I haven't been posting for over six weeks now so here is a brief "4-point play" of what has been
going on lately:
- I finally received my Student-OV card 4 weeks ago, which enables me to use all public
transportation for free in the Netherlands throughout working days.
- I was glad to be home over the Easter Holidays and see friends and family, although it was only for three days...like I already mentioned in a previous post, my university is very unkind with regard to breaks and such.
- the sun has come out...A'dam and sunshine is like the cake and the icing.
- I started reading a new book a week ago, "The Kite Runner", which is suppose to be vivid and engaging...we'll see...I suppose I'll post a review once I'm done, which could take a while due to the upcoming exams (Corporate Finance & Statistics 1)
***********************************************************
"You annoy me, therefore I exist." - Words I've been thinking about for the past 4 weeks.
"Did he just say that?", I was asking myself while rewinding the movie ("Defiance"- starring
Daniel Craig) after one of the characters uttered them. "Yes, he did!...So what the hell does that mean?!" I've been very reluctant to interpret the line, due to laziness. In fact I even googled it in hopes of possibly finding an academic construal or anything that would lead me to an answer. Negative! So in order to get this quote of my mind I'll just attempt to find an answer right now.
"Annoyance",by definition, means: the psychological state of being irritated; while
"existence" is defined by: being - the state or fact of existing (both according to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).
To me the causal relationship between annoyance and existence is the troubling part of the sentence. "You annoy me, therefore I exist." Obviously, one can only be annoyed if one exists but not vice versa. You see I already evaded from trying to interpret the statement to judging it right or wrong. It has to be clear that when talking about existence the human being's being is meant.
The fact that existence is permanent over the life span from being born to passing away (R.I.P.) and annoyance as defined is a "psychological state", which under normal conditions is evanescent, excludes the possibility of causality in the first place. So the statement could be graded as false, BUT I think it shouldn't when viewed from a sociological standpoint. Since annoyance takes place in our psyche,
more often than we'd like to admit to ourselves, and our psyche defines who we are as human beings being, one's existence is partly shaped by annoyance. Thus one's existence will be recognized by others partly for what one is annoyed by and to what extent.
(I would very much welcome any comments and interpretations of this statement!)
Post Scriptum:
...I wrote a little poem a couple of weeks ago:
"Untitled" - by Y.A.(2009)
Remotely he is trying to understand,
How being a boy avails being a man.
Over and over they cross his mind,
Three words that barely can be defined,
Three words so hollow yet one of a kind,
Three words almighty, can't be denied.
Distance impedes them to cross his lips,
Resistance is weaved through body and gist,
To some degree nearness puts on a twist,
His mind is deceived, oh fearless he is.
Thinking once, twice, he cannot decide,
Thinking thrice those words become lie.
* **** ***!
...as already mentioned in my first entry, I would welcome comments of any sort, to give me ideas and incentives for upcoming entries ;) !
Laatste reacties