 |
Posted by sylvia on Friday, May 28, 2004 (09:32:01)
Reason has become a way of excusing every event or action in life. This is true not only with present, ongoing actions or situations, but also events of the past in the form of hindsight. An action or event cannot, in this case, exist without some reason, rationale, or justification for its existence; it cannot just be.
People everywhere are always looking for why an even happened, especially a tragedy. If someone was to answer this with a statement of being, such as defining this event as a fact of history, others would still say: “...but there's got to be a reason why this happened!â€
When pressed for an explanation on why these people need a reason for events of the past, their answer is that we can learn from history how not to repeat the same mistake. Is that to say that once a mistake is made, no one in the future will ever be able to make that mistake again? It hints that these rational people are leading us to a perfectionist state over time.
As human beings, we all make mistakes. Granted that this is true, the law seems to look at not the reason for the mistake, but whether (or not) the mistake was intentional, or deliberate. If the intention can be proven, and the person or persons are found guilty, this still does not satisfy those who want to know why this occurred.
Did it occur because of genetic malfunctioning in the person's body? Did it happen because of the way in which the person was reared as a child? Or, did this event occur because of peer pressure and the lack of moral standards during adolescence? Another question to ask is whether economic forces, such as company profits, poverty, or hierarchy (such as in the military) had any bearing on why this event occurred.
Conversely, when people are enjoying themselves, or just “taking it easy,†there seems to be no discussion of reason at all. If one were to ask someone a party why that person is having a good time, all one would get in response, probably, is a strange look. Once people put the theatrical mask of comedy on their faces, reason seems to fly out the window.
Of course, one reason might not be enough. If I tell a friend that I am going for a walk to get some fresh air, that friend might also justify my action as an exercise, claiming that I need exercise now and again. This often leaves one in a predicament. Was the original reason for the action (fresh air) true, or is the added reason (exercise) also true, even though I did not originally acknowledge it?
Many corporate organizations are well known for claiming that there is no other reason for what they do other than the stated reason. When a person suggests otherwise, many of the managers, employees (except during strikes), and patrons of the corporation are ready to defend this monogamous line of reasoning.
We, as humans, are also guilty of projecting reason into all other areas of nature, both fauna and flora. We say that an animal acts a certain way at a certain time for a particular reason. We are now attempting to find a reason for every event in the heavens, both in our solar system and in distant galaxies.
What makes humans want to probe into all these areas? Some say that this is true because we have a conscious mind and intelligence. This response leads one to ask why we have a conscious mind or intelligence. The debate continues, and often results in raised voices or in disrespect for others.
During my waking life, (as is true in my dream world), I am always looking for something to do without having to give myself a reason for doing it. I like to laugh, for instance, but when someone asks me why I am laughing, the ghost of reason rears its ugly head.
One avenue of approach to this problem is via poetry. Poets are not, as such, interested in why something is or has been, but more into just describing the moods, events, feelings, and situations as they are to that particular person. In describing whatever the poet is involved in as he/she writes, there is no need to justify or rationalize what is being described.
In some ways, song writers use the same descriptive resources as the poets, but go beyond this to try to explain why to the listeners. Artists (as painters and sculptors) are also attempting to describe many aspects of life without the rational aspect, although, some would probably argue, and rightfully so, that their work is filled with rationale.
Is there any way to handle this apparent ambivalence between pure sensory description and the human mind's preoccupation, at times, with reason? One possible escape from this tug-of-war is non-communication, where a person refuses to discuss a particular issue, or anything at all, with another person.
For each of us, the decision is whether to allow description or reason to be our theme during any moment in this life. For myself, I would rather choose description as my raison d'etre.
Note: Brian Henson is our online columnist, if you have any comments or questions please add them below or use our feedback form.
|
|
Latest: 
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 7437
Members: 0
Visitors: 7
Total: 7
1: