why reject unnatural. because we are in an age where that is the only option left. science proves nothing. it simply says, this works so and so because that works so and so. similarly maths prove nothing. magic never did. logic never can.
so in this wilderness, when we are in lookout for some kind of support, where everything - our logic system, our consciousness is a suspect ( whose existence and reality can be questioned), isnt it natural to reject everything unnatural.
by unnatural, i dont mean man-made. if an ant makes an ant hill, we call it natural, so if a man makes a house, why shouldnt we call it natural too. isnt man part of nature?
when i say, unnatural, i talk about things that are against are nature. let me explain. if we see somebody dying on the road, our first instinct is to help. but, gradually, we have seen so many cases of police interference, and nuissance arising of this, that we seldom step out ot help them as time passes by it becomes natural for us to not help them, and simply to walk away. but this is what i call as unnatural. to act against our instincts, to be conditioned. because the natural reaction comes, when we find our own relatives on the road dying....we tend to help them.
in rejecting unnatural, we also claim all are equal as all our natural. to differentiate between natural and unnatural behaviour, ask urself, if u would act the same way in other circumstances. if in all circumstances, the answer is yes, then yes the act is natural. or else it is unnatural.
ofcourse, like all philosphers, i reiterate, it wil be difficult to follow. to tiring to ask again and again, what is natural and what is unnatural and act upon them. but as time passes by, u will become accustomed to selecting natural things, that this will come out naturally
15 comments:
So by Unnatural you mean counter-intuitive !!
no.....unnatural and intuition are not related, if u look deep. thats why i gave the example of saving a person on the road. if u have been subjected to social pressure and feeded on nonchalance attitute, intutively u would run away. blood spurting from a wound, can be ghastly to look at, and we turn away our face, intuitively, and probably try to flee. in both the cases the acts are unnatural. because, our intuitions are byproduct of the society we live in. it is moulded by our brought ups. ( very difficult to belive, because intuition looks natural) what i say is, only actions that can be ( notice can be) universal are natural!!!
i must say that u have pretty unusual philosophies. Quite true but.
So do u think that thinking twice is unnatural? I think its natural for us to think properly and then act, considering all pros and cons of that act.. isnt it??
pranay,
i am not saying, that thinking twice is unnatural. but i am asking u to think twice, when u r not sure, or uncomfortable. and when u do think twice, go to varied situations, be true to urself. see if there is any conflicts in ur thinking in thses varied situations. if yes, then only one action of the two confliction thoughts is unnatural. identify it and reject it. this being a blog, i am condensing my thoughts to sustain readers interest. any longer, my readers will run away. ofcourse all questions and clarifications are welcome
Interesting topic to blog on...Ill reserve my comments till i see u actually following on these two posts for a longer period....Also lets see you answer some really grey areas of questions about the unnatural as you might describe it...You have taken up in my case easy options to say natural or unnatural..But what if a Woman/Man became a parent and found it against their internal instincts to take care of their baby...Would you ask them to reject that unnaural instinct???
U r rite dude.
Thinking is the only reason which makes us different than other animals.
But, Today humans have become very selfish, compared to what there were some years back. And the situation keeps gets worse. If another East India Company was to come to rule our country, I doubt if many Indians will stand against it.
Very nice post man. I agree wid u.
@vivek - i wish i were writing a book rather than a blog. because in a blog there is a constrain of readership. ofcourse i am writing a book, which will explain things very clearly. however, coming to ur question - what if parents dont want to take care of their children, and this is natural to them.
sadly, i have to agree, my blog is not well written, or else the meaning should have been self evident. natural and unnatural things are universal. what is natural for one person is always natural for other ( ofcourse i have opened the pandora's box....but just curious, wasnt it eveident when i wrote, u look at all circumstances, before deciding what is natural and unnatural, and in all circumstances, wouldnt such conflicting views arise). ( all i am asking people to do is realise this natural act, which is already presnt in everybody, and people dont want to realise) so when the parents think that taking for their children is not important, or instinctively feel, they dont have to take of their children, then it is unnatural when the child is less than five year or so old. and hence, they have to give up on their thoughts. however, if the child is big enough, say five or more, then it is natural for them to feel that they dont have to take care. and i would ask them to pursue their natural behaviour. why five year? why society? are part of another post. ofcourse i am not saying this will call for universal truth, because that five year i mentioned above is subject to frame of reference......whew!!!
thanks yaar for thoughtful comment
@warsnake
though i think u didnt understand me, thank u all the same, for taking pain to go through my mail
doesn't make a lot of sense to me..
may be our point of views are different!!
i dont agree with u ven u say science, maths,logic and reason cant prove nething.
n whre in d world did u get d idea of this kinda template dude? quite odd it is!
@aravindh - probably u can wait for the next post and see if i can convince u
@viraj - think of one single that science logic or maths has proved. nothing. all they prove is - till now things exists as we claim.
abt the template. well that goes with the theme of my blog. u would be wondering how to react to it. its not vulgar. but its not decent either. its something, that will make u look inside urself, and ask, am i looking ( at the world) properly...
dunno as to wat do u wanna suggest...if science, maths n logic dint prove nething thn wat did?
nothing did [:)] there is no way to prove anything....thats the saddest part of human existence...[:)]
wat rubbish? if tht s d end of ur arguments, i m sorry to say tht ur theory failed to ceate any impact on my mind.
going by ur theory, u shud nt give ne arguments in this regard coz ultimately u wont b able to prove nething n util unless u prove it, people r nt going to accept it n ur whole claim :"I give unto u the philosophy that would alleviate u from all suffering" would be null n void.
dear viraj, i had seen this comment long ago in my mail, but couldnt locate it in the blog. but so to say, ur arguemnt doesnot hold good. simply because, there is no need to prove anything. it is only science,logic, blah blah that requires things to be proven to be beilieved.
no i reiterate nothing can be proved, and in that lies the beauty fo the arguements. it does not mean, anybody can say anything, and can or should be accepted. probably, as an example, u can go through leap of faith promulagated by kerikegard. this is just an example. there are many ways, things to be defined, without the need to be proven.
Well I agree but I contemplate the collection should acquire more info then it has.
Post a Comment