Legal Justice

Legal Justice

Introduction

A poor man stole a watermelon in a village. He is desperate for food, he is also sick and has no access to proper welfare. He was captured, sentenced to jail for 5 years, and fined an exorbitant amount of money. On the other hand, a corrupt official that caused the State a loss of over 1 million dollars is sentenced to jail for the same amount of time as the watermelon man, and then was cut to only 1 year. Then, the official goes completely free, not even a parole.

This is just the many examples of legal injustice, and raises many questions about the current legal system. But is the current system just enough? The legal system has a purpose of protecting citizens and form citizens into good human beings by installing laws that specifically dictates what to do to become a good human being. It also needs to make sure that the citizens does not do things that may harm the rights of others or has negative effects towards the society. And it does that by imposing penalties upon violators, which may be in the form of prison, fines, corporal punishment in some countries, and sometimes, if the crime is severe enough, capital punishment. Capital punishment is merely a euphemism of a death sentence.

The problem is, how effective is imposing penalties upon violators in preventing the same violations from ever happening again? Not only that, is it actually fair and just for the violators? Many prisons in the world do not give the prisoners a comfortable place to live, with the exception of certain countries such as the Scandinavian prison system. And then there are countries applying the capital punishment, which effectively prevents the violator from ever fixing and redeeming themselves. And this is where the currently popular legal system begins to sway from it’s purposes.

Arguments

The penalty system of the currently popular legal system is based on the concept of carrots and sticks. Threaten the citizens with a harsh stick to make sure they do not violate any laws. The philosophy of this system is also based upon the concept of moral responsibility and Free Will. Basically, citizens would be too scared to violate the law because of the punishments, or if they violated it the first time, they won’t want to try it the second time. That seems quite effective, that is if human psychology is as simple as all other animals. But it is more complex, much more complex, let’s review.

Humans chose to do something only because their past had enabled them to do so. Which means the penalty system would only work effectively if the violators had a past that enables them to succumb to the penalty system. But what if they were raised to be strong willed people? People that won’t give up, that will never learn their mistakes. Or even worse, people who would find a way to work their way around the law. Eventually we can deduce that the reason crime rates are low in a country is not because of the actual laws and penalty system, but because the children of that nation is raised and educated properly. Otherwise, they would just find more loopholes in the system. And in some circumstances, if the officials made the punishment harsher, there might be stronger resistance, partly because of reverse psychology. Thus, the penalty system is only effective if the citizens are well educated and have a good past, if they aren’t, don’t expect the crime rates to drop.

How much justice does the penalty system delivers in the modern world? Not as much as the “righteous hatred” it continuosly propagates of course. In fact, it is as much as people who actually forgives everyone unconditionally, in other words, almost nothing at all. The penalty system is based on the concept of moral responsibility. Anyone who does a good thing or a bad thing by their own Free Will deserve praise or blame, reward or punishment respectively. One problem, both concepts have been declared and proven false, unjust, illogical, and unscientific. Which makes the penalty system outright unjust and unfair, why exactly? As we have known, the reason a person choses to do something is because their past enables to do so, both physically and mentally. If the past doesn’t provide the necessary information and correct arrangement to do so, then the person won’t chose to do that particular something.

Reviewing from a previous essay about forgiveness, we have identified that people who committed actions known to be bad are mentally unwell, they are mentally flawed, broken, sick. Yes they are not insane, but if their past is perfectly fine, would they commit evil and atrocious acts? Absolutely not, and that is a certain fact. As a result, when a person violates a law, that is because there is something in their past, and subsequently their mentality and psychology that enables them to violate the law, not because of Free Will and choice. This means when a violator is punished, or even worse, sentenced to death, what we are doing is essentially breaking his mentality and psychology even more. We are doing nothing to fix their broken selfs, and instead we isolate them and make them suffer in prison cells. And if we impose the capital punishment, that means we will effectively prevent the violator to ever realize their mistakes and redeem themselves, not only that it hurts family members and loved ones. Imprisonment does a similar thing, just not as bad.  And that is why the penalty system is simply unfair and unjust. Instead of actually curing the disease, it only worsens it, with a fake facade of reparation.

Then what must be done then to fix this ineffective and unfair penalty system? First of all, if a country has high crime rates, or a rising crime rate, then do not blame the legal system or the law. Blame the parents, the economy, the environment, and of course, the education system. Especially the education system. People commit crimes because their past enables them to do so, and that usually translates to improper education and a terrible past. So the first thing to do as a preventive action is reevaluating the education system and then fixing it, that way the crime rates will be reduced. As a combative action, what we must do is not imprison violators, instead put them in rehabilitation. In rehabilitation, inmates are treated psychologically so that their mentality would make them into good and moral citizens, and they are reeducated. They have all the same rights, the difference being they would still be somewhat isolated, for the safety of the society. Eventually they would be reintegrated into society as fellow citizens of the nation. And instead of treating them as disgusting vile scum of the earth, we treat them as a fellow human that needs help. That is the brief outline of a solution to this penalty system problem, clearly a fairer and just system.

Conclusion

The penalty system has brought more hatred, loss, sadness, and mental deterioration than it delivers what it is supposed to deliver, justice. It hinges upon the concepts of carrots and sticks, Free Will, and moral responsibility. The problem, human psychology is not as easy to control as other animals with the carrots and sticks. And Free Will and moral responsibility has been strucked null and void. Of course, exposing the problem without delivering a potential solution is useless, as a result, a proposed solution is to fix the education system, and create a fairer and just rehabilitation system that actually helps the violators to get back on their feet and become a better person. In the end, the legal system of today, is declared to be ineffective, unfair, and unjust for the human race. But the point is, perhaps we have to reevaluate our understanding of legal justice.

Forgiving The Unforgivable

Forgiving The Unforgivable

Introduction

One day a classmate of yours was talking to you. He told you that there’s going to be a holiday this week. You weren’t the brightest of people, so you fell for the lie. But eventually you got suspicious and asked a teacher, of course they clarified that there is no holiday in that week, but there is next week. You shrugged your friend off as a simple prank, and let him be. Another day, a guy mugged you while you were walking to school. You catched up with him and asked him why he did it. He revealed that he is very poor and desperately needs money, so you forgave him and helped him out while retrieving your stolen stuff.

On the next month, a guy you trust very much betrayed you, creating a deep mental wound. At first, you were mad at him, but then with reluctance, you forgave them as well. And one day, years later, your country went into war, and was invaded. Your family, friends, and everything you had known and loved was destroyed by the invaders, all of that commanded by a single dictator. At this point, forgiveness seems to be impossible, and it practically is. And thus you had a grudge on that dictator, and eventually went on to commit revenge towards that warmonger. Your country won the defensive war, and the dictator was captured and tortured beyond imagination. His entire family and any associates were executed. Has it went too far? Or is it fair and just?

Forgiveness and mercy has always been seen as a very good virtue. In fact, many religions have this virtue as one if not their main virtue. But it seems that many have been confused on what forgiveness actually means. Forgiveness is when we absolve someone from their faults and wrongs. More importantly, we eliminate any grudges, hatred, and anger we have for the person we are forgiving. However, simply not having negative feelings towards the person is not enough, we have to repair our relations to the status quo ante, the situation before the mistake, fault, wrong was made. In short, to forgive someone is to absolve them of their faults, absolve ourselves of any grudge, hatred, and anger, and finally return the relationship back to the status quo ante, before the conflict. Thus, if one claims to have forgive someone, even when they still have negative feelings towards them, or they have not returned the relationship into the status quo ante, they are lying, and they have not forgiven them.

Unfortunately, many seem to either forget this virtue, or misunderstand it completely. And they’re not completely to blame, no one was there to make them understand it. The proof is very clear in history. Until now, is there any genocidal dictator that has been forgiven by the common masses? Or perhaps a mass murderer not being hated upon anymore? No, of course not, instead hatred and anger upon these evil people still thrives. Because everyone has a similar view, that anyone who has created  so much pain, loss, death, destruction, suffering, does not deserve mercy. They had their chance, but they misuse it and thus they deserve no mercy. Or in other words, since they had the power to choose, but they misused it horribly for their own advantages with no regard to other human life or anything else, they deserve to not be forgiven, in fact they deserve to suffer worse or at least equal to what they have caused. An eye for an eye, but has this sounded familiar? It should.

Arguments

One of the core messages of Christianity is to forgive others as much as seventy seven times seven times, or as much as how much you want God to forgive others. But you don’t need God to deduce that you must always forgive because it is the right thing to do. You only need to realize one thing, that Free Will is false. The primary reason people are reluctant to forgive others is because they felt, that the people who commited wrong are misusing their power of choice. Added with the concept of moral responsibility, which has been proved an invalid system of moral justice, then the recipe for a continued so called “righteous anger” and “righteous hatred” is complete. There is one problem though, as no one has an actual power of choice, no one has real genuine control over their actions. It’s just an illusion, as the science is against the very idea.

A short recap of why Free Will is false, is because we humans are a remix of past external information and also our brain, in a progressive manner. As a result, whatever we do is certainly because of our past. If a child is educated and treated in such a way to make him a diligent and successful person, then he will be a diligent and successful person. But if the environment is already making them a lazy person since youth, and none of that environment changes, that is it continues to form the person into a lazy person, then the child will grow up to be a lazy person, and most likely not succeed financially at least. How does this correlate with forgiving others then?

Let’s say there is a dictator that is absolutely anti religion, and genocided the theistic, or even worse, anyone who believes in the supernatural in their nation. Or perhaps a guy that raped over 50 young girls. Or a guy that is so racist that he killed off millions of people of an ethnicity. Essentially anyone evil enough to warrant a “no mercy” treatment. Now, if they had a perfectly good past, that constantly supports them to be a good and caring person, and his environment didn’t change drastically that may lead them to evil, would there be any chance that they would turn into an evil person? Absolutely not, assuming the environment is constantly supportive and shaping them into a good human being. Why is that? Because there would be nothing that can cause them to be an evil person. And we can only deduce one thing, something must be wrong.

While there has been statistical evidence, that will be unnecessary for this essay. As by pure reason alone, it can be deduced that if someone became evil, likewise there must be something in their past that made them evil. Either improper education, a tragedy, or abuse, and so on, and whatever it is, it must be bad. Not only that, evil is not something that would happen in an ideal environment. It is an abnormality, an odd thing that is what happens when the environment becomes unsupportive and destructive. As a result, an evil human would not develop in an ideal environment, but because there were flaws in the environment outside of their control, they become evil. And technically, evil people are flawed people, their brains are flawed, they are mentally unhealthy. They are mentally sick people, or more accurately, mentally wounded. And now, this begs the question, is it remotely undamaging to hurt a wounded, sick man even more than they already are? Because that’s what we are doing when we hate, mock, or plan vengeance against an evil man.

Then what is the correct thing to do then? Isn’t it obvious? Forgiveness, mercy, and reacceptance. When we forgive these evil people, we acknowledge that they are no less broken and wounded than those they have wounded and broken. And to actually forgive them, we must try in all of our efforts to help these evil people, and fix their mentality, make them a better person, not just get mad and hate on them. Not only that, this is the only thing that’s actually going to make a difference after the conflict. Yes you can ask the evil guy to take responsibility and take care of their mistakes, but if we don’t fix their mentality as well, then we have committed a moral crime, because then we are giving them another chance to repeat the same mistake, causing even more damage. And what happens if we hurt them even more? Then they would be more evil and cruel than before. Which means they can do worse things. And yes it is very true that forgiving them won’t completely reverse the damages, but neither will doing the opposite. But with mercy, we are giving them another chance to start anew, and actually be able to be a good person and redeem all of their mistakes.

Some people are also confused about this, and they misunderstood, that if we forgive someone, then we are saying that what they are doing is okay. Say if someone committed murder, and then forgive them, we are saying that murder is okay. That is completely wrong, the logic behind reasoning is that if a person does something, then they are a manifestation of that action. And what they did became an intrinsic identity of themselves. If a guy robbed a bank, then robbery will be an intrinsic part of that person, but that is simply wrong, as nothing is an intrinsic part of anyone, that is intrinsic as in purely connected with that person, rather everything that we are is made out of everything that we are not. As a result, we can forgive a murderer without saying that murder is okay, we still completely oppose murder. In short, when we forgive someone, while we reaccept them as human beings, we still do not tolerate what they have done. We can tolerate them as a person, but not what they have done, and thus we must do everything in our power to prevent the same thing from being done.

Conclusion

Evil and hatred are diseases of the world. But it is a sad thing that when one falls into it, many do not try to cure their fallen friend with mercy and love, but instead fight it with the disease, which of course, only worsen the condition. To forgive everyone without discriminating is an important thing to do, and is the best thing to do after a conflict, even if that someone committed an evil that may be so dastardly that it seems unforgivable. It may not reverse the wounds completely, but it certainly does more good than simply turning a blind eye and breaking the fallen person even more. And certainly forgiving someone is not equal to tolerating what they did, because while you can forgive people, you can not forgive actions. But even if the person seems unforgivable, we still need to forgive them, for it is our duty to forgive the unforgivable.

Moral Responsibility

Moral Responsibility

Introduction

It was Sunday morning when a policeman on his break came to the church to pray. As he walked in the church, he saw a man, lying on the floor, face down, blood around him. The police rushed to the dead man, it was the local priest, he then called his colleagues, and soon enough, the rest of the police came with an ambulance. The priest was already dead, but it’s not late to find out the killer. He was shot dead with a handgun, and after a good investigation, it was found that an extremist Islamist had killed him as a terror attack.

The case became a worldwide media sensation, and of course, the killer became one of the most hated person on earth. Many demanded the death sentence, even from the ulemas and the ustadzs. The person was condemned, cursed, ridiculed, and mocked by the entire world. In short, it’s quite a chaotic mess. Meanwhile, the evidence found that exposed the extremist was found by accident. A fellow priest was just walking around the altar when he found the critical evidence. The priest who found it was praised by people from around the world. Many gave him appreciation, and said he should be rewarded and commended.

This is a case of moral responsibility. Moral responsibility, is a concept which is still closely tied with the concept of Free Will. According to the idea, people can deserve praise or blame, reward or punishment for something they had done by their own conscience. In simpler words, anything we do that is Free Willed, is subject to moral responsibility. For example, the Islamist there clearly deserved the blame and punishment for that murder, it was clearly his own pure intentions. The priest who found that evidence did not deserve any praise, because it was an accident, he did not found it because he wanted it, he just did, it wasn’t his intentions to do so. Anyway, the priest who helped delivered justice, though by accident, was honored by the government, and the extremist was shot dead in a fire fight with the police.

This seems very fair, fine, and just, but is it? Ignoring the morality of this very concept, is it even logical in the first place? And that is where things start to go wrong. The concept of moral responsibility is the very basis of the legal system most countries have now. If you do something bad, you deserve to be punished, either by paying extravagant amounts of money or getting locked up in a cold prison cell for years. The idea of righteous anger, righteous vengeance, or the eye for an eye is not far from the concept of moral responsibility either. Surprisingly, while true that some have questioned Free Will, moral responsibility is questioned upon even less, perhaps partially because anyone who does is implying that we should discard the entire legal system and change it 180 degrees. Nevertheless, since it hinges upon Free Will, it will not stand long without its partner.

Refutations

As previously mentioned, human action is only subject to moral responsibility when it is caused by Free Will. But it can be rephrased into humans only deserve praise or blame for what they have done, if what they did is because they wanted to do it. In other short words, intention is key.

Intention, or want, or desire, is a human emotion, feeling that drives that human to do or reach something. A better way to simplify it is if someone wants to eat, they will walk to the kitchen, cook some food and eat it. The want, the intention, the desire of eating drives the human to cook, and eat food. But that’s not all, intention must also be realized by the human, the human must be aware that they want something, they have an intention, which means, it has to by their own Free Will.

An example that contrasts with genuine intention is a robot. The robot has been programmed to recharge itself to a power port if its battery is running low. Does that mean the robot has an intention to recharge itself? No, because it is only programmed to do so. Intention is an act of choice, you choose to want something, you can’t choose what you need, but you can choose what you want.

And from that elaboration alone, the pillars of moral responsibility can be demolished instantly. As explained in the previous essay, the concept of Free Will is straight out illogical and even unscientific. As a short review, Free Will means humans have the capabilities of making a choice that is purely from themselves, not influenced and not coerced. But the physical laws are against that idea, as we are merely a remix of every form of information our brain receives and also the brain itself, which is a combination of both a neural network and a computer. By that, Free Will is plain out false.

If Free Will is false, moral responsibility can not exist, as whenever someone does something, the choice to do so wasn’t purely from themselves. In fact it’s not from themselves at all, it’s merely the combination of the present external factors and internal factors, which again are just past external information mixed together. And intention itself is caused by Free Will. A person does not simply desire to do something, that desire comes because of a certain past they had. They want not because they chose to, but because their choice to want is caused by the past, and their brain. Why would you praise someone for something that they actually don’t have control of? And why would you blame someone for something that again, was never their fault in the first place?

Conclusion

Justice, is something longed by all in this world, but it may have been misunderstood by many, if not all. It was misunderstood to the point of creating unnecessary anger, hatred, suffering, and discrimination as a result of the concept known as moral responsibility. A concept which itself is tied to the concept of Free Will, and its ties never broke, as it is brought down along with its ideological partner. With this, moral responsibility is declared a baseless and illogical system of justice, and to be false.

Free Will

Free Will

Introduction

Cereal or bread, cereal or bread, it’s quite a tough decision, even when it’s just for breakfast. Eventually you do make a choice, and apparently it’s cereal, for some reason. While eating that sweet cereal soup with some fresh and cold milk, a thought strikes you, “Could I have chosen to eat bread?” well of course the answer seems obvious, “Yes of course I could have,” but the thing is, is it really? Is it equally likely for you to either choose cereal or bread for breakfast? And if it isn’t, if the probability is gravitating towards cereal perhaps, did you made that choice? Or is it determined by the laws of physics?

The question of Free Will has been debated for most of humanity’s existence. But somehow, there has not been any actual scientific experimentation to try and disprove Free Will, unlike the idea of God, which many people constantly tries to refute. It seems that the idea of Free Will is so good, and has been embedded so deep in everyone’s minds that it is practically impossible to resist, and refute. But it can be refuted, it is possible, and with enough analysis, the truth of this somewhat long standing concept can be found.

What is Free Will though? Free Will is the concept, the idea that we humans have the power of choice, we can make choices freely by our own conscience. Freely meaning without coercion, and also without any influence. According to this concept, there are choices where it is free, and there are choices that is not free. A very easy example is in two situations, on one hand, a person is mind controlled using advanced psychological technology and they were used to kill others. What that person did was not considered Free Will, as they had no control over what they are doing. On the other hand, your choice of eating a cereal or a loaf of bread is Free Will, as you had control. Note that an important aspect of Free Will is control.

From the surface, it seems that this concept is a good concept, as it means we have freedom and control over our choices. The idea is not without heavy implications though, as this idea entails another concept, of moral responsibility. Both of these concepts became the basis of how most, if not all of the world’s justice system work. Eventually, these ideas are followed by forms of hatred and discrimination towards “evil” people, that most people would claim to be a justified and righteous anger. In fact, when these “evil” men suffer, others would laugh and say that they deserved it for all of the evil they had done. This is by reality enforced in some legal systems, in the form of capital punishment, where a person has their life taken away for something others have assumed to be commited in Free Will. And this is when it has taken too far.

Refutation

The idea of Free Will, hinges upon the assumption, an untested one that is, that we humans have control over what we are doing. And that there are choices we made, that are purely from ourselves, and not because of other people. This is a common advice from people about making a mistake and ending up in failure, that we must never blame others, but we must always blame ourselves, as there is only ourselves to blame, but the science simply doesn’t cut it.

The very idea that there is a choice, even just a single choice that is purely from ourselves, has violated a lot of physical laws. Because this is the problem, when we make a choice, we first must have prior knowledge about that choice, and we don’t just create that knowledge do we? The law of conservation of energy states that something must come out of something, it can not come out of nothing. In short, whatever knowledge we have about that choice must have come from somewhere, either from experience, or from other people and so on. Of course, knowledge alone is not enough to make someone do that choice. Knowing about murder, and various ways to murder someone will not make someone an instant murderer. Choice is influenced by more factors.

Choice itself is influenced by two main factors at the contemporary time period, that is an external physical factor and an internal subject factor. The external physical factor is the environment surrounding the subject, such as where is the subject located, what time is it, what is happening around the subject, basically any physical elements surrounding the subject at the contemporary time period. Social elements are included in this physical factor, as they are essentially external and physical in nature. The second factor, the internal subject factor, is the subject themselves, that is their capabilities, their positions, their general physical condition, but most important of all, their mental conditions. Mental conditions being their personality, their memories, their knowledge, in general their psychology. This, is the most important part to examine and to analyze.

Let’s say a boy was peer pressured to peep at the girls’ toilet. The boy can either decline or fall into an immoral choice. Eventually, he was threatened that he’s going to be bullied if he doesn’t join his perverted peers, and he fell for the peer pressure. He then got addicted to it, and began watching porn, and it all went downhill from there. In this situation, there are physical factors that made the boy gravitate towards the act, but the true driving force lies within the poor boy’s mind. The boy was at his puberty, which means his curiosity towards the opposite sex is at its highest. But he has also heard warnings and has received sex education, not to mention his parents. He still fell for the peer pressure though, why is that? When asked, the boy claimed he wants to fit in, and he was scared of being bullied. In short, a desire to fit in, and a fear of exclusion. Those who believe in Free Will would say that his contemporary mental condition is made up of his previous choices. And if an argument that it is because something happened to that boy, the folks would say that the boy had a choice on how to react to it. But in truth, the boy had no choice, let’s analyze the most initial stage of the human life, birth.

When a baby was just born, it is true that the baby’s mind is born mostly empty. But it is still equipped with a neural network, a basic algorithm that enables the baby to learn new information and store it as memory. Information comes in multiple forms, sound, sight, smell, taste, touch, anything that can be sensed by the human baby. Now, every bit of information taken in by said neural network affects the neural network itself by making it process newer information a little bit differently, depending on that bit of information. And a single difference, would already change the neural network, which means an alternate universe where just one single element is different, the following effects would be widely different as well.

Eventually the baby will grow into a child, and the neural network will begin to show signs of computer like behavior, which is actually already owned by the baby since birth. The computer, which we know as the mind, controls how the human acts and behaves towards others, towards themselves, how they think and feel and so on. Any new information will also affect the computer and update it, making the human change in their mind or personality by a bit slowly by slowly. What this means is the way the brain, the combination of the neural network and the computer, processes new information depends on what kind of older information is received by the brain. If the brain had processed A before B, then it will process B in a one specific way, but if the order is reversed, the way the brain processes A will be different from the way it processes A if A comes before B.

There is a time where a human can only receive information, but not react towards it. During this period, where does the information came from? From external physical factors, primarily the parents, anyone else the baby meets, the environment, all of those information unoriginal of the baby. And these information, will determine how the human will react towards newer information in the future. As for our peeping Tom, all of the information builds up, his brain develops, and as a result of his experiences during his prior times, he fell for the pressure. Whatever it is that made him do something so disgusting, it was not his fault.

All of this effectively means one thing, any choice we make has been predetermined by previous information. As our choices are done by our brain, which is the combination of a neural network and a computer, and the way our brain works right now is determined by our past experiences. As a result, all of our choices must be influenced by the outside world, and none of it came from us purely. Because us today, is shaped by us yesterday, which collectively, is just a mix of every form of information that we receive combined with the progressive development of our brain as a result of such information. This effectively refutes Free Will to its very cores, and this new information has its own implications. By this, Free Will is declared to be false, and scientifically impossible.

What Now?

Of course, one may say that they feel like they have a choice. But that is merely a psychological illusion, a fakery. While Free Will in its pure form is non-existent, a form of it still exists. It is Psychological Free Will, the thought, or the feeling, the awareness of a choice. We humans are embedded with this so strongly since birth, that we always feel like we have control, because we are alive, we can know that we are alive, we can affect the world, and we know it. That is true Free Will, the awareness of a choice, we don’t actually have one, but we have an awareness of it. And that is the Free Will concept that we should use in our daily lives.

Conclusion

Freedom, something all wish to have, but sometimes, we wish for it so much, that we made up that freedom. It seems good at first, but it ends up destructive, destroying many people’s lives, and fooling everyone. It creates anger and hatred that is actually useless and unnecessary. That is what Free Will is, and like all fakery, it can be exposed, and it has been. We are all a remix of our old selves, our brain, and every form of information that our brain has sensed. In short, we are a remix, of the outside world, multiple elements of it mixed together, to create us. Our choices, they are made by the outside world, which are not us, but eventually became part of us. Even when those things are now part of us, our choices, those things we did, are still not from us, as in the end, it is because of things that is not from us at all. To tie everything up, and as a final statement, Free Will may be false, but sometimes, an illusion may suffice. Have a nice day.

Reforms

The Christmas holidays have arrived for me, and this means one thing, more writing for this glorious blog of mine. Now, anyone reading may notice that during this one month period until around January, I will be writing, or to be fair, rewriting most of my old writings, why is that? I had always thought that the writings I made back then, were simply not good enough, yes they had content, and it's compact, but it's messy, the language is simply too informal and so and so. Of course, the first writing in my schedule would be Free Will, the first, well the first in the revived period. And I won't be messing with any of the older writings, they're just my "SJW" period writing, plain horrible stuff. And the newer writings? I was writing them with an activist like passion, and that, is not the best thing to do when writing. My writings became rushed and simply, messy and unorganized. From now on, I will take a softer and calmer approach on writing, to create perhaps less, but better, more organized writing.

Why am I doing this?

If anyone reads this, and actually cares about this blog, I am impressed. For the months, or perhaps almost a year, I don't remember, I had this blog, no one has paid any actual attention to it. No one stuck with it, very few commented on this blog, and this blog fell upon blind eyes. There wasn't anyone actually asking me for more writing, so in fact, why am I doing this? Isn't all of this writing, expressing thoughts, logical deductions, critical analysis, and time-effort investing work, useless? No one is going to say, "Woah that's amazing!" or "Keep up the good work!" and those who encountered this blog and does read it, most would probably simply criticize it and so and so. So again, why am I doing this? I'll tell you, if you are even there, why I am doing this. I am not doing this for others, I am not doing this to get recognition, to have people appreciate me, to have people pay attention at me, to get praises and compliments, no. That may be true back then, but now, I realize, it's useless, it's meaningless. And now, I write all of this, because I like to write, it makes me happy, it gives me a sense of satisfaction. Thus, I write this, not for anyone in particular, but for myself. Anyway, to anyone who does stumble upon this blog, enjoy. You don't have to give out comments, or tell me how good it is, you're free to do whatever you want to do with this blog. Have a nice day, and may God bless you, if you do believe in God that is. Happy holidays!