For those of you who are still awake (in the states at least), let me begin by saying that this opening post is by no means going to be neither the best nor worst of my writing, nor is it the product of an individual who wishes to provide you with anything other than simple entertainment and opinion. Now given that this is the case and the fact that I am extremely tired at the moment; allow me the courtesy of stating that I am both new to the blogosphere and not used to the format of such an informal medium. With that out of the way I will commence with formal introductions and various (un)interesting facts about my life as of yet.
My name is Mike, I am 22 years old, a recent graduate from a University that I am not going to reveal at this or any other predetermined moment of time. I graduated this past May with a degree in History and a humble but still noticeable amount of deb, which will most certainly be a growing pain that will have to acclimate myself to as I continue along my journey into what will hopefully amount to a career that I will find myself content with. Being a history major allows one the ability of noticing certain developments both new and familiar as one can distinguish through the scope of the past century and those before. While I'm not going to get into the particulars of this assertion I am merely noting the fact that my specialization in history, albeit limited, is going to be the prevailing theme of this blog. Now for those of you who will or might read this blog, I'm more than happy to read any contributions to correct or debate any sort of research or notes that I will be discussing either formally or informally. However, and a big however at that, I am not here to argue or nonsensically bicker over the ins and outs of whatever points both controversial or "politically correct" that I may bring up. In the end what I hope to have happen is allow for an intelligent and intense conversation on topics both contemporary and in the past. Now that the ground rules have been laid, let's get to the really important stuff, which is more or less what I have to say. Which will be initially addressed here and then expanded on in the following post(s).
At the moment I am almost two-thirds of the way through a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek on YouTube, which is aptly titled "Does God Exist?". The debate in question took place a few short years ago at VCU and discusses both religion (mainly Christianity) and the various theories that both 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of some higher intelligence or force. Hitchens as always provides an intelligent and eloquently iterated assertion that looks to both the scope of history and science to counter Turek's argument that the universe was created out of 'nothing', by some sort of force that had to be there in order for any sort of rhyme or reason to be present in the natural order of things. It is an interesting argument albeit tainted by the religious 'fairy tale' nonsense that is used to support it. Here lies a tired yet all the more infuriating standard of argument that for one reason or another allows for the majority of society to rationalize the irrational. While Turek himself admits that he is a fan of Hitchens work and concedes his agreement to some of his points, he soon devolves from all the hanging of laurels into drunk faith that aspires to have all the answers to ALL of life's questions in the notion that the science only supports creation through evolution to a Point A and no further. Now do I mean to say that Turek should be viewed as a nut and placed along side the religious screwballs that propose that miracles happen everyday and that the Ten Commandments are a universal law? No. But I do mean to say that he is a reminder that there are many otherwise reasonable people that truly believe that on Sunday's they are drinking the blood of a three-thousand year old man. Granted there are many good people who do believe in such ridiculous things, but that is not to say that their moral grounding is based on anything either reasonable or based on anything other than the fear of being punished...
I do plan on continuing with this discussion on the above topic as it provides an endless point of interest to my mode of thought. But before I turn in, I want to encourage everyone reading to please look at this debate, it's on YouTube and you can find it quite effortlessly. I also want to give note to the above photograph that was recently submitted to National Geographic magazine. It piqued my interest due both to it's very gritty realism and subtlety of human nature but also to it's simplicity insofar that it provides a candid look at modern society through the lens of time. Which in my mind is due to the black and white coloring or the photo itself and the fact that it quite literally mirrors the outside world, a world that is both in your face but fenced off through generations as depicted, in my mind at least, by the choice of the subject matter: an older gentleman casually reading a book caught off guard by the photographer, while gripping a cigarette holder in his lips. The image brings to mind the passage of time but the gritty realism of society, which highlights the urban 'man' or the modern dandy, who idly watches but engages in the world around him through observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment