On Equality, Part 2

Part 1

But there is more to equality than just gender and sexuality. A similar issue is going on in the world of race, although unlike radical feminism this movement is not built on greed but rather decades of true oppression and segregation. In a time where all races should finally be equal, tensions are greater than ever.

Once again, we have the Google Dilemma -- except instead of applicants we have suspects, and instead of Google we have the government. The only way for all races to live equally is for them to understand each other, and to understand that neither race is after the other one. Blacks are not trying to attack whites, nor are whites trying to attack blacks. When you mix black and white, all you get is grey.

As with gender and sexual equality, the media and entertainment try to push one side of the coin as much as possible. Once again, it is foolish and silly. To achieve equality, the coin should be put on an equal level; or else you get the same problems that have existed for years, just the opposite way.

In order to achieve equality, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay, female, or black, anymore than it does if you’re straight, male, or white. It may be a long way until true equality -- all over the world there is still oppression, double standards, and genocide. However, this is the best chance that we’ve gotten in a long time. I pray we don’t fuck it up.

---

Twitter: @CodexofAegis
Facebook: facebook.com/CodexofAegis 

On Equality, Part 1

Modern society seems to be focused on one system: the creation of seemingly perfect equality, whether it be social, racial, sex, or sexuality. The endeavor is noble; and perhaps one day, though it may be well after our lives are over, we will be able to achieve this equality. However, the creation of this perfect society is threatened, and it is threatened by some of the same people who dare say they wish to have this great system.

Making this claim is controversial, but rarely anything that is an important statement isn’t. Therefore, I’m not going to bother preparing for whatever opinions you may have, and instead trust in your own reason and understanding to see truth, or at least understand, what I am saying. Many of these faults come from our own nature as human beings, and so many will try to avoid it. However, no one gets anywhere trying to hide from their mistakes.

Feminism is defined as the belief that both male and female should be on an equal level; though in recent times it has come to include equality between different sexualities as well. The movement has been on a swift rise recently -- but with all popular ideas, there comes both positive and negative versions of it.

Radical Feminism is a new type of feminism. It is not based around traditional beliefs of equality, but rather a minority -- a very vocal minority -- who believe only in their own advancement. The movement does not serve any particular gender, but rather only people who follow it. Recently, this new movement has stirred an incredible amount of trouble in the entertainment medium; I intend to explain exactly how and why this happened, as well as how to stop it.

As feminism has become popular, it has lead to another, perhaps more innocent incident -- the sudden shoving of diversity into the face of the masses. More and more companies, movies, games, et cetera, have tried to push their brand as being more progressive than the other. This is quite a silly ordeal, and in some ways even leads to a bit of irony, as some companies and universities have become prone to choosing more diverse applicants than “normal” ones.

However, as radical feminism continues (which, as has been mentioned, is a very vocal minority), it continues to push these poor practices, and in turn, people who are acquainted with radical feminism tend to begin to confuse the rise of feminism as actually being the rise of radical feminism, and so the two conflict. The actual feminist side, seeing this conflict, finds it unreasonable -- and then they begin to confuse radical feminism as true feminism, and the cycle continues. In case you couldn’t tell, that is very bad.

The main reason something like this happens in the first place is the result of a problem called the “Google Dilemma”. Say we have 4 applicants, and two are “diverse” (which is group one), why the other two are not (group two). What counts as diverse or undiverse, I honestly have lost track by this point.

Anyway, the company/university has been claimed to favor one population more than anything else, though whether this is true or not is debatable depending on the place. The people who commonly push this are the radical feminists, but as this now normally transpires through the internet, it becomes very hard to tell what is a small group of loud people and what is an actually large protest. In turn, the company/university is forced to make a decision.

Now, case one is that the group one applicants are indeed better than the others from group two,  and in that case the answer is simple: you would obviously choose the group one applicants because they are better and it would look favorably on you. However, the dilemma is in case 2, in which group two is better than group one. If you choose group two, then people will continued to be riled up about your choice, however if you choose group one, then you are choosing the group with less experience, denying the group that does have it. That, and group two could probably figure out that that is what happened.

The main question is this, however: will this ever amount to anything serious? Likely not -- of course, though there are people who suffer from the “diverse selection”, they will still end up easily finding a place in another company or university. It is hard to imagine a world where those who are white, male, or heterosexual become oppressed (much to the distaste of radical feminists), and in the end diversity will begin to become a norm, stopping the need for the push or the dilemma, and therefore ending the cycle. This will likely be the final result.

---

Twitter: @CodexofAegis
Facebook: facebook.com/CodexofAegis 

A Cup of Pseudo-Philosophy -- An Argument to God

Whether there exists in this wide universe a creator, ruler, or engineer who has constructed not just us but all things both living or dead, is debatable -- however for the purposes of this document I will assume that such a thing exists, and that I will also assume that he has control of the conscience of people, and I will also assume that this God is not only able but has controlled the conscience of people, and have used it to create various religious texts. These texts in themselves are all different in their own way, so I will assume that only those trends common among all documents is true -- and that these together are the guides that this God has deemed suitable that all man should follow. Assuming all of this, I will now continue.

To the lord which rules all, to the king of all kings and the ultimate architect, to the creator of my being and all else under the sun, I have come to the conclusion that I must respectfully question these guidances of yours. I am no god myself, nor will I likely contribute any great ideas or works like many of my own peers, so please have the graciousness to excuse me if I have any faults in my speech. The majority of your laws on mankind are very well conceived, and I do admit that I personally believe that they go great lengths to defend at least some kind of order in our place in your machine. That being said, there are also a few discrepancies, and though perhaps a being of your nature could have no mistakes, I do pray you to at least consider what I have to say.

You have stated many a time that the killing of oneself is that of ultimate evil -- that the murder of another man is itself a sin, but refusing the gift of life that you have given is an even greater crime. Well, I can tell from my own knowledge that a man values nothing more highly than himself, and the idea that a man would simply take himself away in spite, or in excessive modesty, may not be unheard of, but it is very rarely the truth. You see, in the final moments of a man’s life when he intends to destroy it, he thinks not of you at all -- and if he does, he prays to you, and tells that he is sorry to both you and his fellows to what he has done. Or perhaps he is smitten with anger, and does lash against you -- but this is rarely your fault, and rather some men’s way of dealing with pain. Perhaps I am wrong to assume, but I would think that you would know all of this better than we know it ourselves. If that is the case, why hurt the already hurting man? Why call what he does a crime when his crime is that he believes there is nothing else left for him?

I understand that in entirely neutral judgement there is no path of sympathy, so do not pity these men -- but rather realize in their feelings pain and suffering, and know that they are going through a Hell in itself. There is certainly no place in Heaven for these creatures, but their place in Hell is just as unreasonable.

And how could it be that refusing a gift could be any worse than taking one from another? It is in some places in your kingdom that refusing a gift is a courtesy, but it is in all places that taking anothers is a crime. Why insist one thing in our world that is not the same in the other? Is this judgement not flawed?

But I do understand that this could simply be that you wish for men to realize that there is always still hope, and that going through such a pain and enduring it is in fact an achievement. And so you put fear in them so they still try to endure, and that they hopefully will stop considering the thought. If this is your meaning, I understand.

Repentance is as well an issue in itself. You say that if men go against their sins, then they are forgiven, but if they do not do it in time then they will be sent to eternal damnation. Have you forgotten man's capacity for lying? Have you forgotten that life is a fragile thing?

Perhaps you wish for men to do it everyday, and you can easily see whether they truly believe it or not -- but is forgiveness really all that is needed to gain access to a greater future in death? Does a compulsive liar eventually believe what he says is the truth?

Another great sin is the love of one’s self above all others. Though I could see both excessive pride and unhonest modesty as crimes against others and themselves, is not self confidence the greatest self-rejuvenator of all? Too much of anything is a dangerous thing, but in some cases too little is just as bad. And to once again say that such an easily measurable thing is much worse than murder, which is rather something so heinous and stays with you forever, seems to not be the best hierarchy of all.

My final argument is the one that I’m sure many have argued to you about before, but I intend my discussion of it to be much less emotional and much more reasonable.

Why does the act of war exist in us, but not in any other species? It cannot be that we are too sophisticated, because war itself is started upon weakness (jealousy, greed, perhaps even excessive pride). And an even greater question, at least for me personally, is why do you support such a thing? In multiple religious texts you have stated that, although it is preferred that it does not happen, if it comes down to it then it must. That is not the words of a God, but rather a king who sits on his chair and tries to play with whatever power he can get. I struggle to understand the exact meaning of its existence, and although there are some explanations for it (Pandora’s Box, Adam and Eve) I feel like these do not come directly from you, but rather your followers in their own attempts of explaining why these things happened. If war continued, I would be unaffected -- I am asking for this explanation on the side of reason, and why it would be implemented into the greater scheme without any true meaning. Indeed, the entire act of war is vestigial at best, and yet leaders will continue to do it because they believe there is no better choice. That means that my original idea of ‘perhaps this is something man must unite and come out of’ is incorrect -- if that was true, war would’ve ended a long time ago.

I understand that someone like you is likely not used to criticism, and I would be the first to admit that perhaps my points were more sharp and my words more poetic at the beginning of my speech, but understand that this comes from another gift you have given us named procrastination. Still, I hope you can at least take some of these points into consideration.

---

Twitter: @CodexofAegis
Facebook: facebook.com/CodexofAegis 

A Cup of Pseudo-Philosophy -- 3 Theories of Death

Hey, remember 3 or so weeks ago when I said I would be making this and it would be released that Sunday? No? Good, because it never happened! Not at all!

Anyway, in this new attempt at being overly pretentious, I'm going to step into the shoes of Aristotle or whoever that old kook was and pretend I know more about a completely unknown topic more than anyone else: Death!

Most of the popular death theories either revolve around highly convoluted god stories that requires all of the prerequisites to be true before the death theory itself to be true, or just an extremely lazy explanation because fuck it, we don't know. For this, I am setting myself in a position where I apply no religions (at least of which I am aware of) but also try to explain it while using as many known facts as possible. That being, probably none once so ever. As you've read the title by now you probably know that there's not one, not two, but THREE original theories on death I have created, and although I am almost certain you may have heard something like these before due to the unoriginality constant, take in mind that I am using very little outside information and can ascertain that these are original, and probably because of that going to be pretty damn nonsensical. So with our first one, let us start with the most nonsensical of all!

Number one: The Multiverse Theory

What is the multiverse theory? Good question: the term "multiverse" is a borrowed term that I stole from somebody somewhere, but I don't remember what it was actually used for. So this could be either probably the exact same thing or a little different, but just remember my introduction.

This theory revolves around the idea that there are a near infinitely many universes, all in which every available situation to every action or event has its own universe. Let me give an example: right now, I'm going to assume you're reading this on a desktop (if not, just bare with me -- I'm not here because I can read minds...) Now, you'll probably read this normally, but what if you stopped reading to go get something to eat from the fridge? What if you closed this out to watch epic meme videos on youtube? What if you just all of a sudden started throwing up all over the damn place?

All four of these actions -- normal, fridge, meme, and vomit -- are just a few of the many things that could happen to you, even if they are highly unlikely. However, even the most unlikely ones have its own universe, where that specific point did indeed happen.

So, what decides that you are in the universe you are now? Well, quite obviously its the one where you are conscious of what's happening, but what happens when you die in this universe?

Simple, you don't. Right now, you are inside the universe in which, due to all luck, you just happen to live for an infinity amount of years. Yes, you can still feel pain, you can still get diseases, etc. etc., but you cannot actually die from any of these. The reasons other people have died is because this is not the universe in which they are conscious, and they are instead really in another universe. So basically, you're talking to someone who has no conscious. Sound familiar?

"B-b-but, I am conscious, but I am reading your blogpost right now! How does that work?" you might ask. Well, let us remember that there are near infinite universes with different possibilities, and so that makes a lot in which this blogpost is still made. Basically: if this theory is true, we're communicating through DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS! Pretty crazy, right?

Now, I'm not going to lie: This theory does take a few liberties, so let's get a little more down to earth, but perhaps not entirely scientifically accurate.

Number two: It's all a dream, Michael!

Alright, let's say you do die. Well, it's likely you probably won't be looking at a black screen for eternity, because that requires you to be conscious, while the whole idea of death is that you're probably not. So, what point are you not conscious in your everyday life? That's right -- when you're asleep!

The dream theory states that, when you die, a part of your brain stays awake, and brings you into a dream state. This dream state lasts for the rest of eternity, however once you realize you are dreaming, you will be able to take full control of your dreams to the point where you can make your dreams whatever you want. For most of us, that may seem kind of hard -- but don't worry, you have plenty of time to do it! And if you already know, then I guess you could say you're ahead of the curb!

This is the oldest theory I've made (sometime at age 12 or so) and with it there are some major inconsistencies, one of which is the definition of death itself, which states that death is when the brain shuts down entirely. Could it be that we've overlooked something, even in the realm of modern science? Not impossible, but unlikely. There's also the idea that the brain is an organ, and it decomposes over time with the rest of the body -- so even if there was a part still active, it would eventually die out.

Fortunately, this all leads to our 3rd and final conclusion.

Number three: The Spirits Within

After realizing these two had flaws when I gathered them for this post originally, I decided to lay down a try and find one last one that had the least amount of flaws as possible. And so, we lead into part 3.

I came under the impression that trying to discover death is impossible without assuming that there is something greater that we don't know -- not necessarily a god, but a vehicle of both creation and destruction that exists and governs the universe. And so I came under the impression that the most reasonable way to explain with there still being this vehicle, is ghosts.

Your conscious is what makes you. It decides personality, actions, everything -- and its safe to say that, like matter, there's no way it can actually die. So let's assume this conscious, when released after the body has passed, becomes an undetectable force. You are still conscious, but you are no longer limited to a body and can move around the world, galaxy, and universe freely. You can also inhabit beings that, there bodies are living, but they do not have a conscious (assuming those exist). So, in the end, yes I said it: spirits are actually the most reasonable way to explain death.

Then again, there is a lot we don't know, that leads to infinite interpretations. The only way we can figure out what death is, is when we go into death itself -- but in the case death fucks us over, let's enjoy life first. 

Have a theory you'd like to share? Why make your own blog post when you can simply write in the comments below? Also, don't forget to check out Codex of Aegis for my stories, and follow @JohnMcGroover for updates on both sites.

---

Twitter: @CodexofAegis
Facebook: facebook.com/CodexofAegis 

"Meeting God" by Anonymous

They say the best thing to say when you have nothing to say yourself is something someone else has said. This is a philosophical short story written by an anonymous person who knows how long ago, and was originally posted on the site"thecastsite.com"

Meeting God

By Anonymous

---





You were on your way home when you died.


It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.


And that's when you met me.


"What... what happened?" You asked. "Where am I?"


"You died," I said, matter-of-factly. No point mincing words.


"There was a... a truck and it was skidding..."


"Yup." I said.


"I... I died?"


"Yup. But don't feel bad about it. Everyone dies." I said.


You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. "What is this place?" You asked. "Is this the afterlife?"


"More or less," I said.


"Are you god?" You asked.


"Yup." I replied. "I'm God."


"My kids... my wife," you said.


"What about them?"


"Will they be alright?"


"That's what I like to see," I said. "You just died and your main concern is your family. That's good stuff right there."


You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn't look like God. I just looked like some man. Some vague authority figure. More of a a grammar school teacher than the almighty.


"Don't worry," I said. "They'll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn't have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved." "To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it's any consolation, she'll feel very guilty for feeling relieved."


"Oh," you said. "So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?"


"Neither," I said. "You'll be reincarnated."


"Ah," you said. "So the Hindus were right."


"All the religions are right in their own way," I said. "Walk with me."


You followed along as we strolled in the void. "Where are we going?"


"Nowhere in particular," I said. "It's just nice to walk while we talk."


"So what's the point, then?" You asked. "When I get reborn, I'll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won't matter?"


"Not so!" I said. "You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don't remember them right now."


I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. "Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It's like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it's hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you've gained all the experiences it had."


"You've been a human for the last 34 years, so you haven't stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for longer, you'd start remembering everything. But there's no point doing that between each life."


"How many times have I been reincarnated then?"


"Oh, lots. Lots and lots. And into lots of different lives." I said. "This time around you'll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 A.D."


"Wait, what?" You stammered. "You're sending me back in time?"


"Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from."


"Where you come from?" You pondered.


"Oh, sure!" I explained. "I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there's others like me. I know you'll want to know what it's like there but you honestly won't understand."


"Oh." You said, a little let down. "But wait, if I get reincarnated to other places in time, could I have interacted with myself at some point?"


"Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own timespan, you don't even know its happening."


"So what's the point of it all?"


"Seriously?" I asked. "Seriously? You're asking me for the meaning of life? Isn't that a little stereotypical?"


"Well, it's a reasonable question." You persisted.


I looked in your eye. "The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature."


"You mean mankind? You want us to mature?"


"No. Just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature, and become a larger and greater intellect."


"Just me? What about everyone else?"


"There is no one else," I said. "In this universe, there's just you, and me."


You stared blankly at me. "But all the people on Earth..."


"All you. Different incarnations of you."


"Wait. I'm everyone!?"


"Now you're getting it." I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.


"I'm every human who ever lived?"


"Or who will ever live, yes."


"I'm Abraham Lincoln?"


"And you're John Wilkes Booth." I added.


"I'm Hitler?" You said, appalled.


"And you're the millions he killed."


"I'm Jesus?"


"And you're everyone who followed him."


You fell silent.


"Every time you victimized someone," I said, "You were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you've done, you've done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you."


"Why?" You asked me. "Why do all this?"


"Because someday, you will become like me. Because that's what you are. You're one of my kind. You're my child."


"Whoa." You said, incredulous. "You mean I'm a god?"


"No. Not yet. You're a fetus You're still growing. Once you've lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born." 


"So the whole universe," you said. "It's just..."


"An egg of sorts." I answered. "Now it's time for you to move on to your next life."


And I sent you on your way.


---




 Transcribed by Mac Davis for Philosophy Circle's reading catalogue.

---

Twitter: @CodexofAegis
Facebook: facebook.com/CodexofAegis