What I hate about Feminism

Thomas Agrusti

Life

November 29, 2012

An irritating Sect: FEMINISM!

            Of all the philosophies I have studied throughout my life, none has angered me, or made me laugh more, than feminism. However, this is not because I am misogynistic, quite the contrary as I will go forth to show in this essay. It is because a certain sect of feminism enrages me like nothing else, and I will also reveal what that philosophy in question is called, any why feminism’s co-created sect is at the top of this black list.

            I believe there are three sects of feminism. Of the three, the first is admirable, the second a tad annoying, and the third the worst of all. The first of this trinity is the “Equality based” feminists. These are the women who believe there is an imbalance of power, wealth, justice, or bias otherwise against women in western society. To a point, they have a valid argument: There are certain jobs that research shows that women get paid less in compared to men, certain arguments that women are overly-sexualized in the popular culture, and that some society-founded gender roles are not becoming invalid.

These are people I respect, and personally, I would akin myself to them, but instead claim the stance of a “Humanist” not a “feminist”. In all my years of studying philosophy and psychology, I have seen that the differences between men and women on a biological level are minimal. Though men do have a muscular advantage, whereby a male and female training and dieting identically would show a male advantage, and men do show a generally better performance in math and science while women hold a positive trend in reading and writing, these are still small advantages. I know that there are women marines who are strong and agile under stressful conditions, and are far more athletic than the everyday male, and I know of women who vastly outweigh many men in ranges of intelligence, mathematical, scientific or otherwise. However, these truths are not because of a genetic or hormonal bias, they are because of the effort that each person put in. The marine is not strong because she is a woman and the teacher not intelligent because she holds an XX chromosome; they are strong and smart respectively because of the time and the commitment that they devoted to their respective fields to attain those strengths.

            The before mentioned women are also ones that take a stand on such matters. This is a trait I strongly agree with and encourage. If a woman feel she is being wrongly treated, stereotyped or bias, she has a right to present her argument and make the movements to change them for the better.

            The second group annoys be because they fall in the median range of these three sects. These are the feminists who believe women have been “oppressed by men” over the years. These are found in feminist literature very often, and I find this to be quite pitiful. If I was to make a very generalized retrospective of history, it can be said that men, starting as the hunter gatherers, and women, starting as the mothers and the nurturers, were placed in biologically based gender roles, with men being stronger, more athletic, and better suited to hunt, and women being able to give birth and breast feed the child. These were our native societies, and as they evolved, men became predominant leaders of these societies, for whatever reason they had at the time. This continued through society, leading to a bias where men had access to more resources than women. Now, these women do not aggravate because they feel oppressed or constrained by men, society, and/or gender roles; they irritate me because they never seem to do anything about it. As I previously stated, I can admire anyone, man or woman, who takes a stand on a situation and strives to change it, but many women in the feminist literature I have read over the years shows a woman who “wants to be free” or “wishes to be so much more” but never breaks free from her bonds, nor even shows desire to. They seem to simply sit idly by, writing and dreaming, but never doing. This isn’t constrained to feminism though, as I would feel the same feelings towards a person who wishes to be or do anything, yet never makes a conscious action to do so.

One piece of “feminist” literature that I find quite fascinating is “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I enjoy it in because it, much like the works of Edgar Allen Poe, gives a brilliant retrospective of madness in the first person point of view. The reader can see the slow but steady decline of the speakers control over her sanity, slowly being picked away until she becomes a beast like creature. However, I do not agree with the perspective that she was “being tortured and belittled by her husband, and HE drove her to madness.” For I believe that she could have taken a stand at the beginning. She could have left the house if she felt endangered. One may argue the counterpoint that she wouldn’t have been able to because of “the society” but this was colonial America. If she fled to another state, or even another town, she would’ve simply been viewed as a woman, and could’ve gotten remarried. In fact, I don’t recall any reason she couldn’t divorce the man. If one truly wants to say that “HE” was being abusive, then they would also be charging “HER” as the victim, they would also have to point at that she was fully aware of her distaste for the situation, and could have divorced him. One may claim “Catholicism forbid her” if that was an element from the story, but again, America allows for freedom of religion, and she could have just as easily broken that conviction if she felt her life and/or her sanity were at risk. I would stand to argue anyone who claims that the woman in that story was “unable” to leave that situation.

Returning to the argument at hand, I present the final sect of feminism, and the philosophy that I despise the most. These are the feminists who believe that women are superior to men in any and all fronts and that men do not understand them and/or cannot comprehend their complexity. For the prime example of these despicable people, I would present Ms. Zora Neal Hurston, the most biased and hateful feminist writer I have ever had the displeasure to discover. Writings of her such as the short story “Sweat” or the novel “Their eyes were watching god” show women as pious, pure, and intelligent judicators of the world, and men as squabbling, ignorant, and Neanderthal savages. I could go on in reasons why I am disgusted by this writer, but I must conclude my argument. The reason why I hate these types of people is that they are complaining about an unfounded and illegitimate bias that they do nothing about and that has no purpose. They claim that women are superior when studies show that humans are predominately equal, and that placing any favor on either gender is illogical. They claim that they are treated unfairly, yet, like the second group, do nothing but shout and cry about their unfortunate situation, never solving the problem that is their situation, and instead blaming an element that they cannot control: their unalterable gender. (Note: I am not saying gender cannot be changed, as with modern science a “Sex change” is possible, and a transgender individual can identify with the alternate sex. I am saying this because the feminists in question not only blame their gender for their misfortune, but also vow to not alter it because of how wonderful they are despite their circumstance.)

 Lastly, I wish their extinction because they view life in the worst philosophical way: Futile. Futilism is a philosophy where on believes that all things are predestined, nothing can be controlled, and we are victims of the fates handed to us. I would be most akin to the Existentialists, and thusly believe this philosophy to be despicable. Why do I view feminism as the worst incarnation of this chained state of mind? Because not only are they being futile in their thoughts and their actions, but they’re not even being creative about it. If a person said that they had a doomed life because of a physical or mental handicap, or because they were born into bondage, or poverty, or some type of difficult circumstance that would take great effort and incredible pain to overcome, then I would show some sympathy, though still encourage the effort, for seeing someone break free of the bonds of slavery, poverty, or unjustice otherwise is an honorable feat. But what I hate about Futile Feminism is that it takes the base denominator, their gender, and claims that that is the full reason that their situation is unfortunate, and that they should be helped, or pitied, or, the worst of all, honored, because of their stance on their situation. The idea that a person should be honored because they dislike their place in life blamed entirely on their gender is sickening.

These are my takes on feminism, and in theory certain gender roles as well. I believe all women have the potential to be great, as to men. I believe all humans have the ability to overcome difficulties they face, be them predisposed or stumbled upon in life. I believe traits like resilience and commitment are traits to be honored and respected. I do not believe in Futilism, and I especially with even more misfortune on the doom-preaching Futile Feminist.

With all such said, I wish you a merry day and a blessed life!

Living in His Name,

Thomas Agrusti

Shine today like no other!

That Good Ol' Religious Argument

NOTE!: It should be noted that the essay proceeding this note is not one of my best works. I do not feel it is as clean as it could have been, but otherwise presents the primary points appropriately enough. This wavering is due to a marathon run social activity, work, sickness, and a hiatus in sleep times. For my health's sake, I am returning to normality, but, I present to you this series of events as a reasoning to my essay's condition. Furthermore, if someone feels that my essay is presentable and well written despite this reasoning, then I do not ask that this note hinder your enjoyment in any way. Without further adieu, I present to you "That Good Ol' Religious Argument"

_________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas Agrusti

Life

November 26, 2012

That Good ol’ Religious argument

                I think one of the most common questions asked in philosophy are one’s beliefs in the religious perspective. Names of idolatry and bigotry have been linked to the same people over the same terms in a similar society. In the same way, I have been linked to images of pride, being a morally sound and inspirational figure, as well as an arrogant, misguided, and pretentious fool. As such, I feel it apprpraite, as more than 7 seconds has passed without me questioning my own thoughts about my faith, to illustrate, through rhetoric, my truths and beliefs pertaining to faith.

                There are a few things I must state as ultimate truths within my mind. These are things that I have found myself comfortable to accept on either side of the argument, and lead to support both arguments in the end. These will be my standard parameters for this, and future, religious essays. First off, I do believe there is an omnipotent God who is the creator of the earth, humanity, and life incarnate. I believe there is a human known as Jesus Christ of Nazareth who came to earth, prophesized, and died for the sins of the world, and I will return to this final concept throughout the essay. Lastly, I believe there is a supernatural element to the Christian world, found in the miracles performed by Jesus Christ, and the “bit-too-convenient interventions” that God plays during one’s life.

                Thusly with these parameters set up, I shall present my Pro argument for Christian faith. I have viewed many Christians as great people. They are content, if not profoundly overjoyed, with the situation they are in in life. They have faced difficulties and trials, and have overcome them for the betterment of their faith. They have a unidirectional perspective of faith, and some have varying degrees of perspective in other fields of life, such as career, adventure, and philosophy. I also believe that there is a certain euphoria to be associated with the worship ceremonies. I have never heard any music and singing better than that which I hear in during a passionate service, and few better speakers, than those during a passionate service. Lastly, I believe the actual theology and doxology is on that justifies itself. It has a secular continuum that closes may loopholes. It is a faith that builds beautiful people, with a spectacular perspective on life, as humble, hard-working, and incredibly resilient.

                Now I move to the con argument. Christianity is one of the cruelest, self-indulgent, and deceptive faiths I’ve ever been associated with. Allow be to explain this polar shift. The introduction line of Christianity is “Jesus died for your sins. He loves you, he loves everyone. Everyone is a sinner, and he loves you. He died to you can go to heaven.” This ideology leads one to believe that, as long as they recognize that Jesus lived and did what he said he did, they are guaranteed an afterlife in paradise. However, when a person becomes part of the community, they are practically drafted into an escalating lifestyle. This is the conversation within my mind:

                Veteran – Alright so you’re a Christian?

                Newbie – Yep, I accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my savior!

                Veteran – Great, I’ll see you in church on Sunday!

                Newbie – Sure! God is good to me! I have a roof over my head, a job, I’m healthy, I should thank The Lord for everything that has happened to me.

                (In church)

                Newbie – Wow, these people are so nice!

                Veteran - *Passes around offering plate* Alright, time to give 10% of your income.

                Newbie – Um, do I have to?

                Veteran – Not right away, but the Lord asks that you do. Afterall, he gave you everything you have, so asking for 10% is generous of Him.

                Newbie – I guess that makes sense.

                Veteran – By the way, we’re having a bible study this Wednesday. I’d like you to come.

                Newbie – Um, ok, sure.

                *During bible study*

                Veteran – So, Newbie, you love The Lord, right?

                Newbie – Yes!

                Veteran – Then you’re willing to hold back from sinning right?

                Newbie – Well, I would, but it’s really difficult.

                Veteran – well then, pray for help, and work to hold back from sin and repent, run away from sin, do everything you can to prevent yourself from sinning.

                Newbie – Can you live that kind of life though? Can a person live without sin?

                Veteran – Well, Jesus did it, and Job did it, but even the Bible says through Paul that it is nearly impossible to a human to hold back entirely from sin.

                Newbie – So we’re being asked to strive for a goal we can never meet?

                Veteran – yes, but it is all to make The Lord happy.

                Newbie – But doesn’t he already love me?

                Veteran – he loves you as long as he is the most important aspect of your life.

                Newbie – well, He is pretty important to me.

                Veteran – more important that your cell phone? Or your TV?

                Newbie – Those are luxuries, I could probably live without them.

                Veteran – is it more important than your car, or your house?

                Newbie – Well, If The Lord had a good reason to feel it necessary to take those things away-

                Veteran – What about your job? Your wife? Your kids? He has to be more important than all of them! If you don’t Jesus will look at you in the afterlife and say “I never knew you”

                Newbie – Wait, wait, wait, my job is my passion! It is a definitive staple in who I am, what I love to do, and it allows me to supply for my wife and kids so they have the chance to be content and happy with life. I trust no one on this earth more than my wife, and would be by her side for anything, and my children are the most precious people in my life. When they are happy, I am overjoyed.  You brought me in under the belief that God’s love and Jesus’s sacrifice was out of unconditional love. Now you’re telling me that his love is contingent on whether or not I make the same sacrifice that Jesus made? Am I not good enough? Why can’t I be happy with the free will I’ve been given? Don’t I have free will as a gift from God? I understand that withdrawing from sin is appropriate because many sins lead to terrible outcomes, like harm to others and self, but am I really to be expected to sacrifice every aspect of my free will, my choice of mate, my choice of career, and my choice of philosophy, to be dependent on an intangible, incorporeal, invisible deity? That’s slavery! That’s demanding that I follow every order given to me without question, accept the minimum rationing give to me, and do so with a smile on. To sacrifice gladly, to give myself daily, and to do so gladly; to suffer, to see others suffer, to see those who I love especially suffer, all for this being, promising me a gift in the end that no one has proven.

                These are my problems with Christianity. Yes, a person will be supplied with “everything they need.” There is a serendipitous beauty to seeing a person who lived in nothing get a room, a bed, a car, and a job donated to them. I understand there is happiness to be found in living for God, sacrificing, and worshipping. But it takes 100% commitment, and I understand that a person has to have a solid foundation, and a solid reasoning and support for their faith. However, I find it hard to shake the feeling that I’m being denounced and put down because I’m only fractionally committed. Why should I called “not good enough” when I read the bible daily, pray for every meal and before bed, attend church, and recognize the faith as valid? I believe Christianity is a beautiful philosophy; concepts such as forgiveness, befriending all, and living a life free of convictions, like greed, gluttony, and otherwise. But I do not feel it is right to have so much expected of me. That is a common element that aggravates in many scopes.

                Allow me to be pretentious for a moment, which is a permission I believe I have already if you’re taking the time to read this. I view myself as generous, treating my friends to lunch, happily buying Christmas gifts, and loaning money to a friend without expecting to be paid back. I also aim to be a pleasant and kind individual. Spend a day with me and I am confident that you will see a jolly man, who is empathetic in times of suffering, and happy to offer support in any way. I am also ambitious. I believe it justifiable to say that I have taken on more responsibilities and challenges that few others have taken on before me. Within a middle-SES family, with minimal family conflict, I have set myself to graduate a year and a half earlier than my age mates, with plans to move on to higher education. I advance my skills to be competent in many fields, and be comfortable in all of my pursuits. However, though I may give happily of my own volition, and if a favor is asked of me, I am most likely to supply if I can, unforeseen or unfortunate circumstances notwithstanding, but I implore anyone who ever knows me of this: NEVER EXPECT ANYTHING OF ME. In this light, I don’t mean don’t look at me as if I will never attain anything in life, for I plan on having a family and a career, and to be happy with life. I don’t mean don’t ask for a favor now and then, for I seek to be kind. But never put a title on me that I did not ask for, sign me up for a job I was not aware of, and look to me to be someone that I did not show I will be. Ask me neutrally about anything, and I will tell you my ideas. But NEVER expect something out of me, or I will resent you for it.    

Recent Activity

I posted a comment on

http://evangerry.blogspot.com/2012/02/blog-2-what-personal-principles-did-you.html?showComment=1336048944899#c5199516711703407372

as well as

http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/2012/02/blog-2.html?showComment=1336049127768#c5801749086501722042

Thine state doth decree

Thomas Agrusti

Joe Oyler

May 3, 2012

Thy State Doth Decree

                Through my system of beliefs, the primary concern becomes the wellness of self. However, as I do not plan to commit first degree murder, my perspective must shift to judge the moral stability of the state and, as such, this essay should take on my societal lens.

                In the theory that the utilitarian benefit of the state is rendered to an equation, then the value of several lives is to be valued over the life of one. By this decree, if a person or persons should feel that endangering the life or lives of several other human beings, the state thereby has the power vested in itself to render that person into a lesser state of human being, as a human being should be a creature of compassion and consideration of the equal value of life from one to another, never putting it’s own ability over that of another, as this is an unjustified power. As such, the person or person should be regarded as incredibly damaging to the wellness of the people and of the stability of the state as a whole. By this, thy state doth decree that the penalty of death be a viable solution, as to uphold the stability and solidarity of our great nation, God willing.

                By changing my lens to this perspective, of the statesman, I find it far easier to judge the society from its position as opposed to my own person regard for others. This power is not one that I find vested in me, and, as such, should not take into consideration how I would use this power. I also feel that, beyond a set of principles, a person must be able to use this shift in perspective so that they may not become dogmatic in nature, as I have been guilty of, and take into effect the perceptions of other persons.

                The only means for one to become more ethical in nature is to set up a very well defined image of ethics. Once one has knowledge of what it means to be ethical, that person must then strive to achieve this goal, without ever believing this to be an ultimatum, as no human being, no matter their level of experience or wisdom, should ever testify to one inarguable philosophy for two reasons. .Firstly, this seems like an incredulous and foolish idea as to find such a grandiose philosophy would be highly unlikely, as would its potential to be ultimately beneficial to all parties, bearing no negative consequence to those around the person. Secondly, even if some person or persons were to find such a miraculous philosophical state, I would still feel that life would be dull living upon these principles, as it is the argument we find with ourselves that brings about the glory of growth and change. Even in old age, I would not want to find my philosophical journey at an end. Socrates stated it best in his famous quote, “I am the wisest man in the world, for I know that I know nothing.”

To What beeth Consciousness

Thomas Agrusti

Prof. Joe Oyler

April 30, 2012

To what Beeth Consciousness 

                As I am a Christian existentialist who believes in the power of democratic elitism, I have found little use in pondering the subject of abortion as it is not something that will affect me in any matter in life. I feel I am responsible enough to withhold from sexual activity until I am in a stable marriage, and also feel educated enough to use proper parental planning techniques, as the pharmacy ailse so elegantly calls itself. If my wife were having difficulty making a decision if that was truly a path she wanted to consider, I would talk her through the difficult time and seek to find what would be best for us as a family, as I do pray that the Lord will one day bless me with children of my own.

                I feel my principle still have a solid foundation and, even within this argument, have served me quite favorably. I have not found that they have adjusted very much, and as such, feel more reinforced if anything.

                I found John T. Noonan’s argument to be the least effective. I attest to believing heavily in the impact of experience on the human being and, as such, believe that a fetus has no more conscious thought than a member of wildlife. Though it may be a different debate as to the rights of animals, I would still go as far to say that, since the fetus does not have the same abilities that a mature human does (Mature being post-birth), as it cannot communicate or interact with its environment.  I feel that this part of Warren’s argument would agree with my perspective, that there are certain requirements for a conscious being to be considered human.

                With All such said, I wish you a merry day and a blessed life!

                Living in His Name,

Thomas Agrusti

                

Recent Activity

I commented on

http://honor-is-better-than-honors.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-man-should-live.html?showComment=1334872953394#c5564980068440640800

For one to be another

Thomas Agrusti

Ethical well-being

Joe Oyler

April 11, 2012

For one to be another

                Personally, I shall begin this topic bluntly. I find nothing truly wrong with cloning. In and of itself, genetic engineering is no more morally wrong than surgery or medication inside the bounds of modern technology.

The primary reason why I find nothing wrong with it is due in part to the fact that I believe in a nurture based upbringing, that a person’s genetic make-up does not dictate who they truly are. This is based on how the person was raised. Ergo, every person through my knowledge of the human mind, is a relatively blank slate psychologically, with the exception of definitive genetic traits. These traits would include, but are not entirely limited to , one’s biological make up, i.e. hair color, skin tone, eyes, etc. , as well as any genetic disease or ailment. In this manner,  person can be psychologically affected if the previous parent had autism, down syndrome, or any other type of genetic mental illness, however, other psychological traits, such as ambition, fear, intelligence, creativity, and charisma are all learned.

Continuing this debate, I feel the topic only evolves into my idea that all human psychology is malleable to a certain point, this point being after an extreme amount of conditioning has already been applied, or after one reaches a stagnant age. I believe that any person, be it through the swapping of parents, or the raising of one in a lab, can be conditioning and behaviorally raised to think and act in a certain way. Through conditioning, you can craft any person to become what you want. Genetic is a small, if not insignificant player in this equation.

In all these ways, I also feel that all things are right with consent, due to the fact that I adhere to a self-driven sense of morality and growth, a person being the master of their own lifestyle and, thereby, all of their actions being raised by their own cognition. Therefore, if a person so wished to subject themselves to scientific research to any degree, I feel they should be allowed that. If a person wanted to have their body “donated to science,” they should be able to. Who are we to restrict that person’s ability to use and create from their own body? I also believe that the advancement of human control, i.e. the control over our own lives with pursuit towards immortality, is a form of human evolution, with our advancement being vastly inevitable.

Many may still believe in the immorality of cloning, and I must say, neither of the philosophers that I have read felt sympathetic to my viewpoints in anyway, as they were more passive in their arguments, as well as apprehensive. I feel that I should be nothing but active in my stance, and joyously waiting to see more of what scientific advancement and research shall bring. I feel that my principles and points of view were upheld within my contemplation of the subject, and feel that many evolutions of humanity present an amazing opportunity for our future. We are a growing species, and the more we restrict it, the slower we grow, like putting a plant in a closet. But, bring the plant into the light, and it will grow and blossom into a beautiful masterpiece, as will we. 

I am

Thomas Agrusti

Life

April 9^th, 2012

Why I can never win an argument

                I do not claim to be a hipster. I do not live so that I fall within the bounds of an existential lifestyle; I admit to not always be the perfect Christian. However, I cannot deny a few differences that I have invariably, conflictingly, presently, between me and other humans. Whether these differences be conditioned, learned, genetic, intentional, or accidental, I know not. However, I feel that, as my first reason shall go on to expand upon, realizing, acknowledging, and being self-aware, self-conscious of such factors in my life are the primary reason for exploring them. As such, I shall endeavor into my own psyche, and how my homogenous pool is disparaged from that of other humans.  

                I am self-aware. I constantly reflect, not just on my philosophical conflicts and my goals and endeavors. I reflect on my posture, my breathing, my energy level, my health, and my well-being. I pursue ultimate self-awareness, for by knowing every variable, factor, and problem they create, you can ultimately solve all of these problems, and rise to become the alpha human. Mind you, this alpha human is not the ultimate human, but the ultimate self. I personally would not be the best athlete in the world, nor would I be the most skilled painter, violinist, architect, chemist, teacher, or grandfather. I would aim, strive, and slave to be the greatest self I could attain within my own power. I am my own obstacle, and overcoming myself, to be better than myself is the best I can be and the best I would want.

                I am unsympathetic. This may be a child of the former philosophy, which as inspiring as it may be, and as agreeing with the world as it is written, it results in an introverted human. How can I be worried about you when I’m so worried about myself? Your life is your own to live, thusly, your problems are your own to overcome, to grow upon, and to leap off of to reach the next goal and, thereby, the next problem. Thusly, I should live life parallel to yours, unless exponential, if not significant gain, can be made from the intersecting of life.  I understand that the heterogeneous nature of the natural human is a marvel and, in turn, creates an altogether greater human being. However, through unlimited, or at least unknowledgeable dependency, a perception where you don’t know how far you would go an why, is ultimately a weakness.

                I have a will. I feel that it is important to take ultimate control of my life. It is my goal to make myself better out of myself, a plant growing from external resources for internal development. I do not feel it is necessary, nor is it an obligation, to act upon the premonitions and the expectations of others. However, I do believe that acting for an ultimate purpose is beneficial, both for the individual and the world as a whole.

                I am my own, Cogito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore, I am, and I become, and I create. I am myself to evolve and decide. I have the ultimate choice and, therefore, there ultimate challenge to become the ultimate self. I am myself, which makes me different from anything else, and thereby, anyone else. I am my own. I think, therefore, I am, therefore, I live.

Recent activity

I posted a comment on http://vigsethics.blogspot.com/

Society?

Thomas Agrusti

Life

March 26, 2012

Society?

                I can quite honestly say that very little thought or care has gone into my personal socio-political philosophy. If anything is to be said about my personal beliefs, they would be primarily based on my existentialistic views on life in general, along with the Beauty of Bureaucracy.

                For the former topic, I feel that all people, being fully true to themselves, work. Not only that, but they work for specific gain, be it the righteous accomplishment of building character and well-guarded spirit, or simply the common perception of monetary gain. Therefore, I believe in a “reap-what-you-sow” philosophy: the more optimally you work, that being swifter, harder, in with more creativity, the more you will gain in the end; likewise, the less passion you put into your work, the less you should therefore receive for said work. In this manner, I would fall into the category of Libertarianism, which I feel is very well defined by the historical writer, John Locke. I believe heavily in the ideas that that which I earn, albeit time, money, or possessions otherwise, should be spent and invested in means that benefit me. Not to say that I only want to spend on things I see every day, far from it. I believe that the troops that protect our borders, the police that protect my freedom, and the insurance through fire and medical departments should be well funded and supported, and I will gladly share my part to do so. However, I believe there are other federal actions that the state selects to use my money for. I do not believe in paying for the “welfare” of another human being. I feel that if I am not directly supporting myself or a relative through education, then why should I pay for another family to send their child? In this manner, one may call me selfish, but too many times are we asked to spend out of emotional grief, sacrificing for the soul sake of conscience so we “don’t feel guilty.” I believe that by relinquishing such vices we free ourselves to be more active in our own lives.

                Moving forward to the latter topic, I have found that there is a certain beauty in bureaucracies, bureaucracies being defined as any organization that holds to a certain mandate of policies, rules, and regulations. This being a broad definition, the primary difference between it and another party, such as a club which would have rules and policies, is that many organizations are stagnant in their policies, and are never quick to change them based on certain exceptions, unless those exceptions pertain to expanding upon current set ups. Par example, I have found that, in High school, students are allowed to leave the school premises with the permission of a parent. Originally, this was meant to allow parents to pick their children up in case of a medical or family emergency. However, this can be applied as well to any day-to-day means. Add to this that the original idea that a student will lose credit for too many absences becomes null and void if the teacher decides that the student has a competent knowledge of the class material to be given credit. As such, a high school student is able to leave with the permission of lenient parents without penalty. In the same way, observing company late policies is also a common practice I have taken a liking to, knowing now that I don’t have to be at work at 4:00 per say, but at 4:09, as well as my break not being 30 minutes but 39, giving me a minor edge to work out my schedule. These may be viewed as minor conveniences, but it is through these tiny victories that we learn to relax, our relaxation allowing us to work, not only competently, but optimally. This optimal working life grants us a good model in the eye of the supervisor, granting us trust, and thereby giving us greater liberties in life, transforming what was once a few extra minutes in lunch, to a day off when the modest employee claims “they might still be able to make it to work on time.” Thus is the beauty of bureaucracy, for as I have coined, “The overcoming of authority is not through force, nor speed, but through confidence and nonchalance.” Through understanding how a system works, you do not work out how to break it, but how to weave through the cracks, and work around and through it that you truly succeed in life.

                With all such said, I wish you a merry day and a blessed life!

                Living in His Name,

                Thomas Agrusti

Recent Activity

Posted a Comment on:

http://illybueno.blogspot.com/

Death Monologue

(Note from the author: This was an essay I had to compose for an AP English course. We (the student body) were asked to write a monologue presented in the subject mind of a person, or self, within an occupation. I received Hospice Nurse as my occupation. Sitting down I thought, "What the hell could I write? I mean, I could probably just go off talking about death." And so I did. I crafted a character who is a British Woman, aged somewhere in her mid thirties, working as a Hospice Nurse.
          This is her monologue. Technically, it is not mine, as I personally believe in a Christian afterlife, I base death widely on my personal quote: "I view death as both a relief and an answer, but I do not seek it, nor will I accept it, until I have accomplished what I was put on this good earth to do. Thusly, this is primarily her words.
          With all such said, I wish you a merry day and a Blessed life!
           Living in His Name,



           Thomas Agrusti

When was the last time you could feel your own mortality? Literally reach out and touch it?

                I do almost everyday. I’ve always been around death; since the day I was a girl. Sometimes I feel like it follows me, like I can never get away from it, no matter how hard I may try.

                I was six when my sister died from leukemia. I was a lot younger then, and didn’t understand why sis wouldn’t wake up.

                But I came to greater terms with all of it when mum passed away, damn near in my arms, when I was 13, just entering academy. It was strange. There’s no special sign or change when a person happens. They don’t breathe an overdramatic gasp like they do in the movies, no glowing, ethereal spirit rises out of their body to ascend to heaven, they don’t even close their eyes. It’s more like they’ve simply stopped paying attention to life. Like everything around them, all the people and experiences, have just surpassed their needs, and they look past it, falling into a new world to explore apart from this one. Physically, you can feel as the muscle in the hand holding your own no longer has the tone it had a second ago. You can see the neck sink back, once looking and beaming directly towards your face, but then slumping into a peculiar angle, finding new distinct, yet apathetic interest in the ceiling. You notice their eyes glaze over, the milieu of life finally taking them fully, and you become consciously aware that they are no longer consciously aware. Then I cry.

                I never understood why people cry when they see someone die. Maybe it’s just the incredibly discontent that the path you saw before you did not go as you had originally plan, and the extreme symbol of grief is simply our arguing with the universe that we want to be in control of it, as opposed to it being in control of us. Maybe it’s the desire that they could have taught us so much, handing off their own experience unto us so that we wouldn’t have to fare this journey through life as grievously and as arduously as they did, and their “passing”, as death is simply the flag marking their departure from this world into the next, birth being the opposite, our lives being a mere detour in existence, and our tears are simply our begging for more knowledge and wisdom that had never been shared.

                Maybe it’s just our ignorance. Our naïve minds refusing to believe they can evolve anymore, not wanting to know the discontent the corpse in front of you once felt, being so overtaking by the urge for more that they leave, yet you, not knowing anything of the sort attempt to force them to stay, to shackle their understanding to your own, and damn them for trying to think differently.

                Certainly shines the grief of death into a far darker light.

                As I said, I see dying everyday. I see the tears like most drivers see traffic lights. I’ve heard as many life stories as children hear fairy tales. See, I’m a hospice nurse, meaning as opposed to giving the people still enjoying their tea every morning a few more days to read the paper and such, I tend to the people who know that they will soon be no more. I receive the critically ill, who have been told their day count, stamped with a “god forsaken expiration date,” as Frederick, my first “patient,” had called it. I always felt strange calling them patients. Your patient is supposed to be someone you help until they can walk out of the sliding doors to meet their family the next day. However, I’ll be damned if I let any person, even myself, tell me that I don’t help these people everyday. I have busted my arse day in and day out, ensuring that, in ward or home, that they experience their last days “comfortably,” and “efficiently.”

                I’ve treated some of the darker cases, on all sides of the spectrum. I’ve seen a man who had come back from a subway crash, so brutalized you couldn’t tell his neck from his face. The people you know had only hours, if not minutes before they would be carted out in a black bag, zipped by yours truly; the people who may or may not even be able to tell if they were already dead or not. Men scared out of their wits, and women tearing with whatever eyes they had left.

                Then come the others, the “normals” as Louisse calls them. Damn her for sticking that name for them in my head. “Normals” are people who, if you saw them, you’d probably invite them to the pub, or a game a cricket. One’s who looked absolutely fine, and appeared as though they could walk out of the hospital and be about their day, completely out of their environment in a hospital. Yet a simple chart breaks that fantasy: cancer, AIDS, Hepatitis, leukemia, names that have become all too devastatingly familiar to me throughout the years. I’ve seen words like these turn men into lost little boys, any hope that they had of returning to their school on Monday: gone. I’ve seen a girl, just about to get married in a month, having her plans torn apart by something in side of her that she could neither see, nor taste, or hear, but damn it if she couldn’t feel it. There have been people admitted in who could have their picture on the cover of a magazine, and I’ve seen them struggle to even stand.

                These are the people your heart breaks for. My hearts broken so many times now, I can’t even say it bothers me in the slightest. You lose a bit of yourself when you take this job, and there’s a name for the part you lose when you take this job: your humanity. Any other person would walk up to the person, offering enlightening words of things to come, and glorious appraisal for the blessed life they’ve had, then drawing themselves over to the family to offer their hallmark “condolences”. I can’t do that. Not just because I’ve been desensitized, but also because it grows old and hurts your reputation in this field. Getting teary eyed on the job may soften the heart of the teenage girl who walked in 5 years ago with polio, but the 70 year old man whose heart has failed him three times already, the father trying the soothe his grief stricken kids, and the four year old kid who has had trouble breathing since birth; none of them can see you “get weak.” You have to be robotic and have bedside manner at the same time. You have to be able to assure them for the thousandth time that “it won’t hurt,” and that their dinner will be on a tray in front of them in five minutes if they would just stop yelling for it every three minutes. Showing emotion in it’s purest, natural form on the job bears the idea of weakness, and that, my friend, leads to the idea, if not the illusion, of incompetence. You have to be completely air tight, nothing in or out, or you could end up hurting yourself, and the patient, more than if you had just not come to work that day. 

Yes, This is the Essay for Ethical Well Being

Thomas Agrusti

Life

February 27, 2012

Myself

                How do I define myself?

                Well I once did it by listing variables in paragraph form, the context being after an Anti-bullying seminar and me pondering my decision to become a clinical psychologist.

“I am a 6 foot tall, blond haired, blue eyed, arian man, with a 3.8 GPA, a steady job, college credit, a healthy relationship with brother and parents, no known mental or physical disability, a healthy group of friends, and a self-respecting lifestyle, wth ambition to continue and improve. How then am I supposed to empathize and talk to people who have been crushed, beaten, and tortured by themselves and the world around that that I have never known?

                Never have I been the subject of a religious, sexual, racial, or any other type of bullying, harassment, or mistreatment.

                I am a proud Heterosexual member of the Christian reformed church. How can I even treat a person who has faced all this and more?”

                How would I define myself Philosophically?

                Well, one could look through my vast number of quotes, penned and typed across my deviantart, my little blue book, and my blog. Some include:

                “I am mine own to judge”

                “Life is an adventure; Live it up!” this is evolved into the modern version of, “I don’t believe in the Buddhist idea that all life is suffering. Life’s a vacation. If I’m going to be here for a hundred years, I might as well enjoy it!”

                “The joy of being an existentialist is that every question results in a subjective answer, nothing is absolute. As such, you never end with a concrete, conclusive answer. Thusly, you always get the chance to ponder and change, grow and live, create and become. I don’t really need answers that are absolute and can’t be questioned. In fact, if I had answers, then I wouldn’t have so many wonderful  questions to have fun with all day.”

                Thusly, I am a man of my own lifestyle. I believe heavily in the following theories:

                The Value of Opinion – That every human being has the ability to justify their own state of mind, lifestyle, ideas, and philosophical pursuits, due to the primary fact that they are all crafted by human thought, outside the realms of ethical, moral, or religious subjugation.

                The Alpha theory – the belief in becoming the best that a person can be, involving the crafting of a perfect lifestyle with a fine tuned balance of comfort, relaxation, and productivity

                Morality – Any action that brings happiness to one’s life is morally correct, as long as it does not, in turn, deny themselves of happiness, or deny any other person their unalienable right to happiness.

               

Thusly, I craft who I am. Just because I’m an existentialist does mean I have to live, speak and act as an existentialist does. It is my actions that are existentialist in nature. I believe in self-actualization, I believe in the power of God and Love, and I believe that happiness is the true key to optimal living.

                Thusly, I am myself.

P.S. Yes, this is, in fact, as the title would proclaim, a summarization of myself and my principles, as asked for in my Ethical-well being course.

                

The Concept of Fantasy

Thomas Agrusti

Life

February 24, 2012

The Concept of Fantasy

                I’ve been pondering a lot over the past few years about the concept of fantasy. I’ve found that, often, people are too distracted by what they have or what they want in front of them. They need physical manifestation. They don’t want to imagine something, they want something. It’s the working held in between the desire and acquiring the end result that holds us back though.

 However, I have found that, with fantasy, with diving into one’s own psyche and reveling in one’s own imagination, we can manifest those emotions that would be felt, acquire how our bodies would react given the situation were present.

Also, in some cases I’ve found, the emotions we think we should feel when presented with the accomplished scenario aren’t present. The night we waited for was not as spectacular as we wanted it to be, the movie was decent to say the least, and it was really just an average day in the end. It is in these cases I feel that fantasy can reign even more powerful. By delving into the control of one’s psyche, we can manifest the exact emotions that we want to feel, become out own judicator of experience.

The scary part is that, by becoming this, we fall into many devilish parts of power. We could, in turn, become our own drug. We have such control over ourselves that we lose control, we only want those emotions, those experiences, nothing else. Why work for them when I can create them? Thusly, we do lose out of the idea of opportunity, things we more than likely wouldn’t have conceived. In turn, I think we can all agree that, though there are many times that life does nip us in the end, there are times when God does, indeed, work in mysterious ways, making what was originally intended to be a dull day into a spectacular one that we couldn’t have expected, meeting the person you thought you knew everything about, learning you actually did better than you intended and shall go farther because of it.

It is here that fantasy falls. For who are we to dominate and say what is life? Is life simply the expressions we bear on our faces, the neurons, serotonin and endorphins contained within our brains, our contemplation of scenarios experienced and unexperienced in life?

I believe Shakespeare, and who am I but another player to fall to the spell of the ever astounding poet, said it perfectly, when God has laid his plan, and our future is unclear, but we are ever anxious and excited to meet it, these words present themselves well:

                “Fate show thy force, for what is to come, in this, shall be.”

With all such said, I wish you a merry day and a blessed life.

                Living in His Name,

Thomas Agrusti

obSESSIONS

Thomas Agrusti

Life

February 22, 2012

Obsession

I’ve been pondering the idea of obsessions recently. I’ve noticed that I, as one may easily note by this point, pay extreme attention to certain things others might not notice or might simply find mundane. Throughout this essay, I shall be listing the many obsessions I am currently holding to, and aim to directly benefit them in some way, shape, or form.

Thusly, I shall define an obsession. The control in this experiment of thought would be a question. However, many questions that I ask may self are dismissible with an answer quite soon after they are presented. It is when they can not directly be answered immediately that they become an obsession, a topic with advanced forms of focus and deduction laid upon it. As such, an obsession is simply a question that I have yet to answer, and in turn, pay special, extended periods of time pondering them for an answer or a course of action due to them. Thusly, they are obSESSIONS: OBservationsal SESSIONS. Thus is one way of thinking of the matter from my perspective. Humor is meant to be a perspective of philosophy when we realize how ironic our lives truly are. However, with this stated, I shall move into my first, light hearted topic.

                The Hallelujah Chorus

Firstly, I shall start with a true obsession, but not one of great intensity, as it may or may not even affect the direct course of my life, but is present nonetheless. In 1741, George Frideric Handel wrote his greatest orchestral-choir piece, known as Messiah. Included in this epic collection is the famous and highly revered Hallelujah Chorus. Since hearing this song in the beginning of the 2011 – 2012 school year, it has been on an indulgent repeat. I’ve been examining its original sheet music, listening constantly to the composition, as well as pondering a solo version of the song. This is a minor obsession as it is more for the sake of enjoyment, as well as the fact that it doesn’t directly affect my philosophical perspective. This brings me into my second obsession.

Plays and Productions

I’ve been crafting several ideas for a play and a movie, both musicals, involving the constant flow of modern-esque music. However, as I have been personally cursed with, I have the inability to complete a project once started. As such, the idea of starting a musical production is near impossible and implausible in my mind. As such, however, I am allowed to play with the idea indefinitely, forever crafting a story, adding songs and scenes, letting myself watch an ever growing movie, always fitting to my own vision. This is quite pleasant, as I am one who believes thoroughly in the belief that it is the mind and the concept of fantasy that presents more reality that the manifested world in front of me. Thus ends the minor notes of obsessions and moves us into the grander topics, starting still with the least impactful.

Beauty

Due in part to a recent romantic pursuit, I’ve been learning more about and working more towards exterior, cosmetic “beauty”. I use quotations since this is obviously the topic of debate. I have always, and still, enforce that is beauty of the mind that is more valuable than perceieved perfection of the skin and scalp. As such, I have examined the concept of beauty and taken note of its vicious cycle. In theory, when we look at the reflection of ourselves in the mirror, and find what we would label as imperfections, I.e. acne, blackheads, redness, etc, we immediately label our current status as “not good enough,” working then to “improve” on this front. Thusly, we buy cosmetic products to fill our faces with. As such, we craft our faces to become a matter of human creation, which, by common definition, would make it an artificial product, not one that is naturally our own. Mind you, this is a shallow point to say the least, but the argument continues forward with a new psychological theory. Once we examine ourselves,

 I find it difficult to conclude that we ever become truly consent with our standing. This is enforced by the fact that we use daily routines, daily product, things that, if we stopped using them, we would return to the “hideous shells we once inhabited,” or, a person is led through constant discontentment, never being satisfied with their outward appearance, despite the fact that they might be considered to be one of the top 10% when it comes to cosmetic possibility.

 With this theory in mind, we move the perspective of the reflective eye being placed on another human. Once we have become so bent on finding every flaw on ourselves, we start looking more intensely on others, thinking of ways to “improve” them and “fix their problems.” In such a case that this introspective person becomes the cosmetic judicator over others, we have taken our standards and placed them on a near unreachable level, since we crave finding flaws at this point, and discontentment becomes our water.

This is my obsession with beauty, and it bickers me still because of my debate between health and beauty, two things that become one in the same one looking at our supermarkets aisle list. In one sense, health would imply hygiene, which means that dissolving acne and cleaning blackheads would be beneficial to your health and prevent any types of pain or infection. On the other hand, it is when the pursuit becomes exterior beauty and not health that this quest becomes destructive, as I explained in the previous paragraphs. Presently, I feel distinguishing the two is quite a challenge. For one to focus on health entirely and find it to be the primary conclusion seems quite difficult. Mind you, it is difficult in the sense that learning the violin or running 10 miles is difficult. Not impossible, as many have done it and proceeded to succeed themselves in greater factors, but it still lays as a looming goal nonetheless. While one speaks on the perspective beauties, mind and body, I feel it only necessary to move onto the romantic debate in my mind.

Mate

Now, I use mate in more of a casual, Australian-esque sense of the word, but with implied weight. I’d like to find a woman who finds joy in being with me, who desires to study me, but not admire and praise me past positive support. With no intention of narcissism, I have been a trophy compared to someone I’ve dated, and despised every moment. I have also been ignored and forced into a state of distraught. Thusly, I’d like to find someone who is always seeking the most fun out of a situation, someone who would love to some over just to paint a new room, take a nap together, or randomly go hiking in the middle of February. I have seen these types of connections, and believe that it is plausible that such a person exists, not presently in the population that I socially interact with, but in this world and in the indefinite power of God’s divine will. Mind you, I submit myself to His will, and, if he should have other plans for me, I shall happily accept them. But I still abide that this is my pursuit and obsession, as I am constantly analyzing possible mates in every woman I meet, imaging what events in my life would look life if she was there beside me.

However, I also bring myself to restrict depression through desire, as this would be more destructive to my overall goal rather than benefiting me with any sort of drive or added ambition. With this in mind, I live every day in euphoric anticipation for the days I may one day spend with her. And she will be a wonderful woman.

With this topic presented, I shall move forward to a new topic.

Job opportunity

This one I shall explore with only shallow attention as it is, in turn, a shallow topic, being more of a regret than an obsession. While working one day and presenting myself with a sophisticated, yet humorous tone in an accent derived from the people of Birmingham, I met a gentleman who apparently owned a small financial company near the region that I live. However, being close to the end of my day at work, I had little energy to fully examine the situation. In the end, I gave him my number shook his hand, and showed mixed interest in the job opportunity that he presented to me, tossing in the word management in the conversation I remember. However, in this mind fog, I neglected to obtain his number. As such, I still await a call like a high school student waiting for his crush to call him. Quite an unfortunate position for me, but one that I must accept; should the Lord’s will be that I take this job, I feel that he will call at the proper time. Until then, no action can be taken on my part.

With this topic fully explored, I enter into what is currently my final and most powerful obsession

Alpha Theory

A philosophy is a category that one fits into based on the variables and factors present in one’s philosophical perspectives. However, one must also be witness to the fact that it is you, the reader, the thinker, the philosopher, who defines your philosophy, you define how you live, not your philosophy. You do not choose to meditate for an hour because you’re a Taoist, you are a Taoist because you choose to meditate for an hour.

As such, I am an existentialist who defines what it means to me to be an existentialist. To me, one of the primary goals of living this life is self-actualization, the constant process of bettering yourself by your own definitions, and finding limitless pleasure in doing so. As such, I believe that nirvana is the perfect process, not the final product of being the best, for that would lead to ultimate disappointment, equivalent to the quote of Alexander the Great, “He looked over the vast lands that made up his kingdom, and wept, for there were no more worlds left for him to conquer;” nirvana for my existentialist mind is to find a perfect process where whatever can be improved can be improved optimally. The step by step process to live and learn that is the most proficient is what I strive for: to be the best I can be, yes, but to also become the best at becoming the best I can be, judging only myself in the matter, as I feel can only be justified by myself.

However, the debate comes in the Alpha theory, which is the question of the human races capacity to do the same. As stated before, I make no claims to becoming a narcissist, for I believe that the only person I am truly better than is myself and who I can become, yet I cannot ignore the fact that I have been taught psychological lessons that certain people, be it by genetic construction, neuropsychological and neurophysiological reasons, or one’s upbringing, cannot even fathom becoming better by any means. In turn, the idea ends when thinking that one’s best might be the ceiling they may eventually run into. Though worded as such, it is mildly depressing, but think of the “Brave New World” lifestyle: In order for there to be medical doctors, there has to be an oil rig worker who makes sure the gasoline gets to his car, the factory worker who makes sure the hypodermic needles are made and shipped, the nurse who takes the initial examinations, and the kitchen workers, who deliver the patients meals to the room. The doctor, in turn, is not the most important variable in this equation of maintaining life and social construct, but simply another variable and equal part. True, it takes a certain person to face the stresses of medical school, along with the trial that is internship and residency, and such people may be seen as great people, but it also takes a person to be able to wipe down the bedpans at the end of the day. In the same way a janitor may not have the devotion to become a doctor, a doctor would probably have either too much “dignity” to wash a bedpan, or simply not desire to commit to learning the proper cleaning and storage process. In turn, the janitor becomes a necessity, and a valuable player in life’s great equation. As such, if we had a society of super geniuses, who would mop the floors at night, and stock the shelves at Macy’s; these people are all part of our society and deserve as much praise as the war hero, the lawyer, and the teacher.

This, in turn, settles one argument. However, I know myself all too well to think I’ll ever be content with having nothing to think about in terms of the Alpha, the best person, the best on can become of one’s self.

Currently, my obsessions seem to be stated and known to myself and any person who shall ever read this in history, if any.

                With all such aid, I wish you a merry day and a blessed life!

                Living in His Name,

Thomas Agrusti

The Defense of A Banished Philosophy

Thomas Agrusti

Philosophy

1 Life

Mesmerize

Defense of a Banished Philosophy

                Recently, I recalled a debate I had with myself, and a few peers, about a type of philosophy that has gone into an area so gray, if not black, that people regard in one of the harshest negatives of American society. Before stating the defense of this philosophy, I shall first present the irony in several other philosophies that are regarded with a smile within the same American society. Note, these are all based on the idea of passive philosophies, regarding the thought and the personal beliefs within moral withstanding.

                The first philosophy, as well as the backing trait in this philosophy to my defense, is certain forms of Buddhism. Though Buddhism does hold a general system of beliefs, as do any other philosophy or religious faith, certain faiths follow a reverence towards Buddha, placing him above the standard of human being. He is regarded in some scenarios as a creation of divine conception, that he has accomplished super human feats, and that his life practices fall well within the bounds of super human presence. The same philosophy also wards off worldly desires, calling those of great faith to live in an area above that of common society, creating a section of human beings who are above the rest based on their standard of living, and should, thusly, have a position to be aspired, and revered for those already, or seeking to attain, this position.

                Keeping all these in mind, we move to stoic philosophy, along with the general sense of self-actualization. For the course of this essay, we shall bear in mind that “Self-actualization” shall be defined as “the act and desire for one to specialize and actively improve upon their own abilities.” In short, this will mean “A person actively becoming, and seeking to become, the best that they can possibly be, both philosophically, mentally, and physically.” Though not only limited to stoic philosophy, the act of self-actualization is greatly respected and, in some persons, revered, within American society. For a person to reach towards a greater goal of self-accomplishment, be it for personal desire and or reward, or some other purpose, this act and philosophy is one greatly accepted by American society.

                The last philosophy is a dramatization of these past two in past history, known as the Spartan philosophy. It is known that, within the Spartan regime, a person was expected to be the best they could possibly be, a state of self-actualization. These persons were meant to be the fastest and the strongest out of the entire human race, to excel in every field that they could reach. It should also be known that Spartan society held to the practice and knowledge that those who didn’t would lose their life, be it by the hand of the enemy, or by the society’s own hand. This being said, American philosophy, of the greater American dream, bears heavily into this idea, though not officially stated. In the business world, one must work and strive arduously in order to attain wealth, power, personal prospect, and those who do not are known as “lay-abouts”, regarded with contempt for being lazy and working towards no accomplishment and no benefit to the society, being left with no economic value, and thereby, leading to their own social destruction, born in the contempt that American Society holds for them. This trait mirror greatly the same Spartan philosophy of “Make it or break it.”

                Finally, we come to the defense of the negatively regarded philosophy. The previous philosophies, which I believe American Society accepts greatly, include the traits of: Reverance to a human being as a leader and example for all, as well as the reverence and aspiration for a type of living that creates a greater form of human living; the act and practice of self-actualization to become the best that one can possibly be; the knowledge that not living to the best of one’s capacity, that the state would invariably leave them behind, or do away with them, holding them in contempt for being lesser and human. If any of these should disagree with the previous arguments and claims, then the argument ends here since the reasoning is false. However, if all of these philosophies still hold true, and are all respected in American society, then think of Nazism; how, if these are respected, is Nazism, which is simply a collection of these traits, resented as a negative philosophy? Mind you, it shall be understood that the practice of malicious, violent, or vulgar acts should be discarded as morally wrong, as it denies a person or persons from the birth right of happiness. However, the philosophy itself could be known, in American society as righteous.

-          (This section was written at a later time. Thusly, a change in tone may be seen due to a change in the state of mind from fatigue and the re-accountance of the train of thought.)

                If further reinforcement is needed, one should start by lining up the traits equally and within the coexisting boundaries. The Nazi philosophy regards Adolf Hitler as a righteous man, and, in some views, a deity. Alongside of him were the Gestapo, the German forces, SS, and other members of his inner circle, who held true to the values of the Nazi philosophy. The Nazi philosophy also calls those who hold their faith to show no sympathy in those below them, now obedience to anyone other than your brothers in arms and leaders above them, and silent consent and loyalty to any demand and duty that you are called for. It is also known that those who were less capable or irreverent to the faiths and loyalty demanded of them, they were to be done away with. Thusly, we see the matching traits between these two fields of thought.

                In closing, the reader should not be demanded to mold thine own views, faiths and beliefs based on this paper. However, I do call those who read this, along with all human beings, to think with a free mind, bearing that all things can be viewed in any light. One should not be constrained or constricted to view things only within the light that it is commonly viewed under. Thusly, I encourage and beckon all those to free thought, viewing any and all topics from every imaginable angle for internal and external discovery. As such, I sign off on this essay, and wish those reading this a good day and a blessed life.

Of Life and Goodness

The following are two essays that I penned in the start of the 2011 - 2012 school year. 

Within them are several mentions of another essay I wrote during my junior year, known as "The Value of Opinion." The Value of Opinion stated that all opinions manifested by human conception were all equal, retrospectively outside of morality and ethics. Par example, if a person enjoys a movie or dislikes the same movie, both people are justified in thinking independently of the other for their own reasons. Continuing the train of thought, a person's personal philosophy can not be demeaned as being "wrong" or "invalid" in comparison to another, since both the original and the arguing points are both conceived out of human thought. As such, they are presently equal. This is the main overview of what has to be known when speaking about "The Value of Opinion"

Thomas Agrusti

Life

November 9, 2011

Of Life

                It should be stated that everything to be said is based upon personal thought, belief, and philosophy, that all human beings, being believed to be created equal, should value and formulate their own opinions based upon personal preference and belief, and as such, based on the Value of Opinion, respected as an equally created human thought

                Thus being said, I have found that all minds, following in part to the Value of Opinion, have equal justification of one’s thoughts and lifestyles. Par example, the person who believes in that value of beautification of the human body for the attraction of a mate, or even for personal satisfaction, is just as justified in doing so as the person who believes in the training and beautification of the mind, believing that this, in turn, is more important and valuable in life, is equally justified, being that both of these philosophies are the manifestations of the human mind, and thusly, are both livable.

 Truly, the only difference in a person’s lifestyle from another should be their own pursuit of happiness. For one to live a life that they choose to be unhappy would be unjustified, as they are denying themselves a rightful means for happiness. For one to live a life accepting unhappiness would be unwise, and thusly, should be asked to be changed, as this is hazardous due to ignorance.

Continuing the same path of that which one may claim that one way of life should be degraded is the degradation of another person’s lifestyle based upon the beliefs that one’s life is benevolent when compared to the subject at hand. Thusly, if one person believes that their way of life is greater that another’s based simply on personal opinion, they are unjustified in their claim. This is not to say that their life is lesser or greater, for no such case exists. However, the act of degrading another person’s life should be discouraged. All people, as explained before, have a personal philosophical right and duty to craft their own philosophies, views, beliefs, and ways of life, not befalling to the criticisms of another person. Par example, if one person is categorized as orange, and another as red or blue, they can not say “I am better, because I am orange, and you are blue. I am greater, because I am orange.” Such a claim would be ludicrous. Instead, a person can only claim, “You are orange because you are orange. I am blue.” The thought process ends at this since all people have the right to their own way of life.

As stated before, all claims and belief made are the personal manifestations and thoughts of mine own mind. Another person reading this would be asked to read and consider my own thoughts, however, no obligation is based upon them to accept or adhere to such thoughts, as they are entitled to think however they want. As such, I sign off on this essay, and wish those reading this a good day and a blessed life.

Thomas Agrusti

Life

November 9, 2011

Of Goodness

                For one to understand any set of the following words, it should be understood that previous essays, primarily “The Value of Opinion” and “Of Life.” Also to be noted, any thoughts, beliefs, statements, and philosophies presented in this essay are entirely based on my own personal thoughts, beliefs, and philosophies. Any person or persons reading this should take into consideration their own, and be entitled to craft their own, with or without including mine own.

                Thusly, I present the topic of and ask for the set definition of “Goodness.” One would believe that goodness would play in part of positive factors of one’s personality and way of life. As such, who is the judicator of defining what is positive or good? What would be virtue or an act to be called and noted as virtuous? Aren’t ethics and morals based upon the beliefs of a person or persons based upon philosophies or religion? Thusly, how can one truly say what would connote being good and righteous? Aren’t all religions, faiths, and beliefs equal in that they are each divinely inspired and kept within the confines of human mind?

                Therefore, one must ponder the idea of what is ethically and morally “Right”, should they not? By my own beliefs, holding true that happiness is the true and imbued nature of life’s activity, I would then move to say that that which accelerates, allows, and promotes the idea and the pursuit of happiness would then be righteous and good, and one who acts as a benevolent presence would grant and enthuse righteous happiness in all around, and a tragic person would act in part to bring sadness upon themselves and upon those around them, bearing in mind and knowledge to their own actions, and the consequences stated.

                Thus thoughts should be taken into consider by my reader, and ponder them for meaning and relevance, however, no requirement, as should be obvious at this point within this discussion, to be inclined nor accepted in the reader’s mind, but may be if they so desire. With everything said, I shall wish you a good day and a blessed life.