The State II

Subiectum:
The greatest paradox known to man is the expectations life has of us. This in itself too is a paradox. Since life essentially has no meaning. What do I mean by that and what does it have to with political and social behaviour? Those are questions for later, they’re more specific and too detailed. Right now I just wanted to highlight the area needed for me to bring another issue forward. The Idea I want to discuss is an Idea that is related to all of us, therefore it has existence in that which is most common to all of us: life. I use the word Idea in the Platonic sense to convey to you that what I want to discuss is nothing made out of matter, although it does require matter to gain existence. The Idea I want to convey in that sense is something that solely exists inside our heads, but by which we are confronted on a daily bases, hence giving it not a materialistic existence, but an abstract.  The Idea I want to introduce is one that consists out of contradictions and paradoxes. It is something that has to be examined carefully and presented delicately.  The worst thing about it, is that even the area in which it exists, namely life itself, is a huge paradox. Therefore it is utterly necessary to be patient with the following Idea. It is difficult to explain, because explaining it equals to wanting to explain the idea of a contradiction. I do however think it is profoundly necessary for us to finally accept this phenomenon and see it for what it is and its influence on our daily lives, but most importantly, in our contemplative actions.  What I want to discuss is not really a subject honestly, since the use of that terminology indicates something concrete, something that has been limited to some particular essence. The concept I want to bring forward is more complex, it is a paradox, but it exists. In one way pushing us forward, in another keeping us away from progress: the ambiguity of life.  

Life: 
The greatest paradox known to man is life. What I mean by that I will explain in a bit, but first let us look at the opposite of paradoxes, logical consequences. What I find interesting in logics is that we have the principle of tertium non datur.  A Latin term that has a very simple meaning: a proposition is either true or false. This simply means that in one and the same sentence, one can’t say anything that contridicts itself and therefore eliminates the credibility of his belief in a certain proposition. So literally translated from Latin it means, the third is not given. Quite a helpful principle I might add. Evidently, it is either true or false that water is wet. Likewise it is either true or false whether the rose is red or not. And so on and so on. Denying such examples would be absurd too.  Could you imagine a world in which such statements would be redeemed as both true and false? In such a hypothetical sceneries the basics of logics would have fallen apart in so far that no human being could ever have access to any form of knowledge. Therefore it is safe for me to conclude that it is reasonable to think certain ideas about the world are either true or false and there is nothing in between that can validate it.
What fascinates me however is that there are certain things in life that however can not be redeemed as true or false. These are concepts that one simply takes as given. The standpoint towards them is not based on any logical research or discovery of principles. These are simply standpoints people take when they do politics. What I have discovered in the social behaviour of people, is that they have integrated this logicphilia towards those concepts in such a way that it does not apply to them, but are still reinforced. Concepts that require nuances and not the harsh discrimination given by the principles of logic, are filtered by the black and white spectrum of right and wrong.
The statement I’ve given in both introductions, is one that will be leading throughout all my contemplations. Is it possible and even justified for man to use discrimination in a life of paradoxes and ambiguity? These thoughts have not risen over night, I must say honestly. These are specks of thoughts that have been compiled into one big ball of thoughts that I decided to present. What is the reason that we keep falling back into repeat, when there should be so called progress? I’ve been trying to answer this question by looking at a specific reason. A sort of subject that I can pinpoint as the prima causa omnis. Everytime I had thought I had found an answer, whether it be in socialism, nihilism, virtue ethics or aristocracy.  Whether it be in tolerance towards others or indifference, hate or frustration, it would always lead to the same two conclusions that I had not anticipated, but badly needed. 
Firstly, life exists in paradoxes and out of ambiguity. Kierkegaard phrased it best: 

“It is quite true what philosophy says; that life must be understood backwards. But then one forgets the other principle: that it must be lived forwards.”

Due to the ambiguity of life, there are lots of things we can be uncertain of. There are lots of choices of which we can not completely know the consequences of. Ambiguity presents itself in many forms, that we experience in our daily lives. The one mentioned above by Kierkegaard is solely the first ambiguity presented to us. Besides that we have the phenomenon of conformity versus individuality, wanting to define yourself personally, but also not being stared at for being too different, the thin line between well intended critique and unjustified offense, versus unjustified critique and justified offense. We forming ideals or ideals forming us. We choosing our future or being shaped into the future. Free will or free choice. 

The ambiguity of life pierces through all these subjects, because of only one simply reason: every single one of those subjects carries an essence of truth, even if it is most minimal. And by truth, I do not mean in the same sense as when we call a proposition true or false, but in the sense that it all carries the same goal that needs to be idealised. Namely, the end of the ambiguity. This being my second conclusion. How I came these conclusions, will be discussed in the next part.