Opinion on Concept
And now for the grand finale, on which I have spent weeks upon weeks in an aluminium foil hat, muttering in the corner with severe headaches: My opinion on the concept of sin-lust.
However to prove the differing points of view worthy of analysis, it is first necessary to address a major premise upon which the validity of these arguments hinge, that is, the logic of the concept of evil. Is there such a thing as “evil” and “wrong”? Well if there was, not there would be no need to argue as there would be no such thing as wrong and I would be correct, but then I would be wrong yet thus correct, which would then prove me correct as there is no such thing as wrong which demands correction which must not, yet may be wrong thus proving me to be wrongly correct and therefore correctly wrong, correct? (I agree, should be sorry; or not?). However to avoid any games of linguistic limbo, the matter which I wish to assert is not whether evil exists as a tangible and empirical force (for which it has been argued that evil is the absence of good as darkness is the absence of light, silence is the absence of sound and homework is the absence of joy, and thus; saddeningly unlike the latter; does not exist), but rather whether there is such a thing as right and wrong.
 |
| Yes, this image was absolutely necessary. |
And finally, two paragraphs after I promised it, my opinion. I support Golding’s sin-lust ideology, and as he has expressed through his book, believe that sin is the result of succumbing to sin-lust, which may be affected circumstantial factors. The following are my reasons for this belief.
WARNING: All the fun-sunshiny end-of-the-rainbow entertainment and corny jokes end here. If you’ve come for a blog post, in the name of your sanity I maintain that you skip ahead to the conclusion. The author strongly suggests that you do not read on unless you happen to be a masochist and/or are the unfortunate teacher condemned to read his work. It would be an understatement to say that the following portion is a dry philosophical monstrosity and the cause of this warning being typed at 1 am.
To begin with, the first premise which I wish to enforce is that circumstances, or modifying and influencing factors (Courtesy of Dictionary.com) affect us. No, this is not a sarcastic comment, yes a bear does defecate in the woods, (See link: “Black Bear Pooping in the Woods in HD”, I rest my case) However obvious, for the sake of proof I have taken it upon myself to regurgitate from within my skull the following arguments:
Air:
- Air in itself is a circumstance; it is a scientifically proven fact that air is necessary for human survival
- All in opposition are cordially invited to for a discussion at Bedok Swimming Complex
- Proof that that our internal aspects (knowledge, personality etc.) is not only influenced but reliant on external factors
- Thus circumstances affect us
Impossibility of Refutation:
- To first understand this argument one must acknowledge that asodfh;lasdkjf ;lsdajf;lasd;oifasdlih f CHEESECHEESECHEESECHEESEasdfasdf
- The fact that the past sentence made no sense, albeit the capitalised words, and the fact that you are understanding this sentence right now, exemplifies my point
- For anyone even begin to challenge this argument, he must first perceive these words, thus allowing this circumstance of dots and dashes on a screen to affect him
- Furthermore, any empirical, experiential or logical evidence presented only does so by the effect of the circumstance of my fingers flying across the keyboard
- Thus circumstances affect us
Furthermore, I also wish to assert the following premise: sin, or wrong, for the purposes of this abomination of a blog post, exists. This argument has been enforced earlier in said blog post, thus do bear with me as I pointlessly increase my word count with the following reinstated point.
Existence of Distinctive Concept:
- Without the existence of sin, there would be no such thing as right or wrong
- All would be in uniformity of righteousness
- No one would have been capable of creating such a medium of distinction, as the uniformity I have emphasised prevents anyone from perceiving, much less maintaining that sin exists
- Thus the existence of the concept of sin proves its own existence
For the sake of all readers who have gone through sudden memory loss, in the past few paragraphs I have highlighted that circumstances affect us, and that sin exists. This undergirds the third premise I wish to bring forth: Man cannot be under the influence of circumstance alone (as supported by the worldview of Circumstantial Evil I have stated in the beginning of this post), and morality, or the inherent and universal knowledge of right and wrong, is necessary to reconcile the past two propositions, that sin exists and circumstances affect us:
Existence of Evil:
- Implication of Circumstantial Evil: Everyone is merely acting under the influence of their past circumstances
- Thus when anyone does something supposedly wrong, his past is ultimately to blame
- Thus sin is the impossibility to do wrong, and person who allegedly commits the sin is not responsible
- Therefore circumstances are the cause of sin, and circumstances are ultimately caused naturally, as human-inspired circumstances also demand natural circumstances as a cause
- Therefore there would be no such thing as sin, which contradicts the first premise
- Thus morality, or knowledge of right and wrong, is necessary for sin to be a decision, and for someone to take responsibility for sin, such that sin will have a cause
- This allows for circumstances to affect us and for sin to exist
Unfortunately for your dear author, it must be proven that morality is universal, to provide credence for my later claims. Thus I present the result of 3 sleepless nights:
Partial Morality is Equivalent to Amorality:
- Implication of partial morality: Some people have the knowledge of right and wrong, while others do not
- However, in the hypothetical scenario where partial morality is true, no one can trust that their sense of morality is actual morality, or the complete product of their circumstances
- Thus, no one would know if their sense of right and wrong is correct or wrong (let’s not get into this again)
- Therefore no one would truly know what is right or wrong
- Thus morality, the knowledge of right and wrong, would not exist
- On the other hand, in the case of the proposition of sin-lust, morality and circumstantial effect which I have put forth, everyone can trust that they have some sense of morality
- Thus morality must be universal for morality to exist, which is supported by the previous argument.
Denial of Moral Absolutes
- Implication of partial morality: Some people are innately pure, yet others are the product of their circumstances
- Moral absolutes exist: Since sin exists, as presupposed by claiming the existence of morality, some deeds are definitely right while others are indisputably wrong
- Those who do are innately pure would be doing so as a knee-jerk reaction. Only their innate morality is responsible for their righteousness
- If so, moral absolutes would not be moral absolutes, as they only apply to some but not to others (i.e. moral absolutes would only to apply to those without morality)
- Therefore morality is universal, as the assumptions of partial morality contradict its implications
(Further proof of universal morality can be found later under the “Cause and Effect” argument in the following paragraph, where I found it more apt)
And now, the final paragraph before I seek serious mental rehabilitation; with the established hypothesis that morality is within us all, the theory of innate purity, which claims that we are under the effect of morality and circumstances only in terms of sin, appears enticingly conclusive. However before we pop the champagne, I have ideated the following 3 counter-arguments which not only show errs in the said concept, but also prove the sin-lust to be logically valid ideology:
Cause and effect:
- Implication of Innate Purity: The assumption is that morality is innate without any opposition but circumstance, and thus since birth, one would be educated on the moral laws
- Morality obviously supports itself, morality would not deem morality to be immoral, or it would have self-destructed. Yet it exists as affirmed in the previous paragraphs
- Thus, one would have moral urges
- How then would one be affected immorally by circumstances?
- All immorality-influencing circumstances would not have affected their morality, as from the very first circumstance they have been rejecting it due to their moral tendencies
- Thus this assumes that everyone would be without sin
- This is refuted through proof of the existence of sin as I have repeatedly maintained
- Even if there were a select few that did not have morality (Thus sin would still exist)
- Their supposed sin would arise from their circumstances which are out of human control
- Thus they would sin as a knee-jerk reaction, and would not be responsible
- Therefore they too would not sin
- In conclusion, for sin to exist: Morality must exist, and morality must be universal
- As such, sin-lust is necessary to work in contradiction to these moral urges, for sin to exist
- Therefore sin-lust exists
Suicidal Belief
- This argument implies that the cause of sin is one’s circumstances, which creates flaws in one’s sense of morality
- Thus in the name of morality, to maintain one’s morality (see the second point of cause and effect), isn’t it logical to commit suicide?
- Even if morality prevents suicide, morality would be self-contradictory, as it encourages one to stay moral, and thus to abstain from sin through refraining from circumstances, which may only be achieved through suicide (as we all are affected by circumstances, as expressed in one of the first few paragraphs)
- Thus this argument is self-defeating, as it cannot be logically maintained unless one kills himself first
- However one who does have sinful urges, would be able to accept circumstances and not blame them for sin, but rather himself
- Therefore everyone alive would have sin-lust
Good riddance and bad rubbish.
Thus I conclude the beast which has arisen from the weeks upon weeks of hair loss during my holidays. I sincerely apologise for the egocentric complaints I have made about the difficulty of my work; this is my first time attempting anything like this; and I hope that they may be viewed as cheap humor. In summary, I have founded my agreement in Golding’s sin-lust ideology on the following premises:
Premise 1: Circumstances affect us
Premise 2: Sin exists
Premise 3: Morality is necessary for circumstances to reconcile the past two premises and must be universal
Premise 4: Sin-lust is necessary based on Premise 3
All in all, over the course of these few blog posts, I have presented the implications of Golding’s sin-lust concept, namely that there is an indwelling tendency to sin in all mankind, its possible origins, that is his experience in World War 2 and Golding’s Christian faith, and established my opinion on Golding’s concept (no way I am going to expound on this point). As I have often maintained, every cheeseburger has its pickles, and I advise that you consider the arguments I have made with a pinch of salt. On this cheerful note, I conclude my discussion on Golding’s concept of sin-lust.
For the final time, thanks for reading :)
Sources:
Pictorial Sources:
Simon and LOTF: http://alexj000.wix.com/lord-of-the-flies#!analysis
Black and white devil: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5440445ae4b08cdfdca54072/t/54737a3be4b0c20cd42db927/1464920073815/?format=1000w
Coincidence I think not: http://www.hockeyforums.net/topic/64460-adam-oates-vs-brett-hull/
mlg glasses: http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.191259033.5263/ap,220x200,16x12,1,ffffff,t-pad,220x200,ffffff.jpg
Sin: http://www.christianguys.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/sin.jpg
Black: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/a/a3/Black-windows_542931.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150317090032
Black: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/a/a3/Black-windows_542931.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150317090032
Skull and cross: http://www.clker.com/cliparts/7/1/6/c/13419477961030668400Cute%20Skull%20and%20Crossbones.svg.med.png
Rainbow sparkles: http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/085/e/0/rainbow_glitter_by_eyesmile22-d5zbo04.jpg
Alicorn: https://eloka-arctic.org/sites/eloka-arctic.org/files/images/narwhal_3D.jpg
Mtn Dew: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/mountaindew/images/6/6f/Mountaindew.jpg/revision/20150119224544
Doritos: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Doritos_Logo_(2013).png
Mtn Dew: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/mountaindew/images/6/6f/Mountaindew.jpg/revision/20150119224544
Doritos: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Doritos_Logo_(2013).png
Informative Sources:
.png){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment