Solution to the Universe!

I apologise for the lack of updates in aprox. 16 days, but I have no excuse.

Also, I'm tired of thinking up things to say at the top of posts, so I'm shifting to using titles to convey purpose to these messages - a secondary reason is that with titles, I might just be able to rope some more of you in through search engines; not that I'm becoming lonely or depressed from the lack of new arrivals to the blog... no, not at all. Of course I'm not going insane. I don't know what you're talking about. That's not true. THE PIXIES MADE ME DO IT!!!

Moving on, you may be midly intrigued by my proposition of a solution to the universe. Of course, I don't blame you, since one of those would be quite useful. Well, here it is:

If everyone likes each-other, that's it! Problem solved!

After all, I think it's safe to say that humans are the only creatures that would really see it necessary that the universe have a solution; the universe seems quite content with itself.
So, there you go! Out, my possoms, preach the message to the masses, and let's solve the universe! And if you fail, don't blame me, I'll just ignore you.

If you must have a name for this movement, call it Brinsism for convention's sake.

But what's that? You claim that DOESN'T solve the universe?! Nonsense! And anyway, I suppose YOU have a better solution... aside from killing everyone, of course... although, come to think of it, that's probably the best solution... but then, if everyone was dead, there wouldn't be any need for a solution, so it wouldn't be a solution anymore... and our genes would be most displeased, what with being incapable of propogating themselves. Therefore, the new solution would have to be to make the genes like each-other. Get to it! I don't care if they're selfish, just DO IT!!

In case you hadn't guessed, yes, the philosophy club is BACK, which should at least partially explain my amusing musings (look! You've made me resort to puns now!). This time, it was Plato's ideal government. Here's the overview:

1) Ruling is a skill; craftmanship is a skill; tennis-playing is a skill; by common logic, everyone ought to be trained and allowed to do what they do best. So..

2)Destroy democracy, pick out those with best ruling potential and train them to be good rulers, ensuring they don't become corrupt and handle government in the best way. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why have a ruler rule just because the public (the vast majority of which have little to no knowledge of proper ruling) said so? So, Plato's ideal government is awesome!

But wait... what's this?! Ensure that the greatest male rulers breed only with the greatest female rulers?! Disallow any form of familial pursuits amongst the 'inferior classes'?! Kill any chidlren who don't appear to 'cut the mustard', in the ultimate hope that the inferiors will be wiped out and the human race will be supremely intellectual with very closely monitored breeding patterns?! For some reason, this makes me think of the 'apocalyptic future' style world: mixing chemicals, altering DNA etc. in order to propogate a race of supremely excellent people, and killing/imprisoning anyone who falls below awesomeness.

As odd as it all seems, it sparked something in me, and a very interesting point it is too: supposing Plato's system happens. Take a hundred years, and *POOF*! The whole world is 100% clever, even perfect people. Great. Yeah. That's it. Now what?

Considering Plato's government more deeply inevitably brings rise to the question: Why should we exist? In order to be perfect? But once you're perfect, you're perfect. You can work together to make an ideal society for future generations... who can, in turn, make an ideal society for future generations. I find it hard to put into words, but when you come to the question of whether mass genocide is suitable for creating an ideal society, then you can't shake retort of what's so much better about everyone being perfect and keeping society running ideally than having everyone normal and keeping society running normally. Do you want to live in a perfect world? I mean that. Do you want to spend a whole life time being perfect, where everyone/thing else is perfect? For some reason, the idea outright sickens me. It's the mixture of life, from the downright horrific to the ubiquitious; the poorest slave to the richest aristocraft; indeed, every kind of person; that makes life interesting. A society where there are no problems to correct, where everyone is perfect and content, comes across to me as frightening; even naive. It's the kind of thing you see on sci-fi programmes and think, 'it's just not right'. There's something inherently wrong and depressing about the notion. Of course, that's just me.

Another thought on that note: we're all ourselves; each one of us has experienced an entire lifetime of our life, no-one else's. One person (say, the rich aristocrat) may look down on another person (say, the poor slave) and think, 'what a horrible life he must have had.' An, from his perspective, he certainly has. 'I don't know what makes him keep on living.'

Good question. But he does. Why? Well, if you've lived your entire life with your eyes, and your experiences, as far as you're concerned, that's normal. For all you know, the slave could be looking back up at him and asking the exact same question. It's all about perspective; the worst-case scenario is an aristocrat who becomes a slave: living one kind of life, and being banished to another, is really the ultimate torture, and perhaps only breach of this clause.

These are all my conjectures, not opinions; I'd rather not be judged on this stuff, really, because I am Captain Average, not Philosophical-Madman Paul. I am you and you are me. Look into my eyes.

My, I really am a complete fool, am I not?
  ¶ 7:55 pm