today i had a discussion with a friend of mine that started with my distaste for politics with him responding that if it weren't for US politics he wouldn't exist. "how do you mean?" says i. he went on to explain about his grandparents not meeting and so forth. now the statement rang wrong in my head and it wasn't until afterwards that i figured out why. but i went ahead and disputed his claim on principle.
me: "how can you make such a definitive statement based on an intangible unreality?"
he tells me "there's a million in one chance for all the elements to come together and form who it is i am."
"that's true, but who's to say that if things had gone differently in the past the possibility doesn't exist that while those events didn't happen others could have happened that resulted in the same outcome."
"every thing that happens effects everything else. so there is no possible way that i, who i am, could exist otherwise."
"listen, no matter how unlikely, this is something we cannot know, simply because there is no way of going into the past and changing an event to see what the other outcome could be. and while it may be a one in a million chance for you to exist, in two million possibilities there would be two. so in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, anything can happen."
he was very adamant about his statements and argued against what he thought was my side, which was; no matter how things panned out the end result would have been the same. this wasn't what i was saying. i was only stating that he couldn't make a definitive statement based upon something that is impossible to know. that he needed to be open to the possibilty that he could be incorrect.
i mentioned this whole thing to someone else afterwards and they reacted the same way again. this is something that seems very clear to me, but perhaps i'm wrong.
the second person i talked to is a religious person. and being such has an understanding and ability to have faith, without positive proof or justification. i on the other hand was never raised with any sort of religion and have also lost my faith in everything else. i live in an empty faith vacuum. no longer do i have faith in humanity, nor in the strength of concepts such as love or honor or even honesty. i would like to have faith, but i don't. the idea of karma is a beautiful one and it would ease my existence tremendously if it exists but i don't believe. so i tend to look at things with a linear logic fashion, ie. it is impossible to 'know' something based on something you cannot know.
does this makes sense to anyone? please?
btw, the problem i had with his original statement was that while US politics may have played a part in making who he is, there are (by his own reasoning) a million other things that also went into his making. so it is a half truth. if i say 'people are gay' that is a half truth. some are surely, but the implication i have given is that all people are gay. so his saying that implied that it was the sole element responsible in his being, but while it may have had a part in it, there are many other things as well. and so it doesn't affect in any way my statement that politics are bollocks.
me: "how can you make such a definitive statement based on an intangible unreality?"
he tells me "there's a million in one chance for all the elements to come together and form who it is i am."
"that's true, but who's to say that if things had gone differently in the past the possibility doesn't exist that while those events didn't happen others could have happened that resulted in the same outcome."
"every thing that happens effects everything else. so there is no possible way that i, who i am, could exist otherwise."
"listen, no matter how unlikely, this is something we cannot know, simply because there is no way of going into the past and changing an event to see what the other outcome could be. and while it may be a one in a million chance for you to exist, in two million possibilities there would be two. so in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, anything can happen."
he was very adamant about his statements and argued against what he thought was my side, which was; no matter how things panned out the end result would have been the same. this wasn't what i was saying. i was only stating that he couldn't make a definitive statement based upon something that is impossible to know. that he needed to be open to the possibilty that he could be incorrect.
i mentioned this whole thing to someone else afterwards and they reacted the same way again. this is something that seems very clear to me, but perhaps i'm wrong.
the second person i talked to is a religious person. and being such has an understanding and ability to have faith, without positive proof or justification. i on the other hand was never raised with any sort of religion and have also lost my faith in everything else. i live in an empty faith vacuum. no longer do i have faith in humanity, nor in the strength of concepts such as love or honor or even honesty. i would like to have faith, but i don't. the idea of karma is a beautiful one and it would ease my existence tremendously if it exists but i don't believe. so i tend to look at things with a linear logic fashion, ie. it is impossible to 'know' something based on something you cannot know.
does this makes sense to anyone? please?
btw, the problem i had with his original statement was that while US politics may have played a part in making who he is, there are (by his own reasoning) a million other things that also went into his making. so it is a half truth. if i say 'people are gay' that is a half truth. some are surely, but the implication i have given is that all people are gay. so his saying that implied that it was the sole element responsible in his being, but while it may have had a part in it, there are many other things as well. and so it doesn't affect in any way my statement that politics are bollocks.
Comments