Our Other Half

Aristophanes has a very memorable analogy of love in Plato's The Symposium, one which is surprisingly widely accepted. Although many believed that his explanation is intended to be comic and not in any way accounting for real events, let's just take our imagination to a world where what he said holds true.

In summary, Aristophanes mentioned in The Symposium how humans are originally a being with two heads, four arms and four legs. We were such a powerful force that we are a significant threat when we decided to attack the gods. Zeus then takes his lightning bolt to split us in half, and scattered our halves throughout the Earth, so that our lives will be significantly spent on seeking our other half. Thus love is an irrational force in a person to seek their other half. A lot of people will find this romantic, but suppose that this is true, it might mean a few things.

First, is that we are no longer perfectly rational. It is one thing to split our four-handed persona into two weaker beings, and from The Symposium the split is designed such that it is impossible to physically combine with our other half. Scattering us and 'cursing' us into an endless pursue for our other half is another thing. This gives us a very significant force of irrationality as a human being, so that we are too busy doing something irrational to think about anything else. The only reason our great Zeus did this is that our rational thinking another thing that makes us powerful, and threatening. Hence it is fine to assume that we were perfectly rational in our four-legged state.

Second, is that love is necessary for rational thinking. This is an implication to the previous point, actually. Although it is impossible for us to go back to our perfect state, it might be possible for us to go back to our perfect rationale once we are one with our other half. That is to say, suppose that we can synchronize our thoughts perfectly with our other half, we will attain the truest kind of rational thinking with which the search for truth might be possible. Hence get laid, O virgin philosopher; lest your pursue be for naught.

Third, is that it is a fact that the perfect human seeks to take down gods. It is still debatable whether the gods here are supposed to represent pagan gods or the being that created us. It is a fact, however, that we sought to take down the superior being. Is that how we will end up should we attain our rational thinking back?

Again, this is just a what-if about a scenario made by a comedian. Yet how fascinating it is should all that be true.

Do Not Offend the Common Contemporary People

What the rational should realize is that there is no neutral position, there is no objective view, there is no unbiased opinions. Un-neutrality makes a position, subjectivity makes a view, and biases shapes opinions.

 There is no relative morals, for if morals is relative there is no morals. Bull excrements and fairy tales is what morals is to the modern people. But they would never accept that there is no morals, that the 'evil' Hitler is just as moral as martin Luther King Jr.

Their thoughts are not a product of thinking processes, they are not thoughts, they are noises. They do not base his noises on premises and conclusions. Their noises are just manifestations of the crowd or their current concentrations of different hormones in their body. Packs of animals is what they reduced humanity into.

Do not offend them for they will growl if you do. For they have to defend their pack with sheer number, for their intellect is weak, but together they unite. The Crowd is what they are.