[ A sleeper ... lightweight on the surface ... look deeper ]
Language is a funny thing. It admits for all sorts of sins. At the same time, it offers lush alternatives when making and rationalizing important decisions. Naturally, we like to hedge our bets, walk a fine line.
We always cover our asses.
At the same time . . .
Can you be just a little married?
Can you be just a little pregnant?
Can you be just a little upside-down?
Can you be just a little vaporized?
Can you be just a little raped?
Can you be just a little castrated?
Can you be just a little dead?
Can you be just a little extinct?
Can black be just a little black? If so, what's the rest? Still black but not black?
Can white be just a little white? Is the part that's just a little white still white?
Can a 'yes' be both 'yes' but just a little 'no'?
Can a 'no' be both 'no' but just a little 'yes'?
Despite the headache you might now be experiencing, often there's more at stake. Every game is a thing but not everything is a game.
In these instances we need to be a little more precise . . .
Is war inevitable?
Is war good or bad?
Does might make right?
Are all humans created equal?
Is good health a basic human right?
Are food and water basic human rights?
Does a woman have the same rights as a man?
Can an individual be owned by another individual?
Do property rights take precedence over human rights?
Can any man claim life or death authority over another man?
Does the law of a higher power take precedence over human law?
When a person surrenders autonomy to the state, can he take it back?
Is freedom a natural and absolute fact or an artificial and relative artifact?
Are citizens answerable to governments or governments answerable to citizens?
How about this? . . .
Can humankind survive if there's a limited nuclear war?
Assuming we're in favor of the survival of the human species . . .
How much nuclear war is just the right amount?
Humans are very smart creatures. We know this from hearing ourselves say it all the time.
Now to figure out how much nuclear war the "good guys" should inflict on the "bad guys", factoring in the carnage that will inevitably be experienced by a number of people who don't precisely fit in either the 'good guy' camp or the 'bad guy' camp -- these indeterminate types are sometimes called 'collateral damage' or more descriptively 'innocent victims' -- using cost/benefit analysis and predictive models, we can fairly accurately determine exactly what level of nuclear war, rationally looking at the big picture, is most efficacious and laudable.
You know . . . strike the right balance.
Fine tune it. Don't go overboard.
Just a little . . . nuclear war.
Is my sarcasm showing?
It's easy to scoff at my asking questions like these, then commending them as some sort of pseudo-philosophical exploration. You might judge this as a thinly-disguised exercise in self-promotion, an attempt to portray myself as some deep thinker. You might feel my frustration and empathize with my isolation and relative impotence, yet still dismiss all of this as the nonsensical ruminations of a confused and deluded quasi-intellectual -- a Jean Paul Sartre wannabe.
You might have decided that this whole business of blogging is an unflattering display of infantile neediness; that indeed the urgent, aching lust for attention, which has lingered on from early childhood, being nettlesome and obnoxious even back then, but now ill-advised at best and loathsome at worst -- I'm not sure I can put up much of a defense against any of these insinuations -- is either pathetic or pathological, perhaps both, in spite of being the defining feature in our selfie-driven, "it's all about me" contemporary times.
Or more innocently . . .
You may think that I have way too much time on my hands.
Frankly, I think time is running out.
Granted, some of the above are mental exercises.
But others are arguably very important questions.
Am I so off-base?
We need answers!
Do you have time?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License