On The Inexorable Inevitability of Hedonic Tendency

It seems so fallacious of me to feel sadness at this particular little thing; I am educated of its cause, and I’m well aware of what personal inclination I might be leaning on to exclaim my distress towards it; yet still, it disturbs me so much that that what I hate about it, it employs to make me hate it in turn: its inherent irrationality.

I am speaking, of course, of human hedonic tendency; of our inexorably ineludible drift to committing ourselves to those actions which complement our basest passions and feelings. By its very nature, it scares me; after all, its ever so default nature means that a man with little external and rationally conceived motive would be led towards it, out of naught but nature’s prescribed course of action for him, and he would be fed and kept happy so long as he followed suit.

While all of this is known, what especially irks me in this matter is that the interests of the appetitive are continually opposed to the interests of a truth-seeker; at their best, hedonically driven actions are a distraction and a mere hindrance, but at their worst, they can altogether deviate a man from purer, more human motive.

However, still worse than this is that I find that these motives are profiteers of opportunity; they offer too straightforward a path to turn to such that the most immovable man, in his darkest hours, simply must turn to them.

Moreover, in our society, where we consider tyrannically unwavering positivity to be the platonic, gold standard and consider it the most initial prerequisite for a happy life, this man is more or less directed, and in certain cases, via peer pressure and societal norm, enforced to adhere to that principle of naïve joy; and under so much duress to maintain happiness, which path to him would be simpler than the one that hedonic action offers?

The Basis Of Hedonism

And, if in these dark times of his, when he’s compelled to laugh, yet finds a lack of humour in his routine of inquisition and learning, then even if he rejects hedonic action on principle, with so much compulsion can it overpower him that he is forced to turn to it with no more will than an alcoholic on his eighth glass.

Regardless of how much he knew about the science of its conception and growth, regardless of his awareness of its inheritance to his species and to natural will; it still overpowers him.

And that’s just depressing, isn’t it?

Picture Credits

The Poem From The Book Launch

Thought I'd share a little poem I had read out during my book launch :)

It seems as if it was a moment ago

When I first started typing away;

I was unsure of where my story would go

But I kept at it anyway.

And that little boy ever so eager

To tell his story, would never have thought

That after all these years, he would be here

Presenting his tale before you all.

And all those pedantic changes I made

Those modifications to minor details

Never did I think that they would be seen

By all of you present here before me.

Yet here we are, and here I do stand

It seems so crazy, I can barely comprehend

That so many people are here to see me

Out of an interest in my little story.

And the magnitude of this joy I feel

Is inexpressible by mere words alone;

Any verbal expression is rendered too meek

To convey my warmth and my happiness, hold.

And by cause of this literal lack of words

I resort to the two most commonplace ones;

Simple, yes, but they summarize, unblurred

My exact thoughts; and they go thus:

“Thank you.”

Thank you, everyone, for attending the launch;

Your very presence here means so much.

Thank you, my family, for your love and support

I’m here only because you showed me the road.

Thank you, my friends and teachers, for all that you’ve done

In shaping my thoughts and ideas; you’re all second to none.

Thank you to everyone who has ever wished me well

I wouldn’t be here without your support and encouragement.

A simple sentiment, yes, but I truly do

Wished to thank every single one of you.

And now, there’s not much that I can say

But happy reading, and thank you for today.

On The Idea Of Offence

Mutually Assured Destruction

The term "Mutually Assured Destruction' is ubiquitous among most descriptions of the Cold War, and aptly so; it's one of those few phrases that summarises so well and conveys an idea so appropriately, almost to the point where I seem to want to reproduce it with a clever little twist so that I can seem clever. However, few opportunities have arisen where a spinoff of the phrase can be declared with an equivalent degree of appropriateness, yet I find that this specific topic has finally provided me with one. But more on that later.

The idea of offence offends me. While the different dimensions and perspectives from which it's employed lay it on unstable ethical ground in terms of deciding genuine action to safeguard or ban it, it feels so ambiguous an idea that just saying that 'offence offends me' offers just as much meaning about my real feelings about offence as an apologist's justifications offer to a non-believer.

On one hand, offence feels like a societal veto; an impediment that bars open discussions or actions on sensitive topics, regardless of the basis of such discussions. Offence can be at times a get out of jail free card to those who are threatened by someone or something that challenges their ideas.

Yet from a different perspective, offence can also have merit as the conversational equivalent of a rape whistle; when one genuinely feels so uncomfortable to the extent that further discussions can genuinely hurt their feelings, then offence acts as a boundary-setter and a call to respect one's personal space. The respect given to offence is only appropriate in this scenario.

However, more than its negative applications, what offend me most about it are
a) Its arbitrary declaration
b) Mutually Assured Proliferation of Adamance (told you I'd get there!)

My first problem is more or less an extension of its use to halt progressive action and/or discussion. For one to respect the fact that someone is offended, they must know the true motive behind the person's declaration of his being offended; which is, you know, impossible. And if I cannot know whether the excuse provided by the offended to prevent/impede the accusedly offensive discussion/action is genuine, then then why should I respect it?

Yet at the same time, on the off chance it is, why shouldn't I everytime someone is offended?

And it's that ambiguity that irritates me to no end.

I'm going to use a simple example to illustrate my second issue. A heated discussion has ensued on a sensitive issue between two people. Upon one's declaration of an assertion that the other strongly disagrees with, he declare himself to be offended (bet you didn't expect that!) and ends the discussion then and there.

Regardless of who is right, regardless of the right of the offended to prevent further discussion on account of his offence, and regardless of whether he is justified in whatever condition in doing so, they both exit the discussion more affirmed of their side of their story.

Mutually Assured Proliferation of Adamance

In the end, both of them are all the more confident that the other one is wrong. Never has offence led to agreement; in the end, both discussors have further validated themselves of
thier own viewpoints. Little is done to alter the other's perspective, and it's this what irritates me about offence in this regard.

And that's no good, is it?

Picture Credits

First Poster!

A simple look at the first poster, the one used for the launch.