Thus, because I am me and me alone, the more I think about things, the less I can know about them, as they are narrowed and shaped into puzzle pieces that fit my particular puzzle. This, in turn, also limits my emotional range, which one would think leads to greater rationality, but that might be completely wrong as well, since it was probably some emotion at the base of a rational idea. Emotions are unreliable, it's just a flip of a switch in the brain, the sending of a neuron from one synapse to another, the release of a hormone. Yet they are so powerful. It's pathetic to think that one's entire carefully constructed fortress of beliefs, their entire personality, can be so easily swayed, how one person completely transforms into another, but poor Phineas Gage with the tube through his brain, or Homer Simpson with the crayon which went too far up his nose, have shown us that this is exactly the case.
Phineas Homer
So, if it is impossible to be rational, and it's necessary to undermine emotions in order to retain control of one's own mind (ie believing that, as emotions are irrelevant, the pursuit of happiness is irrelevant, and life is negligible), then it becomes necessary to accept things as they appear to be (empirically, emotionally, rationally, in the middle ground where the three become one and the same). Therefore, I cannot be blamed or asked to change, if, for example, I believe that people were born to be polygamous based on my observations of most long-term relationships (with some exceptions), or if I perceive depth of thought in sadness and the darker emotions, or if I feel that loneliness, for me, must be a way of life, because I'm used to it, regardless of whether I am alone or surrounded by other people.
Yet psychologists are always going on about minimizing negativity, being happy, as the most important facet of a person's life. The pursuit of happiness is our supposed goal, from the time we're thrown into grade school, through finding a job, making sure we get enough sleep, staying healthy, saving money, having a family, house, retirement. Well, I don't want to be told what the best way to feel is. I much prefer the delusion of rationality, having a stable mind, a stable belief system, to that of being happy, feeling good. Because, even though my rationality is unreliable, imperfect, maybe downright wrong, it is far more static; In a single day, a person can experience an entire synesthetic rainbow of emotional ups and downs, but having the foundation of thought underneath means there is always a secure place to return to.
I often wonder, but I can't figure it out... if there is some sort of wisdom in trying to equally explore and appreciate the gamut of human emotion and experience (both negative and positive), then might it not be even more wise, assuming life is negligible, to just seek out what feels good? Perhaps the wisest philosophy would be to bypass all thought altogether and rely on instinct, happiness provided when base needs are met (it seems to work well for my cat) and, in this way, instead of the rationality delusion, follow the pursuit of happiness delusion, which, I think, is best achieved with simplicity. They, whoever they might be, say how a person views the world comes from within, and maybe trying to find a rational perspective, because it's impossible for a human, is the wrong way to go; it doesn't lead to happiness, not by my rationale, anyway, but rather to an acceptance of the bad as well as the good, which I also appreciate.
I forgot what point I was trying to make, if any, so I'll just leave it at that.
No comments:
Post a Comment