Never accept the premise.

Never accept the premise.

Take these words and inspect them.

 “One who cannot love himself cannot love others”

This quote is half- a truth, and half-truths are worse than the lies.

First of all, whoever said that one who cannot love others if one doesn’t love himself, might be right if we fail to examine the true definition of love. Love, as I understand it, should not fall under the premise that it should be conditional. It is an oxymoron even saying “conditional love” because true love is unconditional, and is limitless. If we say that we can love X only if we love Y destroys the concept of love itself because it sets a limit on it, as well as destroys its independence/freedom. It enslaves the “self” with “others” when one’s own self is independent from the crowd’s. We live in a heterogeneous world so no two people are alike, yet it generalizes so that it seems to refer to all of mankind. And this premise makes the world seem static. It only stays true so long as people don’t change. What happens if one who is insecure about himself later grows up and finds that he can change and love himself even more?. All of my reasons may seem defensive, but believe it or not, it’s illogical to even say that “men don’t love themselves.” I say that if we didn’t love ourselves, then we wouldn’t even be called “men”. We wouldn’t exist. We would never pursue our dreams and we would never become great.  This may seem hypothetical and extreme but, if we didn’t love ourselves we would be dead. And it’s not just about us, but about love. You can argue love is like a greater being, or even what was there before the universe itself. It transcends matter (it is everywhere), it transcends time (it is timeless) and it transcends space (it is infinite). Perhaps the better premise might have been that man can love others despite being imperfect creatures because true love is infinite, timeless and ubiquitous. All men love themselves, but what is required of love is the deeper level of selflessness: to love not only yourself, but your neighbor unconditionally. We all have this gift, but not all of us use it. All of what I am stating might seem farfetched, but I am trying to prove the point to always question the premise. I view premises as an “established” theory, and like all theories they can always be changed because nothing in this world is static. If you beg to differ, then think of time. If everything were static, there would have been no beginning, no end and no life. Hence, I encourage you to always question bandwagons and popular statements because “popularity” is a form of bias that might have fleeting passions. Every widely accepted thing has a premise. Sometimes it’s deeper than you think and some of these quotes use fallacies and even psychology to ends that are not so pleasant. So make sure your values are built not on the premises of others but on your own so that one day you build your house on a sturdy surface, rather than a house built on sand.

Smoke and Mirrors

Smoke and Mirrors

There’s a red curtain in front of a silent audience in front of a stage in front of the world. Any minute now, you might expect David Blaine or Chris Angel to magically appear, but silence prolongs itself. Instead, a hooded man named Fear protrudes and begins his act, surveying the crowd for his next assistant. When the assistant volunteers his reaching hand, he is cowardly taken-aback for Fear had neither hands nor eyes. Hence, the insecure volunteer rests assured that his magic is safe, given that a handless and eyeless entity won’t deprive him of his possessions nor use his judgment against him.  Believing in the magician’s compassion and just demeanor, he surrenders to the disappearance act. As the fidgety crowd waits for the illusion, lights flicker and go out. Thereafter, Fear reappears with eyes and arms outstretched, clothed in the volunteer’s garments. Whatever happened to that man? Nothing happened. He was just an illusion- simply, part of the act.

The moral of the story is that Fear uses smoke and mirrors to deceive men into doing his bidding. He tricks men into believing he is part of the act, when the act is actually on them. Claiming he is compassionate and considerate, he deprives them of their possessions- metaphoric hands robbing not only man’s physical aspect, but their intangible self: their ability to act for hands help us carry out our purpose. Moreover, Fear prevents the audience from the ability to see for all “lights are out”.  Fear, being an emotion is incompatible with reason but morphs itself into men and consequently, men morph themselves into fear- a parasite/host relationship that inverts the outcome. The oppressed become the oppressive.  And so the curtain falls, the individuality of men dissipates and the cycle repeats itself as part of the next act.

History is the stage. Fear is the entity. Men are the players. All of mankind’s immorality - ranging from wars, holocausts, robbery and tyranny- stems from the traits of inferiority complexes derived from Fear. Fearful men become Fear itself. Not only does understanding the historic “magician” function for our understanding, but it helps us predict the future (although improbable as magic itself). The wicked acts that will come – be it 10 years from now, or a millennium- will always use smoke and mirrors to usurp men of their reality under the guise of benevolence and magic.

And the only way to prevent that Fear is by calling it as one sees it before one sees it not- before the curtain falls and we are all left wondering, “What happened to that man?”

 

Testing

Testing 1 2 3