The Logical Fallacies of Christianity

(Note: This is a reinterpretation of "The Contradictions of Christianity" using Logical statements based off of the transitive property to prove the methodology of Christianity as invalid)

The Logical Fallacies of Christianity

Throughout my Christian journey, I believe I have found many contradictions in the message of Christianity. I will be using propositions in order to logically elaborate on my argument presented in “The Contradictions of Christianity”.

Firstly, we must set up our parameters:

For the sake of argument, we will reason that God exists.

Christianity is a religion whereby a person achieves one or more of 5 goals:

1)      Promise of life after death

2)      Redemption for past wrong doings

3)      Explanation for unanswered questions

4)      Guidance in how to approach life

5)      Promise for peace in this life (i.e. the conscious life lived in the material world)

Though more reason can exists, these are the ones will be focusing on.

However, each goal is not met by Christianity.

A person can seek Christianity in order to find peace in this life.

However, the Bible points out that “being a Christian is not a pleasant life. There will be suffering, and person will be required to bear their cross every day.”

As such, if suffering is promised, then a person does not have peace, nor are they promised peace.

Reason 5 is invalid.

Christianity can be viewed philosophically, and used in order to approach life in an ethically righteous manner.

However, if righteousness is based on the motivation, then supposedly righteous acts would be evil if the motivation is evil.

Therefore, if Christianity can be proven to have evil motivations, then Christianity would not be an ethically righteous philosophy.

Reason 4 is invalid if this can be proven.

A person can look to Christianity in order to find answers for questions such as creation.

However, other philosophers, such as Hume, explain how this is invalid.

Therefore, if Christianity’s answers to these questions are wrong, then a person cannot look to Christianity for these answers.

Reason 3 is invalid.

If a person has committed an action that they feel guilty for and seek redemption, they may look towards Christianity to find forgiveness.

However, if they find forgiveness for themselves, and in the person(s) affected by the act, then they are already forgiven in the physical world, and any other forgiveness would be presented between God and Human.

If Gods was an artificial construct of the mind, then the forgiveness would also be an artificial construct.

Therefore, if forgiveness is simply an artificial manifestation of the mind, then there is no forgiveness, and this reason is invalid.

Based on this, Reason 2 is invalid.

If God exists, then this wrongdoing would be sin. This concept of the weight of sin will be discussed later.

If a person follows Christianity, then they would want to go to heaven after they die.

However, the methodology of what qualifies a person to get into heaven is unclear.

Therefore, if a person does not understand how to get into heaven, then they cannot get into heaven.

Reason 1 is invalid.

Reason 1 will be our next topic of discussion.

Only a Christian can go to heaven.

A person who isn’t a Christian cannot go to heaven.

However, what qualifies a person as a Christian?

A Christian can be thought of as a person who fulfills three criteria:

1)      A person who believes in God

2)      A person who believes in Jesus Christ

3)      A person who believes the Bible

Belief is found by following two criteria:

1)      The understanding of the principle

2)      The trust in the principle

If a person does not understand the principle, then they cannot know what they are trusting. If they do not trust the object, then they do not have faith in it, and they don’t believe in it.

As such if a person does not understand and trust God, Jesus Christ, and/or the Bible, then they would not be a Christian.

Now, if a person decides that Christianity is based on unfounded faith, then the only criterion for a Christian would be the trust of God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible.

However, this trust can only remain if propositions made between the two, person and principle, remained true.

Therefore, if the propositions were proven to be false, then there would be no trust, and the person would not be a Christian.

If there is a methodology to get into heaven, then Christianity would present this method and make the propositions that would lead a person into heaven.

However, if all of the propositions were proven to be contradictory and false, then there would be no way for a person to get into heaven.

Therefore, Christianity would be invalid, since the religion does not accomplish what it sets out to do.

This is what I am aiming to prove.

Now, the Bible also states “You must be fully committed to one master. If you have two masters, you will love one and hate the other.”

However, this would mean that a person must be fully, ultimately, and unquestionably committed to God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible in order to be considered a Christian.

Therefore, a person cannot make the claim at varying degrees of grey, or with different interpretations; they must be 100% Christian.

Christianity states that Jesus was sacrificed for the complete forgiveness of all sins, and people who were forgiven of sins could go to heaven.

However, before Jesus Christ was sacrificed, there was no forgiveness of sin.

Therefore, it was Jesus’s sacrifice that allows a person to go to heaven, and to be forgiven of sin.

Now, for the weight of sin, I will be using numerical value to state the weight of sin. This is simply to make logical sense of weight and to represent statement.

Now, if sin is wrong, then we shall believe it is a negative effect and will be regarded as -1.

However, if Jesus’s death has forgiven all sins, then it would mathematically be +Infinity.

Therefore, sin is meaningless, since the actual cost of sin is outweighed by Jesus’s sacrifice.

Now if sin is meaningless, then a person could sin as much as they want.

However, Christianity teachers a person to flee from sin.

Therefore, Christianity must claim that sin has a consequence in order to teach a person that it is wrong.

Now, if sin has a consequence, then it would have a cost.

However, if committing an act of sin keeps a person from getting into heaven, then they are not forgiven of their sin.

Therefore, if a person’s sin keeps them from entering heaven, then Jesus’s sacrifice was meaningless.

Now, if righteous acts are considered +1, then we, as humans, can counter-weigh their own sins.

However, this would allow people to enter heaven based off of their own actions.

Therefore, if a person can enter heaven on their own actions, then Jesus’s sacrifice is meaningless.

Now, if a person could get into heaven based on their own acts, then they can enter heaven without Jesus’s sacrifice.

However, no person was able to enter heaven before Jesus’s sacrifice because there was no forgiveness of sin.

Therefore, a person’s righteous acts do not atone for their sins, and a person’s own actions cannot bring them into heaven.

So far, we can find one contradiction.

If Jesus’s sacrifice forgives us of sin, then our sin would be canceled out.

However, Sin would have to have a meaningful cost to be considered wrong.

Therefore, Christianity states that Sin has a cost and consequence, but the sacrifice states that it doesn’t.

As such, we must discover what the consequence of sin is and how it would interfere with a person entering heaven.

Now, if a person needs to believe in God/Jesus/the Bible in order to enter heaven, then they must trust them.

However, if they stopped trusting them, then they would not go into heaven

Therefore, a person must remain in trust in order to enter heaven.

Now, if sin causes a person to distrust God, then it would have a consequence.

However, if a person had a resolute mind, then they could sin and still trust in God.

Therefore, Sin has to have some consequence aside from causing a person to distrust God

Now, if a person does not enter heaven because of their sin, then their sin was not forgiven.

However, if a person’s sin was not forgiven, then there would be a step in between sinning and being forgiven.

Therefore, a person must commit some sort of action in conjunction with the sacrifice in order to be forgiven.

This action could be repentance. Repentance is defined as following one or more of the following three criteria:

1)      To cease sinning

2)      To create barriers between them and sinning again

3)      To commit to doing the opposite of the sin

Now, the first criterion is the most essential, since a person cannot repent of sinning if they are still committing the sin.

Now, if a person repents and is forgiven, then it was the repentance that granted them the forgiveness through Jesus’s Sacrifice.

However, repentance cannot be judged fully until death, or else a person can return to the sin between starting their repentance and their death.

Therefore, a person must continue repentance throughout their entire life.

Now, if a person must be free of sin, then they must be free of all sins, continually repenting of all sins.

However, this would mean that a person would have to live a sinless life, which is shown to be near impossible.

Therefore, if Christianity asks us to be sinless in order to obtain forgiveness, then only the people who can meet a near impossible can enter heaven.

Now one strange thing I feel is worth mentioning is the idea of timing. It can be agreed that few people can know when they are guaranteed to die, as death is usually unexpected.

Now it can be reasoned that sins are forgiven from the point of repentance to death.

Therefore, a person who repented at the age of 18 could live to be 100, then die, and would be expected to remain sinless for the full 82 years.

 However, a person who repented seconds before death would be equally forgiven.

Therefore, a person cannot be sure of how long they will refrain from sin.

Now, if a person was to repent at 18, return to sin at 99, then die at 100, then the 81 years of repentance would be meaningless since they did not exhibit true repentance.

However, this would mean that repentance must be continual.

Therefore, a person must always return to repentance whenever they return to sin in order to be forgiven.

Now, if a person switches back and forth between sinning and repenting, then they would simply have to end on repentance in order to enter heaven.

However, this would still discredit the sin and the repentance you did before the final act of repentance.

Therefore, it does not matter how long you repented, simply that you ended in repentance.

Now, if a person simply needs to end in repentance to enter heaven, then the rest of their life doesn’t matter.

However, this would discredit living a full life in Christ.

Therefore, Sin must have a consequence other than preventing us from entering heaven.

Now, a passage in the Bible says “I know I can do all things, but not all things are good for me,” which would state that sin is a punishment itself, that the sin will hurt you in some way.

However, what if a person morphs a sin to be ethically right, such as the Heinz dilemma where you steal to save a life, or the Trolley car dilemma where you kill one man to save the lives of several, etc.

Therefore, not all sins are committed with evil intentions.

Therefore, sins are not all ultimately evil.

Now, if sins are not ultimately evil, then they don’t have to be a consequence unto themselves.

However, this would contradict sin hurting a person other than keeping them from heaven.

Therefore, there is no consequence to sin if it doesn’t keep you from entering heaven, does not sway your trust in God, and does not hurt us in this life.

Now, it must be understood that sin is only morally righteous if the motivation/intention and end result was ultimately righteous.

However, if a sin is done for morally evil reasons and yielded an evil result, then the act was a punishment unto itself since it has the potential to hurt the perpetrator or the victim.

Now, for the sake of being thorough, there is also the possibility that sin is not forgivable, and anyone who has ever sinned cannot enter heaven.

However, this would contradict the entire premise of Christianity.

Therefore, sin must be forgivable in order for Christianity to be valid.

Now, the Bible does state that all sins are forgivable, except for sins against the Spirit, I.E. blaspheming the name of God, which is unforgivable.

However, this would mean that there is sin that can keep a person from heaven.

Therefore, there exists a sin that can keep a person from heaven, while other sins do not, meaning that not all sins are of equal value.

Mathematically speaking, this would mean that blaspheming the spirit would be –infinity-1, as this is unforgivable past Jesus’s Sacrifice.

So far, there are a collection of contradictions that need to be refreshed.

First, if Sin keeps a person from entering heaven, then forgiveness atones for those sins, allowing the person into heaven.

However, how a person obtains forgiveness is unclear.

Therefore, if a person does not obtain forgiveness, they cannot enter heaven.

Second, if sins keep a person from entering heaven, the ultimate place of righteousness, then sin must be evil.

However, we have shown that certain actions can be marked as sin by title, i.e. the act of murder, but can be proven to be ethically right for having morally righteous intentions and results.

Therefore, not all sins can be considered evil.

Third, sin can be forgiven to allow a person into heaven.

However, blasphemy cannot be forgiven.

Therefore, blasphemy can keep a person from entering heaven.

Fourth, the bible states that no sin is too great or done too much to be forgiven.

However, we have shown that not all sins are equal, since a person can commit a sin while being morally righteous or evil.

Therefore, not all sins are equal in value, and must have some type of weight to them.

Fifth, if a person wants to enter heaven and receive forgiveness, they must repent of their sin.

However, a person can authentically repent of their sin when they are seconds from death.

Therefore, a person does not have to spend their entire life devoted to God, only the last moment of life.

Now I would like to flow into a new topic.

For this topic we must also set up a few more axioms.

During the BC years, Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesized that a time would come when a savior would be born. This savior would live, teach the message of God, be betrayed, suffer, and finally be crucified for the complete forgiveness of all sin.

Now, at a later point in time Jesus was born. He lived, became a rabbi, appointed his disciples, and taught the message that is recorded in the New Testament.

Later in Jesus’s life, he is betrayed by Judas, condemned to be flogged and crucified, and dies. He then rises from the dead on the third day. This sequence of events leads to the forgiveness of all sins, for Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, defeated death, and rose up from the dead. This act of condemnation, crucifixion, and resurrection allowed people to enter heaven.

Now, if the end result of this sequence is the forgiveness of all sins, then the sequence would ultimately be a sequence of acts that are righteous.

However, one of the acts is the betrayal of Judas.

Therefore, in order to obtain the ultimate good, Judas’s sinful action had to occur.

Now, if this is true, then it must be accepted further that sin can ultimately have righteous results despite having evil intentions.

However, we must also question whether it is the intention behind the action or the end result that warrants whether or not a person deserves to be punished for their action.

Therefore, we must ponder whether Judas should have been punished or acquitted for betraying Jesus.

Now, the Bible states “It was at that time that the devil entered Judas, and he decided to betray Jesus.” This could be interpreted in two ways:

A)     Judas made a sinful decision, allowing sin in to his heart.

B)      Satan literally possessed Judas and overshadowed his actions.

However, if B is true, then Judas would not be accountable for his actions, since it was Satan acting through his body that caused Jesus’s death.

Therefore, Judas would be innocent.

Now, if the former is true, then Judas would have betrayed Jesus out of conscious evil intention.

However, it is shown later that Judas regrets this decision. If this regret is repentance, then he should have received forgiveness

Therefore, Judas should have been forgiven of his sin, unless this is considered blasphemy.

Now, if all these statements are found to be true, then we would be left with unanswered questions:

1)      What is the true cost of sin?

2)      What weight does it carry in preventing us from entering heaven?

Now, if every statement was found to be true, and the questions left unanswered, then the contradictions would still stand.

However, this would mean that there is no clear method for a person to get into heaven

Therefore, Christianity is Invalid.

The Contradictions of Christianity

Recently I have been looking into several contradictions I believe I have found in Christianity.

As a Philosopher, I have accepted to challenge to seek to define and prove this contradiction.

Furthermore, I seek your council to confirmation if my thinking is valid.

Over the years, I have considered myself a Christian and followed in its practices. This includes going to church, praying, and reading the bible. It can be reasoned that a person adopts a faith for one or more of the following reasons:

1)      Promise of life after death

2)      Redemption for past wrong doings

3)      Explanation for unanswered questions

4)      Guidance in how to approach life

5)      Promise for peace in this life (i.e. the conscious life lived in the material world)

Though it can be admitted that more reasons may exist, these are the primary reasons I feel necessary to state for this argument. One by one I would like to disprove each approach and present the found contradiction.

In reverse order, the 5^th reason is disproved by the bible itself, as it states that “a person living a life for Christ WILL face suffering and WILL have to bear their cross every day for their faith.”

The fourth approach is invalid as the faith itself stands on feeble ground. Though many Christian practices can be admired, the philosophy of Christianity as a whole does not have a stable foundation.

Although Genesis presents an argument as to how the world was created, philosophers such as Hume would argue that such claims are logical fallacies, and thus are not valid explanations.

Redemption is technically a state of mind, as one must find fault with themselves and hold themselves accountable. It is then up to the subject to find forgiveness. However, a person must primarily find forgiveness for themselves and for the affected party/parties, if any exists. If we believe that God is an artificial manifestation of the mind, then the forgiveness is also an artificial manifestation, having no actual value in the grand scheme of things.

Finally is the promise after death, which is where the contradiction lies.

There are two approaches that I have found to this goal:

A)     The As you are

B)      The As you never will be

The “As you are” approach states that God has an unimaginable love for human beings, and has sacrificed his son for the complete forgiveness of all of our sins. As such, the only requirement for one to get into heaven is to accept that this event is true, that God is real and Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. We must also believe that Jesus is the son of God.

This has 2 problems:

1)      God is the ultimate writer of all of the world’s laws. Therefore, he can state whether or not there is a cost for sin. If he states that there is, then it is up to us to pay it. However, by sacrificing His son, He is paying OUR debt. Thusly we are not in debt for our sins, but instead in debt for the sacrifice that He committed. In this case, we are indebted to God and must pay with our own lives. In theory, this can be thought of as greater challenge or an impossible one. It is greater if OUR sacrifices and deeds as humans can atone for our sins. It is impossible if our actions cannot atone for our sins. If our actions cannot atone for our sins, then we can never make the proper sacrifice to equal Jesus’s sacrifice. This leads into the “As you never will be” approach.

2)      If Jesus’s sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice, and our actions cannot make up for our sins, then we are already forgiven for our sins and are already accepted. As such, we are guaranteed a place in heaven as long as we believe, and nothing we can do in life can change that. As such, we can sin as much as we want and we will always be forgiven as long as we believe. This theory can be countered with the idea of reliance. If we constantly devote ourselves to God, praying, going to church, and so on, we keep God in our mind, and thusly remember to believe in him. If we abstain from such processes we will begin to depend on ourselves and forget God and Paradise. However, If a person remembers God past all there sin, they would still be guaranteed a place in heaven, contradicting the idea that it is up to us as humans to abstain from sin, since this policy believes there is no penalty for sinning if our faith remains constant.

The next argument is the “As you will never be.” It can be believed that only Christians can be allowed into heaven, for a person being allowed into heaven who isn’t a Christian would be illogical. However, the bible states that a person is not considered a Christian unless that are wholly committed to God. This requires them to put God ahead of all other facets of life, including family, occupation, aspirations, and everything else that a person can identify with. As such, their entire palette is swapped from that of a human to that of Jesus. However, the bible also reveals that this is impossible, as no human being can achieve perfect faith. The only people who can claim to have done so are Jesus himself and Job. Jesus can be acquitted as he is the Son of God and may have some divine potential to remain in faith. Job as such is the only true human to have remained faithful no matter what. This presents the idea that only one person to our knowledge has lived a fully devoted life. Other biblical figures, such as Paul, Peter, Solomon, and so on, are shown to fall short of the goal that God has put forth for them. As such, if these grand figures of faith could not attain the level of devotion required of us, how can we? By this argument, there is little to no chance a person can reach the goal God has set for us, then any effort to do so would be futile.

As such, It can be stated that if either approach is true, then sinful action or righteous action has no effect other than straying our attention from God. Therefore, the only way to get into heaven is if:

A)     Sin has no cost against us since all sins are forgiven

B)      We believe in God’s existence and Jesus’s act and identity

If this is true, then a person does not need to evangelize, pray, go to church, and so on, as long as they maintain faith.

This is the primary contradiction: The bible does not clearly state which of these approaches is correct.

There are two other contradictions, one simple, one not so simple.

The Second contradiction is the role of Judas. It can be agreed that Judas “betrayed” Jesus so that he would be sentenced to death. Based on my knowledge, I believe this betrayal was Judas standing as a witness to Jesus committing an illegal act so that he would be condemned to death. However, HOW Judas isn’t important, simply that fact that he caused Jesus to die.

Now, the motivation for Judas betraying Jesus must be called into question. It is stated in the Bible that “it was at that point that the devil entered Judas, and he was persuaded to betray Jesus.”

This can be interpreted in two ways:

A)     Judas made the sinful decision to betray Jesus for personal reasons

B)      Satan possessed Judas to commit the act of betraying Jesus against his will.

If B is true, then Judas cannot be held accountable for his actions since it was not HE who chose to commit, but Satan who overpowered him. If A is correct, then it was Judas’s decision, and he is to held accountable.

If either is true, then the act of Judas betraying Jesus was actually one of the most holy acts in history.

Here is why:

Before Jesus was physically born, it was prophesized that a savior would come, live, and be sacrificed for the complete forgiveness of all sins. It is the sacrifice that caused the forgiveness. Jesus said in the Garden of Olives and to his disciples that He HAD to die, that what came to pass MUST happen. If Jesus never died, he would have never achieved what he was placed on this earth to achieve, and much of the Christian message would be null and void. Forgiveness cannot exist without the sacrifice, and the sacrifice could not have happened without the betrayal. As such, Judas is the conjoining point that connects the birth of Jesus to the death of Jesus. As such, he committed a holy act.

To further promote this irony, we can examine the consequence. Judas, ridden with guilt, kills himself. He dies because he realized what he did. If we connect this to Dante’s Inferno, then we see Judas later fall under the ultimate punishment, being chewed eternally by Satan in the lowest circle of hell. However, if we look at Judas’s act as a holy act, this would make him a martyr, dying for the holy act he committed. If we take the stance that Satan possessed Judas’s body, and it was Satan through Judas that betrayed Jesus, then it was Satan who committed the holy act, making Satan the holy martyr in the scenario. Truly ironic to think of the ultimate evil to be accountable for the forgiveness of all sins.

As such the second contradiction is: Judas/ Satan committed and evil act, even though they completed the circle and led to the complete forgiveness of all sins.

The third contradiction deals with the topic of authenticity

Now, one minor contradiction is the Bible’s claim that “all of God’s disciples must become like children.” To be a child, one must have unquestionable faith, like a child’s faith in their parent. Even though they have no solid foundation that their parent will come through for them, they still believe in their parent. This faith must be held in ignorance. We must not question why God makes a decision, we must simply accept that He made that decision and that He has a reason for doing so.

However, the bible also promotes us to study the bible and learn the message of God. By studying the Bible, we learn the motivation of God, and the mind of God, and the messages of God, and as such cannot hope to live in ignorance since we are pursuing knowledge and reason. The idea that we are supposed to study the word and still remain ignorantly loyal is a fallacy, as reason increases questionability, we require greater explanation as to why we believe.

However, the authenticity goes further than this faith. Authenticity is the questioning of the motivation to sin, and the validity of the sinner’s redemption.

The bible states that if a person sins, they have done wrong. If they ask for forgiveness, they are forgiven. The problem already is that this proposes that sin has a penalty, which was disproven by our previous theory. However, if we are to follow along the same tangent that sin does have cost, we can believe this first statement to be valid.

The Bible then states that a person is forgiven for their sin, but is only truly forgiven if they “repent,” which means that a person

A)     Does not commit the sin again

B)      Strives to prevent themselves from committing the sin

C)      Works to move in the opposite direction of sin

In this frame of mind, we can take the sin of aggression, and imagine a man who commits violent acts against people. True repentance could be seen if he:

A)     Doesn’t hurt anyone ever again

B)      Gets rid of all weapons in his house, and removes himself from environments that would make him aggressive

C)      Seeks counseling for aggressive tendencies, works to interact with people peacefully

However, the Bible does state that it is impossible for a person to live without sin. This could be interpreted as “You will eventually commit sin once, but are then expected to never sin again,” but we have shown before that the goal of living a life as a true Christian is near impossible.

Continuing with this same train of thought, we can reason that a person cannot seek redemption until they have ceased sinning. If a person commits a sin, prays for forgiveness, then sins again, then they never began the path of repentance. As such, a person is charged to live sinlessly before they are forgiven. If they begin the path, then turn, the forgiveness would be withdrawn. Thus, forgiveness of sin is not freely given, as a person must extinguish the sin from their life.

Thusly, the third contradiction is: A person is not forgiven outright, they must repent of their sin, which is a difficult task

In sum, we have three contradictions:

First – The Bible does not give a clear approach as to how a person gets into heaven, even though it claims to. The only valid approach still bears contradictions in terms of the weight of sin.

Second – Judas/Satan committed an evil act and deserved to be punished, even though the act was actually a holy one that made forgiveness possible

Third – Forgiveness is not freely given. It is earned through repentance, which is difficult, and puts a penalty on sin. This would contradict the only valid stance on getting into heaven, as this contradiction could claim that there is a consequence to sin, even though the valid stance says there isn’t.

These are the contradictions I believe I have found in Christianity. If these are true, then many of the claims of the Bible would be invalid.

THOUGHT & An Amendment to THOUGHT

(Note: When I made this, there was a graph that unfortunately did not copy and paste into Blogger. The graph shows a circle with "Logical Reasoning" which is overlaid by "Philosopher, Gamer, Musician" and that is overlaid by "Optimism and Flamboyancy." Imagine a diagram like this when it is mentioned. )

Thomas Agrusti

Life

December 4, 2012

THOUGHT

                There was a large argument presented to me where I was asked to define myself. This led to a questioning of my own personality, of natural personality, of morality of personality, of fantasy, of logical reasoning and its validity. In this collection of essays, I will ponder each aspect, how they correlate, and how that has changed over the past year when compared to my “I am” essay. Due to the extreme nature of this argument, I have created a chart. I will explain this chart, and refer back to it many times throughout the essay.

What is Personality?

                Who I am can be pondered within the realms of what my personality is. Personality is a definition of the self, based around interests, beliefs, and ways of thinking. How a person reacts to a situation, as well as what a person does, by choice, outside of a situation, one can see aspects of a person’s personality. In these essays, behavior will be defined as any physical and mental activities present during a scenario, and a scenario being a conscious event in one’s life requiring action.

What Is “Logical Reasoning”

                Within regards to myself, I feel it sound to say that my methodology of thinking is heavily logic based. I believe in the proposition of causality, that everything happens for a reason, or at least can be reasoned to have a reason to have happened, that a reason can be drawn from an event, and that there are reasons for these reasons. To simplify, I believe that a car accident happens because of variables involved around that event. The first driver could have been distracted and look away from the road, the second could have had a broken braking system that prevented him from stopping, and lastly, to add to this catastrophic scenario, there could have been rain to hinder visibility and friction. Thusly, the car accident had several variables that added up to cause a collision. After the accident, we can reason that there was destruction done to the drivers, to the cars, and to the traffic system due to this accident. We can furthermore reason that the first driver will pay far more attention to his driving to prevent further accidents, the second driver will make sure his car is running optimally in order to better react to future problems, and the traffic system may revise its response system to better cope and respond to future accidents. These things all occurred due to the laws of physics, previous incompetence, and a positive psychology that leads to resilience. I believe many situations can be analyzed in this fashion.

How does Logical Reasoning affect how I approach Life?

                This logical reasoning allows me to look at many aspects of life as a system. I see the school system, the financial world, and the human being as a system. If you factor in certain variables, and introduce new factors, outcomes will follow, and there are reasons and explanations for all of these things. If a human maintains a physically active lifestyle, exercising regularly, has a nutritional diet, and is otherwise physiologically and psychologically well, they will have a physically fit body, evident in muscle tone, in digestive ability, in physical resilience, and many other benefits that come with being physically fit. I believe that if a student is calm in class, is punctual in getting to class, competent in taking notes and asking questions, setting time aside to comfortably study, and ensure that all projects and tasks given to the student are completed, then that student will earn a high grade and be proficient in that study.

                With this method of thought, I reason that there is an optimal way of approaching situations, many of which work on a bell curve. If a person works out for 5 minutes, they will probably gain very little from the work out. If they work out for 30 minutes, they will reap better results. However, if they work out for 3 hours, they may be reaching a point where they begin damaging their body. Furthermore, if a person works out for 8 hours, they are spending an exponential amount of time working out, denying themselves time to commit to other activities. As such, we can see that there is an increase in benefit as more time as is committed, until a point where the toll that the work-out outweighs the benefit of it. Therefore, we can find some point around the 2-3 hour mark where there is a proper balance of the greatest benefit for the most manageable expense.

                Applying this field of thought, I find optimal ways of behaving during my life. I experiment with different methods in order to find the best ways of approaching scenarios. Par Example, I have found that I can work for 5 hours a day, 3 days a week with little toll on my body and mind. If I were to work 8 hours a day, I would feel physically and mentally exhausted, and unable to approach other scenarios with the same competency that I would have otherwise. However, by working less, I earn less money, and therefore face financial difficulty. This financial difficulty is countered by the ability to live a life while spending very little. I know that while I am at work, I work best if I am happy, socializing with co-workers in a responsible manner and customers in a courteous and humorous, while still appropriate, manner.

I have used this method of thinking to many, if not every field of my life in order to find the optimal means of living. This leads me to understandings about all the different factors within a life, how they can be managed, what benefits they have to the life, and at what expenses they come. I have taught myself different means to cope with certain aspects of life, whether they were previously experienced or not. Aspects of life and how I manage them become very important as they cascade against and over each other. How much sleep I get becomes very important as that affects my mental and physical energy, my attention, as well as my mood. How to deal with a panic attack is a relevant factor in my life as it is something I have experience, may experience again, and can be countered. These coping mechanisms can also be optimized based on proficiency, benefit, and expense.

In all these things, I am aware that I am meant to be happy. Happiness is the overarching meaning of life, and a wonderful one at that. To live through every aspect of life and every scenario happily is a wonderful goal, and one that I believe is an honorable goal, albeit a difficult one. But by viewing difficulty as an appropriate challenge with an advantageous lesson to be learned, one can face difficulty happily. I also believe that happiness has extreme positive benefits when it comes to aspects of life. Overall, being in a positive state of mind increases one’s competencies and abilities in many fields, including the social, business, and academic worlds.

What do I Idealize?

Continuing, I would like to make a note of what I feel is ideal. I will restate that I believe happiness is the primary end goal and measure of all activities. To deny happiness is a grand expense, and one I aim to not take. I would rather allow results to suffer rather than let myself suffer. As such, I do not make incredulous goals that lead to me being miserable, but instead look to improve myself in a gradual sense, as well as a positive sense. I do not aim to destroy or hurt myself, but to improve myself, every day seeking to be better than the last where possible. I do not have a perfect image of myself in mind, but I do know several fields I can do better in, and how I can appropriately do better in them. In all senses, I aim to be happy and maintain happiness in all aspects and scenarios of life.

Following this trend, we can see that I idealize proficiency. I would say that my view of improving heavily reflects my vision of maturity. I believe maturity, furthermore is evident in responsibility. Responsibility is marked by the societal, physical, and psychological measures that are present during a scenario. Par Example, using illegal substances, such as cocaine, is an irresponsible action, as it is not only frowned upon by general society, but it also has a devastating effect on the human body, and can cause psychological dysfunctions. As such, I do not view this as responsible, and a person committing this act would be immature. A responsible action would be to commit to studying, as this is smiled upon, this is an act that benefits the neuro-physiological state, and allows one to advance themselves academically and exercise discipline in inhibiting other actions in order to prioritize studying. The more I improve, the more mature I would be since my actions would be more responsible.

What does this affect in terms of my personality?

In summary, logical reasoning is the core of how I approach scenarios in my life, as well as how I deal with life without a scenario, or viewing the lack of a task and the presence of free time as a scenario in and of itself.

In this dimension we find my interests. These are things that I find genuinely interesting and enjoyable. In this field, we find my interest in the musical art, in the gaming culture, and in the philosophical school of thinking. For the sake of time and space, it will simply be said that I enjoy playing music as an activity, it has many revolving issues that fascinate me, and is something that I do feel a natural inclination toward. This continues into gaming, as I feel a kinship with the culture surrounding the gaming world, I enjoy the activity itself, and feel naturally comfortable and supportive of the activity. Philosophically, one can refer to my other essays for perspective on my philosophical beliefs on independent principles of life, including this one, but will be summarized as an activity, the activity being defined as discussing and pondering philosophical topics, as enjoyable, comfortable, and interesting.

These elements affect many parts of my life and my perspectives on life, including activities that I commit to, methods of approaching things inside the logical scope, and values that I hold.

The Final Arc

                Returning to the chart, I feel it necessary to point out one final natural inclination that I find joy in. in many activities, I feel flamboyancy to be fun. I find grandiose word choice, sophistication and the over-dramatization of actions to be enjoyable. I also feel that having an optimistic perspective on life is the best. This, as we cascade down, agrees with my philosophical values, and is spawned from my logical perspective on life, as being optimistic allows for better, more positive outcomes in life.

What Is Natural personality?

I do believe that there are certain innate aspects of the human personality that can only be altered can only be altered to a point. This predisposition is caused by the genetic roots found in our heredity. Research, something I believe in, has shown evidence of people having predispositions, and areas of expansion or retraction in fields such as resilience, ambition, discipline, musical activity, and academic proficiency. A person who is musically inclined has the ability to excel in the musical world, while another person who does not have this predisposition can experiment with music and find enjoyment in the activity, may not find the same level of ease or proficiency as the person with the predisposition. It can also be reasoned that those with predispositions to one field, such as being out going, can be expanded, being more sociable and extroverted, and retracted, being more withdrawn and introverted. However, there are certain realms where one will find themselves innately uncomfortable. A person who is more inclined to introversion will find themselves feeling anxious at a night club, as opposed to the extrovert, who will feel very comfortable. Though the introvert can adapt and learn methods of becoming more comfortable and more social, they will most likely never reach the same level of proficiency as the extrovert.

                One quintessential factor to remember though is that these differences in natural personality do not reflect on morality. Though certain aspects can affect moral decisions, such as an inclination to aggression as opposed to passivity, many have a wide spectrum of positives and negatives. Continuing with the previous example, we can reason that even though the introvert may not find herself in a wide social circle, she will enjoy her time to herself more than the extrovert might, and may find it easier to be more discipline in fields like inhibition. Thusly, she uses her predispositions to reap a positive outcome and find herself in a beneficial way of life.

                It is these natural inclinations and the varying shades of color (shades of grey are too dull) that we find ourselves in a world of variety, with many personalities living proficient lives. Whether a person is passive, timid, easily excitable, or otherwise doesn’t deny them opportunity, but instead opens up new opportunities and experiences that the reverse may not have.

What is Artificial Personality?

                It should be reasoned from this idea that different shades of our personalities are possible. These shades are altered based on values we set for ourselves, and experiences that we have had. If driver one had originally been reckless and comfortable living a life not taking consequence into consideration, then the accident might have drastically altered his perspective of this aspect of his personality and led him to be more cautious in certain actions. Though he may never be as cautious as an extremely timid person, he can still restrict himself to the point that he can still enjoy the many opportunities available to him in life, while still being responsible in his actions. Thusly, we find ourselves capable of reaching a mature medium that we can control. However, as stated before, these can only be altered to a point. We cannot bring ourselves from one extreme to the other, not should we try. By experimenting with what is and isn’t comfortable, we are able to find a happy medium that allows us to live a proficient life.

What does this mean for mental scenarios?

                From the conversation I had with Nige, I feel it sound to say that running myself through mental scenarios can have benefits when done so responsibly. It allows you to think about all the factors that may be involved in a scenario. The main concerns come to mind when pondering the damage that this can have on a person’s psyche. Becoming self-actualized is different from being self-absorbed, or pretentious, for in all scenarios, one must go in a as a learner, realizing that they are running the scenario in their mind to learn and ponder something they do not know about, to discover new ideas, new thoughts, new opportunities. However, one must always remember that there are elements of a scenario that we may not consider, or may not be aware of. Lastly, one must understand that damage can be incurred by running oneself through these scenarios. Traumatic experiences cause traumatic thoughts, and traumatic thinking can lead to traumatic results.

                Par example, if I were to imagine what I would do if I found myself in a car, on a cliff, and the brakes went out, I would ask myself “What can I do?” First, I would identify that if I let the car stay on course and hurtle off the cliff, I am liable to die. Thusly, I can picture different options: 1) I turn the wheel to change course. 2) I reach for the emergency brake and pull it 3) I leap from the car through the driver side door or 4) I leap from the car from the trunk. Now, in pondering these I can picture different outcomes. The first option might not be optimal if I don’t have enough time to change direction, or if the car is going so fast that turning sharply will lead to the car rolling. The second option in turn is more plausible, however, it may also be discredited if I don’t have enough time to slow. In the case where very little time is available, I would go for the third or fourth option, as it immediately relieves me from fatal danger, but it causes damage to my person as I am pummeled against the ground at high speeds. It might be more advantageous to leap from the trunk since the momentum would allow me to run from the car, steadily declining the speed of my person. Mind you, it is evident that I would still be likely to trip and fall and suffer damage, but this method still allows a better set up for fleeing the car. Neither of these options are better when enough time is available.

                Now, the benefits of running myself through this scenario in my head are evident, but do are the misguidances. By envisioning this happening, I now know of the options that I have should such a disaster arise. Also, I am able to consider and experiment with these options without the threat of fatal danger. One of the short comings of this practice is how practical the ideas when other factors are not pondered. What if there were other people in the car with me? What if the car was cluttered and getting to the trunk would be difficult? What if I was on a hill heading towards a cliff? These elements do not hinder my ability to ponder scenarios like this, but instead allow me to expand my dimensions of thinking, presenting new options to imagine. What is harmful about this practice is when I envision impractical outcomes that offer no benefit. Say I were to envision my seatbelt getting stuck, and I do hurtle off the cliff and die. This is impractical because my end goal is not to die, and it is concussively horrible because envisioning oneself dying is a tragic experience and had negative repercussions on the psyche.

                In sum, envisioning scenarios of “What would I do if…?” are beneficial as they allow you to experiment with options available in the scenario based on the elements that the participant is aware of. This practice becomes harmful when impractical and harmful options are envisioned.

What does this mean for fantasy?

                As stated previously, optimism I view optimism as a positive aspect of my personality, as it helps me to see every event in my life as a positive one that can be learned from. This does not always mean things will work exactly the way I would want them to, and envisioning them working out the way I want to be is impractical, as it presents dangerous envisioning, like the death fabrication presented in the car scenario.

                Fantasy is usually clouded in impracticality. It is not grounded in reality, nor is it logical. It is not a sound practice.

It is by accepting the way that reality works, and how events unfold based on how we approach them that we learn.

What does this mean for Mentally escaping?

                Mentally escaping is the act of phasing out. This is relaxing, meditating, thinking, to the deepest level. It is where the mental world encases the one pondering and envelops them to the point where the mental self is more prioritized than the physical self. This is beneficial when it allows one to ponder their real life, choices they have to make, and things they have to do. It is a mature way to relax and to gather one’s self. It is also a responsible way to approach mental problems, and it is a neutral area where one can consider all of the variables involved in a sound matter. This is a time when one runs mental scenarios, but it is also a time when the danger of fantasy is present as well. As long as reality is prioritized in the mind, the pondering is done so responsibly, and fantasy is not allowed into the mind, mentally escaping is a responsible and mature act.

Who am I?

                I am a logical man. I enjoy music, both listening and playing, as well as gaming and philosophy. I perform many actions with an air of flamboyancy and a sense of optimism. I believe we have predispositions that set up out basic personalities, and these personalities evolve based on what we experience and what we idealize and find important in our lives. I believe mental scenarios, when done so responsibly can have positive effects. I believe fantasy is illogical and wrong and has no benefit. I am Thomas Agrusti. I am human. 

Thomas Agrusti

Life

December 4, 2012

An Amendment to THOUGHT

                I have just completed my essay titled “THOUGHT” and am quite happy with it. There is however one aspect that I did not consider. This will be an amendment to the series of essays known as “THOUGHT”. The one aspect that I did not consider was what logical reasoning means for relationships. One of the special aspects of relationships as an aspect though is that it, like personality, has many different subjugating classes. As such, I will be dealing with each one and how they interrelate.

What does this mean for social interaction?

                As I do feel that the study of psychology is respectable, I feel that it can be used to analyze how people behave. I believe that we express our unique personalities very colorfully through our social interactions. I do recognize that the crafting of a person’s personality has a plethora of factors, and that it is quite difficult to identify every element of a person’s personality that would accurately explain why someone says one thing rather than another.

                However, I still believe that people are systems, albeit incredibly complex ones; every experience, every gene, everything encompassing what we call our lives crafts who we are as a people. Our social interactions are representations of these personalities.

What does this mean for relationships?

                This is where I cross into a very odd field for me. As my core is logical reasoning, there are certain aspects of relationships that blend with a logical lens and others that do not fit so easily.

                Allow me to begin with the logical. Friendships are two or more people who enjoy the presence and participation of one another. Friends joke around with each other, play together, and enjoy many experiences alongside of each other. When a person does not know or understand all of the aspects of a situation they are in, they will seek a friend’s advice, as this presents them with elements they may not have been aware of before, a different way of looking at the situation, or provide a medium for support and guidance. Friendships become more powerful over time, as more experiences are had; more similarities are found with each other, and as they become more mature alongside of one another, seeking the help and support of the other in times of need.

                Now I move onto the illogical elements of relationships. It is near impossible to say exactly what effect a social interaction will have on someone else. This is because the personality system is so complex that we would be unable to see every aspect of the other person and track the result before the interaction.

                The idea of intimacy doesn’t make logical sense. Though it can be reasoned that factors such as time, synthesis of personalities, similarities that the two have in personalities and interests, and experiences that the two people share together do deepen intimacy between two people, but this intimacy cannot be gauged or measured or tested by any means.

                Lastly, relationships factor in emotions; which leads me into my next topic:

What does this mean for emotions?

                Emotions are expressions of what a person feels and thinks during and about a situation. These, like personalities, have both innate and natural roots, as well as artificial. Certain scenarios initiate certain emotions very often, with a funny joke initiating joy and laughter, losing a game welcoming in disappointment and sadness, and getting insulted initiating anger. However, these can also be controlled to a point. Though it is difficult to keep from getting frustrated when one’s car breaks down on their way to work, a person can teach themselves how to cope with such a setback. They can then more appropriately act during the situation, in this situation calling for a tow truck, their work to inform them that they will be late, and a friend to give them a ride. They can also react and learn from the experience in a more mature fashion.

                The ability to restrain emotions is beneficial, as uncontrolled emotions can cause unintentional damage to the physical and psychological person of oneself and others around them.

                Thusly, practicing the ability to control emotions is beneficial in certain situations.

                However, one of the downsides is that over-controlling emotions can lead to the abandoning or the ignoring of many or all emotions. This leads one to react to life very sociopathically. By over-inhibiting emotions, a person can unlearn social cues and what emotions are appropriate to feel in certain situations. This inability to react appropriately can damage certain relationships and also leads to a disruption in one’s psychological health.

                If I were to place myself in an area of emotional intimacy, I would find more favor in controlling my emotions and inhibiting unnecessary ones in order to prevent irrational thoughts or reactions. However, this leads me to be emotionally cold, and forget what emotions are appropriate at what times. As such, this returns us to the logical problem of not knowing elements of a situation and, being unable to solve scenarios relating to emotions proficiently.

What does this mean for romance?

                I believe romance is a deep level of understanding and intimacy. In a relationship, both partners view the other as a trustworthy support and guide in times of trouble.

                Past that, it is difficult for me to say what I understand about romance. As stated before, social interactions are representations of our personalities, and this is true as well for our personal philosophies regarding romance. The question is do I analyze my view of romance in a sense of the romantic actions that I would take part in, or the reasons behind those actions?

                If I were to analyze the actions, I would soundly say that certain physical actions are enjoyable, and can be expressed when both feel an equal trust for the other; these actions can also be associated with an innate, carnal desire and pleasure. These actions include practices such as kissing, cuddling, and sexual activity. In a mature manner, these can all be very enjoyable and very beneficial to the relationship and the physical and psychological health of both partners.

                Analyzing the reasons behind doing the actions is more difficult, past what is said in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. There are benefits to the physical actions of romance, as well as the emotional trust. To be able to trust another person and to feel trusted is a fantastic feeling, and having a partner who is a trusted guide in times of confusion is the proper foundation of a relationship in my mind.

Is there a system to socially interacting and romanticizing?

                This is probably the most difficult question of them all since there is so much controversy. I have seen and heard of people claim that there are methods to enter a relationship, or to better one’s chances of entering and/or maintaining a relationship, but so many of them seem inconsistent and/or contradictory. I can also say that I do not have a firm system of approaching a relationship, nor do I know from what source to properly say what, if there is, a system.

                This is because of the vast number of personalities that people of the world have. Acting a certain way towards a certain person will yield a certain reaction. However, if acting in that same way to any other person will likely yield an entirely different result in a physical, psychological, and emotional level. There is no perfect way to act since one cannot precognitively picture every single possible event with every single person. This is impossible due to physiological opportunity to meet every person and every personality mix, and the psychological capacity of the human mind.

                As such, we can act in ways we feel comfortable, and what we feel is appropriate based on the situation we face and the people we are facing them with, along with a general knowledge of what we know about them. However, there is no possible way to set up an optimal system for socially interacting since it is different for everyone, both in interacting and being interacted with.

                I also do not believe it is possible to draw a specific reaction out a person. This is because of the before mentioned multitude of personalities that people have, and, as such, the incredible number of reactions a person could potentially have based on a situation and a social interaction.                                                                                                                                                                                                           

What does this mean for irrationality?

                I do believe certain practices are irrational. I believe that uninhibited emotions cloud a person’s judgment and lead to unsound and/or unintentional decision making.

                As Socrates said:

                “There is only one good: knowledge; and one evil: ignorance”

                I do not believe a person should be stigmatized for being morally wrong if certain elements were not apparent to the person. However, I believe that malicious acts are wrong, as they seek to bring misfortune and misery upon another human being, which is evil. I believe that acting based on unsound reasoning is illogical, and thusly, can be viewed as sensibly wrong.

                However, I also believe that people are all unique in their personalities and will react to situations differently based on their personalities and values. This is not morally wrong, this is beautiful, since as it shows the variety of approaches we can all have on life. Overall, I believe that happiness is the ultimate goal and means of all actions of humanity.

What does this mean for thinking?

                “The unexamined life is not worth living”

                On its own, that quote alone says so many wonderful things. I believe all things should be thought about responsibly. We, as humans, have great potential and ability to do great good and great evil to ourselves and others, and must be consciously and morally aware of this. I believe acting on impulse can be illogical as it can be founded on uninhibited emotions, and may not take certain factors known to the person into consideration.

Par example, a person may think of a joke that they feel is humorous. However, the joke may offend a person in the room on a deep and personal level. To act on impulse would cause harm to the psychological and emotional well-being of the offended person, and taking this into consideration and refraining from telling the joke is courteous and kind to the person who would otherwise be offended. In this case, acting on impulse is illogical and wrong.

This is not to say variety is wrong. Having a plethora of experiences is admirable and wonderful, as it provides a rich and interesting life experience.

This is also not to say that bravery is wrong. Being brave is also admirable, and stepping out of one’s own comfort zone allows a person to pursue new experiences that they may otherwise never have.

This is also not to say that spontaneity is wrong. Like bravery and variety, new experiences provide a rich life experience.

I believe life is a vast series of experiences that should be experienced happily and social relationships and social interaction is one of the most powerful sources of happiness. I believe mistakes can occur when variables are unknown, however, they are not morally wrong, as it was stated before that no one can possibly know all of the variables involved in a social exchange, but can mature and learn from the experience. I believe that irrational and malicious actions are wrong. I also believe that tragedy can be overcome and learned from. I believe giving up is one of the most illogical means actions, as it denies oneself experiences in life, if not the remainder of the person’s life as a whole. However, ending certain actions that hinder the overall happiness of a person’s life can be recommendable, as activities that cause harm to the person become illogical under certain circumstances.

Overall, I feel the meaning of life is happiness, to be happy as we reach greater heights of happiness. I believe all things can be overcome and can lead to greater maturity and greater happiness. Our world is a culmination of the life choices we all make every day and the cascading impact that they have on humanity as a whole.

Life is an adventure. Life is beautiful. Life is awesome.