We all suffer, only some of us suffer for a purpose and others suffer for lack or denial of one. In life, we should always seek to find the pain that is most pleasing to us. We can never fully escape pain, but there is pain we can endure and pain we cannot. This thought has been brewing in me for the past few weeks and I can’t find any foothold at which to counter it or object to it. Perhaps this is just a personal truth in my life, but I am trying much harder now to allow myself the pleasure of suffering.
What is the point to life? Such a broad question no doubt warrants a yawn from many. However, it is a question we all ask ourselves time and time again. Perhaps it changes constantly. Perhaps it’s never fully realized. Perhaps it cannot ever be fully realized. However, this is getting too broad. To think, we have to weed out wonderfully interesting prospects. Otherwise, what do we accomplish besides yearning for acknowledgment of those concepts we only faintly grasp. We can’t start at the beginning either, however. To give up all the knowledge we’ve accumulated in a lifetime is dooming ourselves to genericism and disinterest. No, we have to start exactly where we do start when our minds let us know that things are coming online. Where is this in the overall balance between nothing and everything? Whose to say. Very paradoxical that one can ramble on and on about coherent thinking when ones’ own thoughts are so dissonant.
These days many of us have a great tool available to us that many before did not: the Internet. It is useful for many things but one thing that I have slowly begun to realize about growing up with the internet is that it really is a great record keeping device. Recently I stumbled upon a forum I used to post on, and luckily for me, it was still online. I decided to read a few things that I had posted back then and it was interesting to see how my perspective on things such as technology and other topics had changed (quite drastically) since then. Even looking back on the earlier posts on this blog I see many subtle changes in my psyche and in my world image. Many of us have left great traces on the history of the internet that we could go back and look and see some of the ways we thought, etc, but now that Twitter and Facebook and many other social networking sites are growing larger and more commonplace, even our small day-to-day activities and thoughts may be preserved for our future selves to read and reflect on.
Here is my philosophical rant of the day! Take note that this argument was based on a small window of thought, and that their are most likely (and almost certainly) many holes to my logic. However, I wanted to leave it as open as I can to provoke a good argument! Here we go:
In life, inductive reasoning is only useful until proven false, making inductive reasoning always just a “good guess” except in the case of predicting what the afterlife will be. You cannot use deductive logic to achieve a pure answer as to what will happen when you die, from a self perspective, because you will be dead, and therefore not be able to apply any of your deductions to your life anymore, or for that matter possibly apply any knowledge anymore. Therefore, in life, you can only use induction to formulate what the afterlife might be.
Consider this idea: You cannot alter the past; you can only alter the present. The fact that we accept that time moves forward warrants us to do things in our present, because we know they will affect our future. When we are born, we do not understand this, and we are living purely in the moment, with no thoughts of the future (At least for the first few moments.) However, as we age, we inductively come to the conclusion that time will continue to move forward, and our death is imminent, yet, it is a fact based on induction. As our minds order and generalize experiences, time moves faster, and we are able to concern ourselves with the future more, and we still rely on the fact that time will always move forward.
By accepting in your mind that time will always move forward, you are using a very inductive path of reasoning to get to that conclusion. In all actuality, time could restart at a certain point, run in reverse, or just be playing back certain portions at random intervals for all we truly know. Therefore, if we look at the afterlife in the sense of “will I ever experience anything ever again after death?” telling those people, no you will not, would be through an inductive reasoning path as well. Science cannot prove that the afterlife doesn’t exist because even the laws of science were formulated at one point through induction, as at one point, we had no means to deduce any reasoning, and had to formulate them on our own. Therefore, couldn’t we say that induction is the only means of logic, because to use true deduction we would have to assume we know more than we don’t, which is constantly proven false.