mAtteR 0f Ch0¡cE

Quoting the film Trainspotting from the British screenwriter John Hodge:

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home.
Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?

Despite the heroin thing, this last sentence was the heroin talking, I think that there is a lot of truth in this text. I'm not sure if it is something argument-able or the kind of thing you learn by experiences (so it depends on perception).

There is a kind of paradox here, because I think that it is actually possible that this choosing thing could be chosen in its own. In fact, this is a reasonable way (among a lot that I might not know) of understanding life, so it is possible to choose it among the rest. At least there is the destiny way, which assumes that you are not the one who makes de choices, they are already made for you.

Thinking about my choosings,

• I choose to choose choosing as the way of life (not mine, every).
• I choose to choose life and I choose it.
• I choose to try to be happy (meaning it).
• I choose to believe in logic.

What does choosing choosing and choosing to be happy means?

Most of the people know that, more or less, everything has connotations (to us), well, you can voluntarily change the connotations that we get from anything. If you see a bottle half-empty and half-full, you can choose to give more importance to the fact that it is half-empty, this is to be optimistic.

For example, about long-lasting relationships, you really never know if it would work for ever or not, so, in order to feel stable, you have to choose to believe that it will last. Of course, it is a risky bet, but not doing so may lead to insecurity and jealousy. Now think that somehow you have doubts, then you have to explore your feelings, but if you have no clues, you may have to choose, taking risks, of course.

This post could have been named Life is a matter of taking risks.

HundReD tHoUgHtS c0m¡c

A comic that's worth a hundred thoughts

Source: goComics

Life is a matter of choice, you can choose not only upon your acts but upon your perceptions, similar to choosing whether the bottle is half-full or half-empty.

I beL¡eVe ¡N L0g¡c !

I know a few people in the world with whom i cannot argue, there are probably a lot more that i have the lucky not to met. There are two kinds of these people, the ones that doesn't know how an argue works (i listen, you listen) and doesn't listen to your arguments, so it doesn't worth trying, and others that i didn't knew why but they listen and keep track of the arguments, but don't get the conclusions, even if the arguments where truly good.

I'd like to think about this last few, i recently understood why is it that, despite following a good argument, the conclusions doesn't convince them. I think that the problem here is that they don't believe in logic, i.e., they don't think that taken some hypotheses and manipulating them by means of logic rules, the logical conclusions derived are true whenever the hypothesis hold.

These non-believers find hard to argue with people that have different points of view than their own. They usually don't like to discuss if it is not for something they think important, they hate arguing over "silly things" (i personally think that everything worths arguing).

They may probably don't know what is the problem with them while arguing with s'body and they won't be aware of its relation with the problem of learning logic-ruled sciences like maths, physics or chemistry.

The ones i know seem to have everything pretty clear, but they are unable to defend most of their ideas to the end (i assume an idea to be a decision taken from some premises, which are the ones that are truly chosen; and to defend an idea to the end is trying to convince s'one of your ideas till it comes a matter of choice, that is, a matter of premises) and the ones they do, are because they are learned ideas (that is, s'thing that s'one convinced you of).

So, thinking about this topic, i realized that logic is a matter of believing-ness. It is not required for a human being to believe in logic in order to live, he has the means to think, but he can chose not to believe in the logic conclusions he take if they don't match whatever he chose to believe true. This can be the quid of fanatic and not so fanatic religious people, since they believe something or somebody to be true and if any product of thinking leads them to a conclusion in a different direction, they refuse it, even if the premises where true for them!

I think that the believe in logic may have a lot to do with relativism, since believing in logic imply that every point of view should be taken into account and hence are equally valid, here comes the argue whether a premise is admissible or not. For example, a forever-fixed premise should be that human life is over any other thing and a non admissible premise should be that there are races better than others (in fact, there should only be one race taken into account, the human race).

Despite i have always being proud of claiming that i have no blind faith, i now have to admit that i have one: logic rules! I have finally found my path, LOL.

I believe in logic!