thoughts.

Thursday, June 26, 2008
seek less, live more.

the concept of the body and mind as separate entities is one that all religions are based upon. it offers a consoling fact for us humans that although our bodies may die, our soul is eternal. however, not all of us are theists and many actually challenge this idea. science is one avenue that has constantly tried to prove that we humans, like all other creatures on earth, have a finite amount of time in this world, universe etc. (the reason why i'm not stating any one particular place is that people might argue that after death, we may still continue to live in another dimension). charles darwin's theory of evolution is one that modern science is based upon - humans are merely a product of evolution; we evolved and developed just like any other living organism.

of course, this resulted in an array of criticisms, flagging science as being dehumanizing. that science sucks out the meaning of life, leaving us cold. it forsakes the feelings and emotions that we humans experience. but if deeper thought is given to this, we see that how at some point, we must make a distinction if we were to accept the cartesian (mind and body as separate) theory of life. it is not only humans who are able to feel, pet lovers will definitely attest to this, as to them, their dog, cat, bird or hamster, have feelings too. so if we include our fluffy friends, must we include the likes of mosquitoes, cockroaches and ants?

then comes the argument that well, only organisms with a complex brain has an eternal soul. but would this links us back to the fact that we are attached to our body, and like our body, we'll cease with time?

so which theory should we believe in? that we are animals or that we have eternal souls?

it is indeed very tempting to choose the latter and refute the former. it is a very comforting thought. but must we choose? in my opinion, i feel that the reason humans are plagued by this very question is due to our ability to construct meaning. humans created words, which is then associated with certain emotions, feelings or objects to give it meaning. these words are then freely strung together by people such as writers and philosophers into stories, theories and ideologies, that try to convince and enlighten other people. so why do i place an emphasis on language? i believe, the extent of one's linguistic ability is correlated to the extent of a person's persuasion power. and this is what is needed in areas such as philosophy, where words are used as tools of arguments. the theory in which various people would choose to believe in depends on how deeply they are convinced by it. and if you think about it, if our currently complex system of language (whatever that language may be) did not exist, would we be able to conceive such mind-boggling thoughts about life? will we just be like any other animal on earth, who feel, love and live, but whom never question their very own existence?

the argument can go on and will probably thread along the lines of infinite regression. but our minds are inquisitive. we constantly seek answers. but sometimes i feel that seeking answers not necessarily alleviates our frustrations. live life as it is. make the most out of it. love, give and learn. even though i'm currently an agnostic (one who does not deny that God exists, but believes that it is hard to find out for sure), i do not put down religions, but in fact encourage people to take up one, for it'll certainly make life easier to live (this can take a whole new discussion). although i must say, i would not encourage radical religions.

so for those like me, who are still seeking answers, "seek not and you'll find", some may say.

but for me, it will be, "seek less, and live more".

sarah. | 6:08 PM

0 Comments: