old truth, but truth: there are blogs to be written but not read.
"blogs" here is a mega-generalization: I speak of anonymous every day spill words that only they themselves are to read, and here and there that many earn their 15 minutes of fame with a most clever post (or so it seemed to have fallen in some eyes at the right moment).
this is not necessarily bad. uam maybe it's just a result of "significant culture" in which we live, but knight of the old order as I tend to think that this is always a sign of shallowness, and superficiality always sounds bad. surely these prints should hide my own dissatisfactions.
what I see is a vacuum. I certainly not convinced myself that is something only our times, and this is probably my biggest problem in criticizing things, ever: the impossibility of seeing the whole. aosfragmentos see life is a reality, but it is uncomfortable, too. it's like being half choked, it is like to have something obstructing the view part: you do not see but it does see, and it continues in its Relying visão.s eria better not see anything and capture it with other senses. is the middle way in the bad sense.
so I do not even trust my criticism. before it was so easy to believe, was simple: things were as they were few and you know yourself better, and sees the fragility of these certainties.
and today I am crazy - not the lunatic, crazed, demented but who sees the distortions as fatoz concrete, which sees reality does not exist. I'm walking in the labyrinth of Ofili faun looking for a solution, I'm John Nash seeing connections that do not exist, I'm Jack the medulla oblongata.
I do not think I will change nothing. to change something, really, it takes commitment. and to have commitment, you must believe in the very relevance of an idea, and for that you must be very sure that this idea is true. personally do not think anyone under 50 years and lived (= lived with criticism and reflection) can differentiate into undoubtedly know right from wrong. unfortunately, after 50 years of intense mental, pragmatism may have already done irreversible damage to the critical sense of a person. which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion. a circular argument and somewhat Socratic in fact.
now seems certain that the belief in (any) ideas happens as a result of a combination of factors such as faith (not towards religious / spiritual, but the idea of believing in eliminating the benefit of the doubt even if there were reasonable arguments against it) pragmatic necessity and convenience. I see two types of people.
there are those who think and what they do. (Of course this dichotomy is an oversimplification, but this is just for demonstration purposes of the principle). those who think, ponder the pros and cons, trying to take into account all factors to decide for something worthwhile. and can not reach a conclusive answer, do nothing. those that are already, at some point accept the process which is such a thing so, accept it as a parameter and beyond questioning, leaving for the action using this premise as a basis to justify. and do something.
being very simplistic, is the same as saying that there are those who think, and those who do: they think, they do not, those who do not think. and between them there are different shades of gray, because not everyone spends so much time thinking.
and all this is ridiculous, because you might not need to see the whole picture to take a position. more than this: possibly no way to see the whole picture. perhaps the reluctance to choose this or that is simply the fear of failure, fear of taking risks, fear of losing.
but what if you can not convince any certainty? what to do when you ultimately does no more idea of what is right, the Which is better, or even what you want?
questions, questions. My life has been drifting in a sea of questions.
