Suffering ?

When assessing the fundamental significance of human existence we find it very difficult to deduce any objective truth and cause, though one relevant facet remains not acknowledged and that is assessment is subjective. Essentially what can be objectively true is that humanity is subjective and conceives existence entirely appropriate to their temperament, spiritual and cognitive abilities. And thus all that is relevant, even all that is impertinent, for that matter all of existence is liable to the consciousness of the individual human being, and that nothing can be validated or justified as being true beyond that individual discernment. And so with that concept elucidated I come to the question of death, and the essence of murder. Though in order to proceed I think it is vital to elaborate some preliminary concepts and examples to clarify this perspective more prudently.

Now what we need to ratify is that the human species existing around us are external forces dominated by physical necessities, and fundamental ideas, which correlate with our own, which makes them attributes of our individual objectives. And with this confirmed we are then capable of deducing that the association and collaboration of humanity is entirely restricted to our state of consciousness, and objectives. For example, a child loves his mother because of his physical inability to ensure his own survival and power, thus emotional reciprocation entails. Furthermore the child loves its mother for the sake of ideal because when family efficiency is contrived, it assists the child in its emotional and idealistic objectives. Now morality is implemented into this cycle of collaboration between families and societies to alleviate the abhorrence of death and to ensure productivity in ascertaining the desired objective the individual may have. Morality then justifies motive, which allows humans to dismay the preliminaries for their actions. For example, I confirm eating meat is essential to my survival, and so I dismiss the essence of killing the animal because it’s morally justified. Morality contributes to the efficiency of acquiring success in the individual objective of a human which is thus power. And so with this acknowledged we come to infer that humanity is merely an attribute and product of our objectives. And with this acknowledged we come to deduce that morality is limited within the confines of this primitive objective to function for survival and productivity.

Humanity at this point is open to subjective discrepancy, we have logically assessed the nature of its being, but even this discernment is limited to my individual understanding. And with the understanding that I exist to dictate my conception of the universe and of the external forces encumbering me, I ascend beyond the restrictions of objective concurrence, and moral putridity, I become the God of my acknowledged universe.
What justifies my individual conception and ideals as being superior or more pertinent is my ability to impose them upon the external forces around me, such as human’s and to ensure my state of existence through them as instruments to my fundamental individual conception. And so to acquire dominance by means of wrath, or benevolence, in both perspectives are irrelevant when assessing this inexplicable universe surrounding us. You see we need to identify one relevant aspect, this existence that the individual is embedded in cannot be dictated by objective principals or concentric volitions. The universe is an unfathomable fluctuating state of divine occurrence, and that it is we the individual that exists for idea, and that is power.

If a famished vegetarian man was situated within a room and he was provided meat to consume, and this was the only means for him to assure the ensuing of his existence, it’s logical to deduce he would dismay his moral perspective and eat to survive. Now if we assess the situation we justify his moral neglect to ensure survival, but in this situation it was not just survival, it was the vegetarian’s survival, which is subjective and Idealistic. What we have to understand is that the vegetarian did not survive because he is a biological organism averting demise, but because he is an individual person, a concept, a God. And his volition to consume that meat perpetuated his state of individual being and his beings survival is only because of his power to submit to a cause to ensure future dominance with later objectives. Now fathom a situation where a man is forced to rigorously fight to sustain his existence against another man in a war milieu, what is the deduction? At this point morality is dismayed and one man conquers another, and what entails is that the victor’s individuality has been validated by his use of power. And the lesson and understanding the victor shall attain from this atrocious situation will assist him in making future pertinent decisions. And thus his victory becomes and attribute of his existence, an event so relevant to his state of being and individual power.

What we are obliged to acknowledge is that existence is a vain occurrence and that the only justification and relevance of it is our ability to conceive and implement our ideas within it. And this defines the essence of human power, and in a sense spiritual purpose. The only essence that defies this previously stated fundamental of existence is our primitive and repugnant emotions. Human existence is dictated by the individual and its subjective interpretation of existence, and any external attribute which is folly to the dominance of this individual is merely an attribute of the conglomerate system of human objective cause.

The consequence and vanity, the ultimate atrocity of demise or suffering is our inability to appropriately comprehend it. If indeed the inexplicable phenomenon of death was embraced as an occurrence of divinity or irrelevancy humanity could thus proceed lacking the repercussions of fear and sympathy. Atrocity only occurs when our emotions and temperament conflicts with what we are oblivious and what we object to. To object is redundant unless we have logical preliminary deductions, to which generally morality impairs us from making them, because it emphasizes on momentary occurrence as oppose to eternal.

When we assess the temperament of a child which ceases to acquire its desired objective, like a candy for example, the ramifications are generally negative. Now let’s fathom a situation where the child is ineffably disgruntled, the child is so consumed by the tears of atrocity and longing for such a substance of delight. What would we discern of the situation? We would state that the child’s tears will diminish and that the result of its distress is caused by something trivial and irrelevant and only the 3rd party mature humans can acknowledge this. With accordance to the child this is ultimate suffering; this is for a sort moment the most poignant moment of its shrieking existence. Now let’s introvert this idea to a man decaying on the battle field of Dieppe beach 1942. What is the difference between the suffering of the child and the man? Our perspective, you see the suffering is equal, but we justify the man’s by stating that his cause is more meaningful and relevant, this is a subjective interpretation as well. Nonetheless in a universal divine perspective the mans suffering is equally as vain, and if we discern it from a divine omnipotent God-like state we can infer it can be dismayed as simply as the impertinent child’s cause for distress. You see we do not cease to regard the significance of the suffering, by all means the child and the man’s are parallel, what is dismayed is the sympathy for the occurrence that imbued the suffering.

The negative empathize on murder is as redundant as accentuating the child’s crisis of not acquiring its candy. You see the human exists based on the premise of abstract thought and idealistic supremacy. Our existence is an attribute of this conglomerate, cognitive, and abstract essence within our soul/mind. Now this entails that physical struggle and suffering to survive does not exist as it does so pragmatically to our fellow animals. The humans only enemy and predator is an abstract substance which is ideal, or a metaphysical contention which is ontological, ethical, or theological. If an individual beholds a more significant idea which contributes to a collective when obliged, which attains its objective succinctly and efficaciously, and which ensues based on the discretion of the individual then he is idealistically superior.

For I do not infer that the individual with less cognition and abstract receptivity is redundant, merely I state he exists to function towards a cause which is more expendable to a collective, and less acknowledged to the individual. For example, would a German farmer in 1850 Ratify the significance of why he is implemented onto this obscure earth and universe, or would the priority be attending to his substantial tasks? His contemplation would be introverted to sustain and perpetuate his oblivious, laborious and ignorant life that only persists because the farmer abhors every facet of philosophical relevance because it may impair his productivity. At his point we have inept personal consciousness, and flexible contribution to a collective, which makes him thus inferior intellectually to that of a philosopher. Humanity is not equal because collectives are organizations and structures based on the foundation of an individual objective. For example nationalism encompassed all of Germany in the 1920, though this collective and cause was an individual one, merely humanity submitted their existence and identity to it. They are not equal they are different, merely their ideal and objective is similar. Humanity is a phenomenal being, one that is inscrutable individual and different. And to state that we are the same property, substance, and idea is flabbergasting, the only thing that can be similar is our inability to reconcile vanity, and our ineffable desire to huddle together in order to avert it.

So the justification of murder and the essence of suffering coincide. Because humanity dismays and exists to do anything to neglect the potent and inevitable essence of suffering which is thus vanity, when death occurs we feel intoxicated by it. This is only so due to our primitive nature caused by emotions. We sympathize for an innocent man being murdered because we comprehend the fear he has for the death we also abnegate from. But this title innocence can be substituted with the word ignorance quite adequately. If we saw a criminal who raped and burned 3 children alive being murdered we could justify this. Though what is essential to infer is that our ability to commit that “punishment” or that moral absence is equally as “malicious” as the objective for the murder itself. The only difference is our applied discretion and our absent discrepancy.
A being lacking consciousness to its existence caused by a lack of education, and inability to function, is thus inferior and redundant with accordance to one who excels within these confines. A being like previously described is exactly like a chicken we kill to consume, an entity and substance inevitably doomed by the vanity of its existence, and dominated by the external forces of supremacy. The right to kill is granted by my will to dominate and ability to have the collective concur with my motive.

The suffering of a dying human is as irrelevant as a child crying for a candy.