of uncertainty - as it seems that we've been evolving in our epistemology to regard that as our fine saviour: the saviour that aids us in putting an 'inconsistency' within our 'consistent' axiom.
