"Blame will not stop me from getting back up" an Essay by K. Oakes

I've been dealing with some strange arguments lately and it has made me depressed. I tend to be a very thought-oriented individual and sometimes I think myself into a mentally "dangerous" situation. I think myself into a situation where I can't figure things out and can't be comfortable with life until I can resolve these arguments that I stumble into.--Yes, yes, it's extreme, but what I do lose hope and become depressed, I know why I am depressed and because I think, I am better able to pull myself out of depression. I am alive, I understand my own humanity and I don't need medication to deal with it, I don't need a therapist, I just need myself and some time to think through these strange arguments and to hear some other arguments that help me think my way out of them. 

I watched this film today and I think my depression is over.  Life makes sense to me now, again:

I watched the above film "The High Cost of Living (2010)" and it brought my mind back to an argument I am still attempting to debate. The argument is this: "It does not matter whose fault it is, what matters is where you go from here."

It seems to me that people put a huge emphasis on finding whose fault something is and then making them pay. We raise our kids to think that if the neighbor harmed us we need to harm them back, or make them fess up to it, or make them pay for it.--If they break a window on your house by accident, they need to work and earn the money to pay you back; if your boyfriend has sex with someone else then they have problems and you should leave them; if you hit someone with your car, you need to make it up to them and go to prison.--I think this is stupid.

Our society is way too preoccupied with whose fault it is and that makes it more difficult for us to be comfortable with our human condition. Really the issue comes down to that we've been trained into thinking in fault-finding--blame Plato/Socrates for that because it's his fault we got here! He introduced us to the concept of real truth, rather than sophist truth/democratic truth, and argued that it was superior to sophist truth. When you have the concept of objective truth, then you can have the concept of blame and be somewhat fair about it.--Only problem is that we almost never have the real truth and even when we do, the truth becomes irrelevant because it is fact and doesn't associate blame or fault any more than it associates justification or rightness.

I propose a better way, and it stems from my religious beliefs. No, I'm not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist, and I'm not an agnostic. I'm Atheist--Atheist in the Greek sense, so if you want to call me Greek Atheist, fine.--but the term is generalized. I don't believe in God or Gods but I believe Religion brings down our society when it should be lifting us up, so I oppose religion. Do I think all religion is "bad"? No. Do I believe people are bad? No. My real religion is Love. --And I've seen Religion oppose Love often enough to believe that religion leads to the opposite of Love, and anything that opposes what I believe in, I oppose--up until it can stand out of the way of my beliefs. If religion can find a way to be passive and not affect Love, then I would support it, but sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't then I am Greek Atheist.

I already wrote an article on Love, so I'm not going to go into detail about that here, but whenever you start to blame others you start to hinder love. You hold back people that you care about. Worse, you hurt people who are trying to Love or trying to be Loved! Those people, over time, become bitter and have a harder time loving others or being loved by others. How scary is that? If to love is to have someone care about you, then what happens when you get bitter and have a hard time caring about other people--you go crazy. You go sociopathic, you go really really really nihilistic and then you end up like any of these kids out there these days who go homicidal and then suicidal. --PLEASE don't hurt people who are trying to Love or be Loved because  it leads them down a dark path and society is paying the debt every time one of these kids loses hope and takes out a bunch of people with him or her.


The strange argument that was bringing me down is simple, and in essence, it IS the Human Condition. It is the desire for purpose, it is the unquenchable curiosity, it is the fear of death and the inevitable isolation.


But you've gotta get back up.
I've picked this video because it's a new, unheard song by Eminem mixed with a popular video game. This was very intentional and very specific. It would seem that Eminem is the patron saint of nerds, geeks, and kids who've been picked on, feel different, and feel like they aren't loved. And have you seen how many of these kids play video games to escape, especially shooters?

Let me explain the argument I was battling with, because it all ties back to blame, and I think everyone could benefit from understanding this argument.

First, I had the question: What is the point of life? If I know how to be happy, if I know how to connect with others, if I know how to find answers to my questions because I know how to think, then what is the purpose of life if eventually I'll always be forced into isolation? Why do I fight on? Why do I keep making new friends when eventually they fade away, why do I put up with other people's annoying behavior, why do I try to help people, and most of all, why do I Love? It's easier to hate, it's easier to live a life of bitterness. It's easier to be completely independent of people--to fade away into the blackness, to venture out into the wilderness and never come back. It's easier to give up on life and to express yourself in a way so that people understand that they hurt you. It's SO much easier to blame others for all of your problems. To blame them for hurting you--because shit, they have hurt you! --So why fight on, why keep going in life? What's the point? Why am I beating myself up?


Asking that question is like asking: Why do I refuse to give up?


--And we all have to find our own answer to that question because it all depends on what you are doing. Ultimately, the answer comes down to: "...Because what I want is that important."--And yes, it IS subjective. This whole world comes down to the subjective answer you give to the question "Why Do I refuse to give up?" Because what I want is THAT important.

But before you can make the jump from asking the question, to realizing the answer, you have to come to the realization of exactly WHAT you want.--I know what I want. I've thought it out often enough at least that I ought to know what I want.--But this last little while I didn't really understand what I want. It isn't that I want to be at peace and happy, and that's why I was so upset about this strange argument. Because What's the point if all I want is to be at peace and happy?

Then, I hit a standstill in my argument, because eventually, I'll die and it'll be over with, so why am I not comfortable with dying now? Why am I not completely comfortable with my fear of death? What is it that made me panic so much when I was swimming across the lake? What is it that prevents me from giving myself away to the military to use my life to protect my ideals--I even thought, maybe I could go to another country and fight for their wars, because war isn't a matter of patriotism, it's a matter of ideals and there are a few wars that I support even though they have little to do with the U.S. --Again, why do I fight? Why have I fought this far?-- WHAT have I been fighting for?

And I think from watching that film I finally have an answer to that question:
I keep going because I have a dream that the world doesn't have to be this way. I'm not the ass I used to be because I don't want to spread anti-love, I don't want to blame people anymore because I've been wrongly blamed before and it took me a long time to get better from that and I've been rightly blamed before and it didn't help anything, it was just as bad as when I was wrongly blamed. I refuse to give up being a nice guy because I dread the thought of a world where all the nice guys give up hope. I refuse to stop helping people, even when I'm drained and I just want to go home, because I live in a world where sometimes people refuse to help and a lot of bad things happen because of it. People lose hope, they go on their own personal jihad or crusade, they go completely crazy because the arguments take them over and no one has trained them on how to deal with the arguments.

I'm fighting a war every day. The war I fight is in favor of Love. It is so that there will be one less kid who takes his life and the life of others. It is so that we can all have real peace and we can all be happy. I refuse to give up because I am still fighting for a better world, one in which people don't live in fear of being rejected, one in which we keep moving forward and nothing holds us back, one in which there is always support out there for people who need it. I'm fighting for a world where we stop focusing on blame and fault, because the more I learn about blame and fault, the more I realize it's contrary to everything I believe in and fight for.

Why do we punish people for mistakes? Why do we punish people for intentional acts? Either way, we have to live with the outcome. Why make enemies when you can make friends? Why not enlist their help in fixing this rather than turning them into an enemy?

I know the answer to these questions: It's because we think our human condition is going to be resolved if we have a scapegoat. We think that if we're in the right and they're in the wrong that we're going to find closure. --But you don't find closure from that. You find closure in another way.

So what your girlfriend cheated on you, can't you see that she isn't getting some of her needs met by you? So what if people are rude to you, can't you see that they have problems and that when you are rude back that you're makign their problems worse and you're not making them want to be nice to you.

This is why I fight. Because I believe in a better world than this. I believe it is possible. I believe it is feasible. I believe that my actions make a difference, and I for one refuse to give up until I can see that world. No matter how hard people make it for me. We, who believe in this better world, will not give up.


I hope some day you can join us and the world will live as one.

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham --What the evolution debate is REALLY about!

Everyone who grew up in the 90s loves Bill Nye, and those who are interested in Christianity and Creationism will love this debate. I watched it and tried to be as objective as possible to determine what the debate was really about.


To save you 2:45 hrs of your life, let me just explain this debate and if you want to watch it after with my enlightenment, please do so.


Ken Ham's Argument:

We should only teach the science that we know is Truth in schools.

Definitions:
Observational Science - Science that derives truth from what we can observe in the present and recreate through experiments.

Historical Science - Science that derives assumptions of the past based on the present **Which Ham emphasizes the word Assumption, because it isn't 100% provable.

Creationism - (His definition is broad, so I'm going to take the liberty of explaining what I believe is pertinent to this debate) The theory that there were around 2,000 kinds and from those kinds all other animals have evolved. I.e. Finches evolved from the bird kind, parrots evolved from the bird kind, etc.

Kind - A species of animal, such as a dog, cat, mouse, lion, bird, man, etc.

Truth - (again, his definition is broad) Anything observable and/or repeatable--OR anything God has spoken in the Bible. [he tacked that one on]

Additional claims:
Ham claims evolutionists are "hijacking" the definitions of "evolution" to include observational science (finches change generationally) AND historical science (finches spawned from a single celled organism a long time ago).


Bill Nye's Argument:

We should allow teachers to teach students the scientific process, regardless of whether what they say is true or false, the emphasis is on the process and it is an exciting thing.

Bill Nye doesn't necessarily claim evolutionists are 100% right or wrong, but he claims students should be taught about everything and all the facts and possible facts should be presented to them as well as the tools to determine if it is true or false.

Definitions:
Nye doesn't directly present definitions, his argument is straightforward in this regard however, to present his argument he presented a lot of other (in my opinion) "off topic" points that debunk some of what Ham was claiming. I have however included a few useful definitions

Evolving - Taking one species and making it more complex for some purpose.

Science - The process of discovery.

Additional claims:
Science is about the process of discovery, not the truth itself.

Nye argues that the job of a scientist is to prove theories right or wrong and that a scientist can stand on either side of the debate so long as they bring Evidence forward about it. If they can't bring evidence forward then they aren't doing science, they are making claims without founding. So...he presented a few claims and provided evidence for them, (here is one of many:) such as the layers of different rocks found in the grand canyon and the fossils found in those areas how they become more and more complex. He even challenged scientists to find just 1 species from a lower layer that is found in an upper layer because if they could do that it would be ground breaking and disprove what we understand about evolutionary science--as of yet no one has.

Nye Argues that we need to encourage the younger generation to ask questions and seek answers via science in order to solve the problems of the future and keep America economically strong because otherwise other countries will do so and surpass america.
--Along with that, he argues that if we limit what students can be taught down to just the truth, we will stifle curiosity and limit the act of science (the process of discovery).  [the assumption is, that if students are taught that one way is the truth and only the truth, then they will not bother researching other things outside that scope--and also, if that truth is false, no one will question it]



Some things to realize:

Private schools are increasing in enrollment, and private schools aren't limited to just creationism or just evolution. The debate is limited to public education.

This may have just been a publicity stunt on Ham's part to promote his museum and books.

Nye is a public education figure and mechanical engineer (scientist).
Ham has a degree related to education curriculum design (museum curator).

Nye is American, Ham is Australian.
Nye is Agnostic, Ham is Christian.


My opinion:

Ham was the better debater of the two--Nye wasn't as organized and not as focused on his actual argument but instead focused on the points of his argument rather than the argument as a whole. Ham came across well practiced.


I have to come out now and say that I side with Bill Nye. Nye's argument is non-judgmental of the truth. Under Nye's argument you can believe whatever you want as long as you back it up with proof whereas Ham's argument supposes that there are certain things that we shouldn't believe or argue about. If Nye is correct in his assumption, we already stifle our creativity and critical thinking by refusing to investigate the truth for ourselves.

I think public education should teach all viewpoints, all theories, and the pluses and minuses of those theories--even silly things that people once believed but no longer do (like the greek humors) because understanding the flaws in that way of thinking gives you a better idea of how to determine truth in the present times.
The important thing that public education should teach is how to come to the truth on your own. We live in the information age--we can look up any information we want, but if we don't know how to interpret that information for ourselvse and figure out how it applies to us, or we don't know how to determine if it is correct or incorrect, then what good does it do for us to know the said "truth?" Schools focus too much on memory regurgitation and not enough on independent thinking. Memory regurgitation was useful when our economy was more industrial and there were strict procedures for doing everything in our economy, but now that things have changed we need to focus on how to think for ourselves, how to come up with good ideas and solve problems, and to determine truth from untruth and how to objectively analyze things and to change our opinions if we are proven wrong.