A criticism of my early views that laws are a common compromise of people who can take responsibility for their acts: To explain this better, I’ll explain my early views on morality and human freedom. I believed that they don’t co-exist. A moral judgement is a judgement of an act. An act done by a human in any emotional state is done with a rush to do it. Is it justified then? No! Does it need to be judged? Of course! But why? Why do actions of other people bother us? Why should we even live together?

Humans are condemned to be free. There is no way out. Is there a common essence for all of us? No. Is there a common purpose? No. Can we have objective morals? No. But we have understood that we can survive if we lived in groups. And it worked. Thus, we built civilizations, kingdoms, states and now nations. Now, do we need objective rules that repress us?

We need to understand that there is no supernatural judgement waiting to judge our actions. If we have to survive better, living in groups is the better way. And for that, we do need rules that don’t destroy society. We need society alive and functioning. So regardless of our opinion towards it, there is a forced common goal for all of us. That is to maintain harmony to live together intending no harm. Thus, we need objective rules that will however cause repression, but it should be a common compromise. “Humans are condemned to live together”

These rules should be applied in the best interest of maintaining harmony. Anarchy is amazing? Of course, it is. Imagine being able to live your own life independently, governing yourselves. But humans are beasts in nature; like any other animal. We have tried to refuse our true nature for a long time now. We have to accept that we all are predators, hunters, killers and thieves. Given certain pressure, everyone can break the threshold and can commit any treacherous act just to survive. It is there in all of us. That is our true nature, the true essence — we are animals.

Rather than judging our true nature to be filthy from the fixed-moral perspective, we should accept it. We should embrace the fact that we are all by birth predators and contribute to the common goal of harmony voluntarily. If it’s a rule book of God that condemns us to act accordingly to the rules, it causes repression. If it’s a spiritual guide, it causes repression too. You are suppressing your true nature rather than embracing it.

End of the day, rules, morals and laws only exist to maintain harmony. Why don’t we all contribute to it voluntarily? Rather than being suppressed by an unknown or a third-party-source (government), we can do it on our own. And the only third-party judge, the law should indeed exist, even though it suppresses our true nature, it is the necessary suppression we need to balance the harmony.

It won’t work if we ask people to create morals themselves. We can not blame the irresponsible for not taking the responsibility of creating their values. Again, it is natural. We are the beasts that we need to tame. And the taming; not because of a holy purpose. Or a moral judgement of a good/bad. But just what needs for society to exist. There is no objective good/bad, but just accepted/not accepted. Killing is not bad, it is just not acceptable. It is still natural for humans to kill, but we don’t need it now if we want to exist together.

I had this view that people who took responsibility to create their own values to not harm the other have compromised to create laws to control the irresponsible. I saw it in two perspectives. One being an unselfish contribution to the society. That is, that the law exists because the irresponsible cannot create their own values. The other being, a selfish act to preserve oneself. That is, that the responsible understand that we need harmony and thus to protect themselves from the irresponsible they have created these rules.

On further introspection, that might sound true, but such is not the case. There exists some common and objectively accepted thing in all of us. That is the idea of living together. This idea is the agent that causes morals, laws and values. People who don’t have these ideas of harmony are called ‘anti-social’ or sociopaths. According to what is not-accepted (bad) by all of us (those who wish harmony), a sociopath is bad (not-accepted), because a sociopath destroys the fundamentals of living together.

What is objectively bad is that which does not value or disregards the balance of the society. What is objectively good is that which does add to or does not break the fundamentals of society, at least. Thus, even though objectivity is a human construct, that is much needed. And as ironic as it may sound, it takes a person who is individual and independent to form a better society — so independent that one’s growth does not even depend on the decline of other people.

In the imaginary race with time, I barely think about what is happening to me. If I stress I even don’t know what I’m feeling. But there some sort of disturbance or sadness that is always pumping from the bottom of my heart.

I work at a graveyard shift for a private company. My job is to take client tickets and resolve them. There will be calls of clients as well, I need to greet them with a smile and assist them accordingly. Yeah, it sucks to the bottom, but what sucks more is the way I get treated.

The clients don’t have respect for us as humans what so ever. We get to hear all kinds of cusses. I got to know them in different languages too. It is like I got used to them, I don’t like it, but that is what it is.

If the work is like this, one would expect the management would be supportive. That ship sank to the bottom way back and its the worst. The stuff they do to keep us “Productive” is bizarre.

They do a video call in the middle of the shift just to check if we are smiling while talking to clients. They are planning to plant mirrors so that we can set our looks and smile while talking.

I don’t know how to express this. They are trying to cut our genuine emotions and programming us to smile. They are trying to make us into robots from top to bottom. It feels very difficult even to breathe and survive.

It feels like a bottomless pit and I keep on falling. Personal life is no paradise either. It feels like “so-called” family members treat me like some random object that we ignore. No one asks If I smiled or had a good day or anything.

But if I talk about passion or something, they pile on me and bring me down to the ground. I also want to talk to my mother in a normal way. I also want to share information with my father like a normal child. But they seem like far fetched dreams.

Few of my friends stopped talking to me because of my bottom states. I get emotional when a huge pile of problems fall on me. Let’s face it, no one likes a whiny person right? I’m shocked and privileged I still have few people and friends that listen to me.

My phone goes empty all day. I sit alone in my room working or doing something. Some of my friends used to call me regularly the day would be way better. Now no one talks and suddenly I need to take these calls and it feels all fuzzy and weird. It’s fine everyone has their own lives and priorities.

Every time I hear that ring on the call, my heart skips a bit. Some unknown fear and pain run to the bottom of my spine and in my heart. what cusses would I need to hear today? Who will yell at me? How much I’m I going to feel sad today?

I get panicked and get very scared. It feels like someone is groping me and I sit there and allow it to happen. It hurts a lot inside and I don’t know how to express it. I’m lost for words and in a lot of pain that I cannot handle.

Why I’m I saying all this? So-called people and society say we need to work hard and we will be good. If people call this good, then I never want to be good in life. This sucks to the core, it is a huge pile of shit, where I survive daily on my tears.

You kill all of our curiosity we have as a child and try to rub your hypothetical success goals on us. Why should someone do a job and laugh and be fake and do a naked dance in this bottomless hole?Why cannot a person be the way he wants to live?

If we question all this we are being rude and don’t know anything in life. If doing what we love is rude and smiling is ignorance about life, then fine I’m happy to be ignorantly rude. But we can’t right, all kinds of crap come up if we open and talk.

The bottom line is I prefer if I don’t exist. I’m running an imaginary race that I never signed up for. I don’t know for how long but the longer I keep running to the bottom I keep sinking.

Note: This is from our beloved friends John’s diary.

Argument isn’t such a bad word. There is a negative term ‘bad argument’ which has now somehow become synonymous for very ‘argument’ itself. But such is not the case in reality. There indeed is a ‘good argument’. In fact, it is the arguments that have advanced humans philosophically and scientifically!

For many years, people have claimed ‘arguments’ as the source where all the knowledge had begun. But later, we understood that there wouldn’t have an argument if we never thought, so it must be thinking where the source of all knowledge is. But the later existentialism pushes existence prior to anything. It is only logical to credit existence as the source. 

But initially, arguments were thought to be the source, and such is the value of an argument. And it is not necessarily a bad one. It is through arguments that you would know new things. But there is a form- a structure to it. You can not argue blandly with random utterances. So, what is this form? How to argue in the right way?

Arguments and its components

The sentences you use in arguments, are not mere sentences but propositions. And these propositions consist of terms and not mere words! It might appear to be philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but it isn’t. Arguments are where linguistics, philosophy and mathematics begin their hopeless romance. To begin with, let’s hop on and dive into defining these weird words or should I say, terms?

Terms and Proposition

What is a word? A group of letters that define something is a word. A ‘bottle’ is a word. A ‘word’ is a word! In day-to-day life, we use the words, ‘word’ and ‘term’ interchangeably, but it is a logical blunder to do so. Terms are specific and refer to something particular unlike words which just define and express but not refer! Terms have precise meaning and you know what it refers to just by listening to it or reading it. All the terms are words, but all the words are not terms. 

Terms can have multiple words in them. “The legendary filmmaker of 2001: Space Odyssey”, this sentence has many words in them. But the entire sentence is a single term, as it is referring towards a single person. In that way, we can differentiate words and terms. The group of words form sentences. Now what do the group of terms form? A proposition! And not many, but two terms in specific form a proposition.

Propositions are to sentences like terms are to words. Sentences are groups of words that form a meaning altogether. While propositions are sentences that are specific and assert some value! Propositions are not random but have an opinion to them. “Mr.Nobody is a masterpiece”, this sentence is a proposition as it asserts an opinion towards some subject. And those two, subject and the opinion are two terms that exist in a proposition. A subject term is ‘about what the proposition is’ and a predicate term (opinion) is ‘what is the matter told about the subject’. Together a subject term and a predicate term form a proposition.

In the above example “Mr.Nobody is a masterpiece”, the subject term here is ‘Mr.Nobody’ and the predicate term is ‘masterpiece’.

The argument!

Now as we are forming a pattern here, you must be guessing how terms and propositions are linked to an argument? And a bunch of propositions form an argument! But again, there is a form to do it in the logical way. An argument consists of two sets of propositions. The first set is (are) called Premise(s) and the other as Conclusion. The premise is the logical support (data) you give to make your conclusion stand. They are baseless without each other.

You can not have an argument without both premises and conclusion. You can have many premises but there is only one conclusion. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the conclusion, a valid argument is something that follows this form. The conclusion can be false, but if it is in the form, it is indeed a valid argument.

Example:

Premise 1: All X are Z

Premise 2: All Z are Y

Conclusion: All X are Y

Here, in premise 1, X is the subject and Z is the predicate term. 

In premise 2, Z is the subject and Y is the predicate term.

This is how you argue in a logical way, by giving out premises, making a conclusion out of it! Or you draw a conclusion and form enough premises to support your conclusion. Without this form, your argument is a bad argument and it leads nowhere. To argue, is to be logical! To be logical, be formal. Let’s get back into finding out the validity of arguments and truth and falsity of propositions next week!

Skip to toolbar