You did not choose the room where you were shaped, The tone, the silence, or the door that closed. You learned the exits, learned how love escaped, And learned to name the shape of what you froze. The child adapts to weather, not to blame, It builds a coat from whatever it is shown. If warmth was rare, it learns to guard the flame; If love was loud, it learns to sit alone. So do not scold the self that stayed alive By softening its need into a hush. The strategies that helped a child survive Were not a flaw — they were a careful trust. But somewhere past the harm, the years arrive, And ask a quieter, more grown-up thing: Do you still need the walls you built to thrive, Or have they turned the summer into spring? Because the wound explains, it does not excuse, And knowing why is only half the road. The other half is what you choose to lose — The armor, the rehearsal, the old code. There is a difference, small and yet immense, Between the reason and the resting place. One is a map that helps the past make sense, One is a house you build inside your face. I know the pull to keep the distance clean, To disappear before the ache can land. I know the ache that lives behind the screen, The reaching palm, the never-taken hand. I have been both — the one who leaned too near, The one who let his want become a weight. And I have watched a loved one held by fear Retreat behind the drawbridge and the gate. So I stopped pulling. Not to punish, no — But so the room could hold a softer air. And something strange began to shift and show: The closer that I got by being there Without the grip, without the silent plea, The safer every honest thing became. The one who fled began to sit with me, Because I did not need her to be tame. This is the quiet revolution now: Not fixing anyone, not keeping score, But learning how to stay, and learning how To love without demanding any more. The pen is in your hand. The past is ink. The chapters that were written were not yours. But what comes next is closer than you think —
It waits behind the unlocked, easy doors.
RSP
…
DCG
Regardless of how you were raised, it’s your job to grow up. There comes a point in your life when you have to stop saying, well, this is just how I am because of how I was raised. No. That might be why you became this way, but it doesn’t have to be who you stay. If nobody taught you how to communicate, then learn. If nobody showed you healthy love, then learn. If your family avoided hard conversations, have them. If anger was the only emotion you ever saw, learn another way. If you were taught to keep everyone happy while abandoning yourself, stop doing that. Because growing older happens automatically. Growing up doesn’t, though. Growing up is looking at the parts of yourself that were created in survival and asking, do I still need to live this way? To realizing that some of the things that you call your personality are actually patterns you learn to survive in your environment. And once you recognize that pattern, you have a responsibility to decide whether it ends with you.
You can spend your entire life blaming people who handed you the wounds, or you can become the person who finally heals them, because eventually, the question isn’t who hurt to? The question is, how much longer are you going to let what they did decide who you become? Your childhood wrote the first few chapters, but the pen is in your hands now. This right here is one of the most important distinctions we can make in all relationships. There’s a huge difference between understanding why you are the way you are and using it as an excuse to stay that way. Maybe nobody modeled healthy conflict for you. Maybe vulnerability wasn’t safe in your family. Maybe you learn to shut down people, please, explode, avoid, control, or protect yourself. Understanding where those patterns came from can give you a lot of compassion for yourself. But eventually, awareness has to turn into accountability, because your spouse didn’t create those survival strategies, but they may be living with the consequences of them. And I think one of the most loving things we can say in a marriage, this may not be my fault, but it is my responsibility. You can learn to communicate. You can learn to regulate yourself. You can learn to stay in hard conversations. You can learn a healthier way to love. Your childhood may have written the 1st few chapters, but you gets to decide what is written into your happily ever after love story, and maybe even more importantly, what gets passed down to the next generation.
I write to you from inside the storm, and from the doorway where I watch it form. I have loved you mostly inside my head, a theater of scenes that never get said. You appear, then vanish, a flickering sign, and my heart runs after what is never quite mine. I call this love, but it burns like a fever, a vow to a ghost and a distant believer. I rewind small moments until they all blur, a glance, a breath, the way you never were. You stay perfected, framed in my mind, and I fade smaller just to keep you kind. I have abandoned myself chasing your name, walking over glass while calling it flame. Each silence from you becomes a loud judge, each crumb of regard, a banquet I won’t budge. Your armor is heavy, your doors stay closed tight, yet I camp at the gate, praying you’ll turn toward the light. You retreat into distance, I rush into fire, thinking if I burn enough, you’ll feel desire. I have studied our pattern like scripture and code, watched it etch scars in my nervous road. You step back whenever I try to draw near, and I step in closer every time you disappear. The gap between us is more than just space, it’s all of my effort poured into your grace. Now a new voice trembles under my skin, asking why I keep losing myself to not win. It tells me love is not meant as a chase, not an endless exam I must constantly ace. It whispers my worth is older than you, that my pulse didn’t start when you came into view. So I gather my pieces from altars and floors, and start closing shrines with your name on their doors. I turn these letters inward for the first time, writing truth to the self I left out in the grime. I step back, not to wound or accuse, but to finally stop making myself the one I lose. I still ache, I still want, I still remember your face, yet the fantasy no longer gets to set the pace. I walk away on unsteady, unfamiliar legs, carrying both my longing and unanswered begs. Somewhere beyond this unfinished, jagged bend, something real may rise—if I dare not write the end.
We think that we argue with logic and light, But the war in the room is invisible — inside. You’re not fighting a fact when you’re fighting tonight, You are fighting the person who lives in their pride. A belief isn’t held like a book on a shelf, It is worn like a skin, like a name, like a scar. To challenge the idea is to challenge the self, And the self will defend itself, near or far. So the harder you push, the more deeply they dig, The more certain they feel as you prove them all wrong. The argument planted a doubt that grew big, So they held to their story, they made it more strong. We were not born with these views fully made, We were broken by something we never could say. A wound that we carried became the crusade, An old pain became armor we carry today. The emotion came first — long before the belief, Before the philosophy, before the firm stand. An experience seeking its narrative relief, A trembling heart reaching for somewhere to land. And reason arrived like a lawyer retained, To argue a case that was already won. The verdict was settled, the jury was trained, The mind was the courtroom — and so it was done. No study was needed, no figure, no chart, The judgment was carved in the marrow and bone. You cannot reach someone by way of their mind When the road that you need runs directly through heart. So if you would reach them, don’t carry a sword, Don’t marshall your data, don’t build up your case. Sit still for a moment, and pull up a chair, And ask them the question that opens a space. Not “why are you wrong?” but “where did this start? What part of your living convinced you of this?” For that is the doorway — not proof and not art, But the quiet of wondering what you might miss. The mind will change only when something in it Grows curious enough to consider the cost. Not when it’s beaten, not when it’s been hit, But when it decides that it’s willing to cross. We don’t change our minds when we lose in the fight, We change when we’re curious enough to explore. Not when we’re shamed in the merciless light, But when we feel safe enough to open the door. So speak to the wound that first seeded the thought, Speak to the human behind what they claim. The battle of argument cannot be fought
When the person defending is fighting their name.
…
DCG
Screenshot
Analysis of the Core Statements This argument rests on five interlocking ideas:
Belief is identity — People do not hold beliefs the way they hold opinions about pizza. They fuse beliefs with who they are.
Arguments feel like attacks — When you challenge the belief, the person experiences it as a personal assault on the self, triggering defensive entrenchment.
Emotion precedes reason — Beliefs are not constructed from facts up. They are built from emotional experiences first, and reason is recruited afterward to justify them.
Emotional pain seeds belief — Prior wounds, fears, and lived pain create fertile ground for specific beliefs to take hold — the belief soothes or explains the pain.
5. Curiosity, not argument, changes minds — When people do shift their views, it is not because they were defeated in debate. It is because genuine curiosity about why you believe what you believe created an opening.
Scientific Support — The Research is Robust Jonathan Haidt — The Elephant and the Rider Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model is the cornerstone study here. Haidt’s decades of research, summarized in The Righteous Mind (2012), demonstrated that moral and political beliefs are driven primarily by gut-level intuition — the emotional “elephant” — while conscious reasoning functions as a press secretary for the elephant, constructing post-hoc justifications. According to his Moral Foundations Theory, people are “morally dumbfounded” — they know something feels wrong but cannot explain why, which proves the emotion came first. Dan Kahan — Identity-Protective Cognition Dan Kahan of Yale’s Cultural Cognition Project coined the term “identity-protective cognition” — the unconscious tendency to process evidence in ways that shield one’s group identity rather than reach accurate conclusions. Critically, his research shows that higher intelligence and science literacy actually amplify this effect. Smarter people are better at motivated reasoning — they construct more sophisticated defenses of beliefs they were never willing to change. Claude Steele — Self-Affirmation Theory Steele’s landmark 1988 work at Stanford established that the self-system is constantly engaged in maintaining a sense of moral and adaptive adequacy. When beliefs tied to identity are threatened, the entire self feels threatened, not just the idea. The self mobilizes defensively. Sherman and Cohen’s extensions of this work confirmed that reducing this self-threat — through affirmation — is one of the only reliable ways to open a person to reconsidering a belief. Leon Festinger — Cognitive Dissonance Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory (1957) laid the groundwork: people experience genuine psychological discomfort when new information conflicts with held beliefs, and they work to eliminate that discomfort — most often by rejecting the new information rather than changing the belief. Nyhan & Reifler — The Backfire Effect Nyhan and Reifler (2010) documented the “backfire effect” — corrections to political misinformation sometimes caused people to believe the false claim more strongly. While later meta-analyses by Wood and Porter (2019) found the effect is less universal than originally claimed, the core dynamic — resistance to correction under conditions of identity threat — is thoroughly supported. NIH Neuroscience — Belief as Self-Referential Processing A 2024 NIH neuroimaging study found that challenges to political beliefs activate the brain’s Default Mode Network — specifically the regions governing self-referential processing and introspection. The brain literally treats a political argument the same way it treats a threat to the self. APA — Curiosity as a Change Agent
APA research on curiosity and practical communication analysis confirm your final point: curiosity — not argument — is the lever of genuine persuasion. A conversation that induces curiosity about why you believe what you believe creates the only real opening for change.
The Concise Argument
We do not argue about facts. We argue about who we are. Beliefs are not ideas we carry — they are identities we inhabit. When someone challenges your belief, your nervous system does not register it as a debate. It registers it as a threat to the self. You don’t think your way to a belief; you feel your way there first, often through pain, loss, or fear that needed an explanation. Reason arrives after the fact to build the case. This is why more facts, better arguments, and louder voices almost never change minds — they only harden them. The only documented pathway to genuine belief change is curiosity: a person’s own willingness to wonder why someone else sees the world differently. You cannot argue someone out of a position they did not argue themselves into.
Metacognition is the brain’s ability to monitor and evaluate its own mental processes (like perceptions, memories, and decisions) and use that self‑knowledge to guide behavior.[parisbraininstitute +3] Brief summary of metacognition In neuroscience, metacognition is often defined as “thinking about your thinking” or “cognition about cognition.” It involves monitoring how well you are perceiving, remembering, or deciding, and generating signals like confidence or doubt about your own performance. These metacognitive signals support skills such as noticing errors, adjusting strategies, controlling attention, and regulating emotions. Neuroimaging work links metacognition especially to frontal and prefrontal brain circuits, which are part of the broader executive control system and our sense of self‑awareness.[ac +7] What the amygdala does in cognition The amygdala is an almond‑shaped structure in the medial temporal lobe that is part of the limbic system. It is crucial for assigning emotional significance (especially threat, fear, and reward value) to stimuli and events, and for triggering appropriate physiological and behavioral responses. The amygdala contributes to several cognitive functions by acting as a salience detector: it influences attention, perception, learning, and memory, particularly for emotionally charged or motivationally relevant information. It also supports implicit emotional learning (like fear conditioning) and modulates how strongly emotional experiences are encoded and consolidated into memory.[nih +4] Direct comparison You can think of metacognition as a monitor of cognition: the anterior prefrontal cortex , whereas the amygdala is more of a tagger and driver of emotional salience in cognition.
One way to put it: metacognition watches and evaluates your thoughts, while the amygdala helps decide what in the environment “matters” emotionally and should capture your cognitive resources.[neurosciencenews +8]
The evidence shows that the amygdala functions much faster than the anterior prefrontal cortex processes
A poem for the people who have studied themselves and are still a little lost
I have been taking myself apart for years
and still I can’t explain the wreck
I know the diagrams, I’ve read the books
and still something’s caught in the neck
I’ve sat with therapists in quiet rooms
and walked out with the same old ache
the mirror offers nothing I don’t know
and still I can’t sleep when I wake
I know exactly how I pull away
I know the name of every wall
I built the taxonomy, laid it out flat
and then I went and did it all
There was a child who learned that love was leaving
who waited by a window every night
and when love finally stayed I found a reason
to stand up and turn off the light
The damage doesn’t stop when you discover it
it doesn’t care what you have named
it bleeds right through the bandage of your learning
and someone new gets stained
I’ve handed people maps of all my damage
said here’s the wound, here’s where it leads
and then I watched myself go right along
and plant the same old seeds
But something in the writing keeps me grounded
it pulls me back to what is real
not fixed, not freed, just willing to return
and say again what I still feel
There is a dignity in looking twice
in going back when nothing’s changed
the work is not the cure, the work is witness
a record of the strange
Fragility is not the proof of failure
the crack is where the light comes through
the fool who names his folly has more standing
than the one who never knew
I am not a villain for the wounds I carry
but I’m the one who gets to choose
I know the punchline now — it’s still worth laughing
at what I couldn’t bear to lose
About This Poem
I’ve been writing about myself for over fourteen years — the patterns, the contradictions, the gap between what I understand and what I actually do — and I still don’t have a tidy answer. That used to embarrass me. It doesn’t anymore, quite. What I’ve come to believe is that the examined life isn’t a problem to be solved; it’s a practice to be kept. This poem is about the specific frustration of knowing yourself well and still finding yourself at the same old crossroads — and why I think that frustration, named honestly, is worth more than a false arrival. If you’ve ever read something about attachment or self-sabotage and thought yes, that’s exactly it and then watched yourself do the thing anyway, you already know what this poem is about. My blog and Substack, going on fourteen years now, are built for the people who are still in that gap — not defeated by it, just honest about it.
Who This Is For
For the people who feel things deeply but can’t always find the words — and for whom someone else’s words, when they land right, feel like being heard for the first time. For the people sitting in the middle distance between belief and doubt, between knowing and doing, between who they were and who they’re trying to become. For anyone who has ever understood their own damage completely and still had to live through it anyway. That’s who I write for. That’s you.
The courtroom is neither of earth nor heaven but suspended between light and shadow. Pillars of luminous stone rise into the unseen heights, and at the dais sits the Chief Justice—God Himself. His countenance cannot be looked upon directly, for it is not light that emanates from Him, but truth unveiled. Around Him sit twelve silent ministers, angelic beings whose wings shimmer with understanding unfathomable to man.
At the center stands one solitary figure—Man—clothed in fragments of reason and clothed again in doubt. He is both the accused and the witness. His face bears the centuries of philosophy, the weight of system and logic, from Athens to Königsberg. To his right is the Defense: the eloquent voice of Rationalism, bearing scrolls of argument, formulas of logic, proof upon proof. To his left stands the Prosecution: the unwavering servant of Divine Wisdom, holding no document but a single fruit, untouched and glistening, taken from the Tree of Knowledge. The charge is read aloud: “That Man, through the conceit of his Reason, has presumed upon the throne of the Almighty; that he sought to discern the boundaries of creation without revelation; that he has eaten once more of the forbidden fruit and declared himself sufficient.” Silence reigns. Then Rationalism begins.
“Your Honor,” he says, “Man has sought only to illuminate the darkness. Our inquiries—empirical and logical alike—are acts of hope. From Aristotle to Aquinas, from Descartes to Kant, he has reached for order amidst chaos. He does not seek to dethrone You but to imitate, to participate in Your eternal thought.”
The Prosecution rises, his presence filling the air like thunder waiting for the strike. “And yet,” he thunders, “has Man not built towers to touch the heavens? Has he not reasoned himself out of Your providence? Empiricism demands proof where faith once rested; Rationalism weaves systems where obedience once sufficed. Even now he questions the very ground he walks upon, saying, as did the serpent, ‘Did God truly say?’” The Defense responds, desperate but composed. “Knowledge is not rebellion. Even Adam desired understanding. Is not the search for truth a divine impulse?” At this, the Chief Justice leans forward, and all creation trembles. “It was not the knowledge that condemned him,” says the Voice, “but the belief that knowledge could stand apart from Me.” In that moment, the scene darkens. The Genesis narrative plays upon the great screen of eternity—Eve’s hand, Adam’s hesitation, the serpent’s cunning. The fruit gleams. The bite is taken again in every philosophy, every experiment, every proud declaration of sufficiency without grace.
Man steps forward, representing all of his kind. “I stand guilty,” he admits softly, “of trying to know what is beyond knowing. Yet You gave me the mind to wonder. Can I be blamed for yearning toward what reflects You?” No answer is given. Only the stirring of the angelic council, as though reason and mercy themselves deliberate in silence. Far below, humanity continues—building, reasoning, questioning. Some pray; others proclaim themselves gods. The courtroom remains suspended, its verdict unwritten, awaiting eternity to speak.
And so ends the session, though not the case, for the indictment of human reason remains open.
Addendum 
Humanity’s attempt to grasp true knowledge is fraught with frailty, tension, and philosophical challenge, as depicted in the indictment of human reason and expanded within the latest thundergodblog.com post made on November 7, 2025. Below is an extended courtroom drama, integrating classic epistemological arguments from empiricism and rationalism across centuries, and weaving in the contributions of Kant and Wittgenstein amid our fallen condition from Eden.[thundergodblog]
The Courtroom of Reason The marble chamber echoed with solemnity as the angelic court convened to indict humanity’s power to know. Prosecuting counsel stood tall, robes shimmering with the weight of ancient accusations—the serpent’s cunning inciting original disobedience. “Ladies and gentlemen of the court, let us recall the Genesis narrative: Eve, drawn to the fruit’s forbidden shine, Adam hesitating, then succumbing. The fruit—the emblem of knowledge—gleamed with promise. But in choosing it, humankind wagered divinity on frail reason and was exiled from Eden’s certainty into a wilderness of ambiguity.”[thundergodblog] The defense rose, voice trembling in earnest. “Surely, reason is our only recourse,” she pleaded. “From the first questioning gaze beneath the tree, to Descartes whispering ‘Cogito ergo sum,’ man has sought to pry truth from uncertainty.”
An objection arose from the prosecution: “Empiricism fights rationalism for epistemic dominance. Locke and Hume argued: all ideas are shaped by sensory experience! But how can muddy perceptions birth crystalline truth? The senses deceive; reason builds castles on shifting sand.” The defense objected in turn: “Yet, rationalists—Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza—contended that reason’s pure ideas illuminate where senses fail. They built logic’s bridges across the chasms of perception, yet still found limits in their own subjectivity.” Kant’s Critical Interjection Emmanuel Kant, spectral yet firm, materialized at the witness stand. “Neither empiricism nor rationalism prevails absolutely; my Critique of Pure Reason is a courtroom of its own. Categories of understanding precondition all experience. Man is not omniscient; phenomena are shaped by how the mind processes itself. Noumenal reality remains forever veiled—human reason is frail, bounded, never divine.” His words lingered, sowing doubt and humility across the gallery. “Human knowledge is limited by sensory input and reason’s constraints. We strive in vain for pure certainty, but divine truth is unmediated, omniscient—a frailty exposed with each epistemological false step.” Wittgenstein’s Witness Testimony From the gallery, Ludwig Wittgenstein stood to testify. “Language itself is our courtroom, our battleground. In the Philosophical Investigations, I revealed that meaning is usage; epistemological certainty collapses when words twist and shift with context. Even when you argue, ‘what is knowledge?’ the very phrase slips from your grasp, reshaped by grammar-games and social norms.” A prosecuting angel objected vigorously: “If meaning is contingent, then what of revelation? What of scripture? Are not God’s words exempt from Wittgenstein’s contingency?” Wittgenstein responded, “The divine gaze is not bounded by language-games. Only humans stumble; God remains omniscient, unbound, perfect.”
Original Sin and Epistemic Exile A spectral narrator recited the Eden account: “Adam and Eve, tempted by knowledge, chose independence against God’s law. In tasting the fruit, they aspired to divine intellect and were cast out into epistemic exile. Our reason is forever marked by this transgression, haunted with uncertainty and longing for lost omniscience.” The prosecution thundered, “And so, mankind builds philosophies atop fallen foundations. Behold the parade of theory—empiricism, rationalism, Kantian synthesis, Wittgensteinian linguistics—each wrestling with the charge: is man worthy to discern the divine?”[thundergodblog] Tensions Exposed, Frailty Laid Bare
Objections erupted: • “Reason must be guided by something greater!” thundered one seraphic lawyer.[thundergodblog +1] • “But if reason fails, is faith blind or illumined?” • “Is knowledge truly possible if language itself is a shifting battleground?” Defense attorneys championed the pursuit: • “Frailty is the crucible in which wisdom is forged!” • “God’s omniscience is not ours to claim, but our striving is not in vain!” The judge—the arbiter unmasked—remained silent. Tension hung heavy like thunderclouds. No verdict was issued, leaving the story open-ended, suspense perpetual, the worthiness of human reason unanswered. In-Depth Analysis: Frailty vs. Omniscience
Human philosophical thinking, constrained by finite minds, unreliable senses, and mutable language, stands in dramatic contrast to the omniscience of God—whose knowledge is unbounded, immediate, and true. The existential courtroom exposes this gulf: mankind is indicted by the very act of seeking knowledge, condemned by original sin to eternally wrestle with uncertainty, yet ennobled in the struggle for meaning.[thundergodblog +1] Epistemological Arguments in Dialogue
The Eden story is woven throughout: Adam and Eve, tempted by the tree’s fruit, broke divine law in pursuit of forbidden knowledge. The court’s drama mirrors this primal act—human reason is both accused and defended, wisdom sought yet never judged.[thundergodblog] Closing: The Unresolved Tension No verdict is handed down. The courtroom remains in session, charged with the ongoing tension between human striving and divine omniscience. All objections are sustained, all doubts remain—our frailty is our confessor, the judge’s silence our final, open-ended appeal.[thundergodblog] This dramatization not only extends the original narrative, but highlights the enduring battle within epistemology—man’s desperate yearning to know in the shadow of the divine.[thundergodblog +3]
A teaser for my new book
DC Gunnersen on Human Reason DC Gunnersen is arguing that human reason is both noble and dangerous: noble because it reaches toward truth, dangerous because after Eden it easily mistakes itself for God. In “The Trial of Human Reason,” he frames reason as fallen through Genesis 3:6, where the desire “to make one wise” becomes the origin point for self-trust, deception, and the question of whether philosophy and logic can truly absolve humanity. In “The Indictment of Human Reason,” he develops that idea into a cosmic courtroom where “Man” is charged with trying to know apart from revelation, while Rationalism defends inquiry as an act of hope rather than rebellion. Summary of the argument Gunnersen’s central claim is not simply “reason is bad,” but “reason becomes guilty when it declares itself sufficient without God.” The key sentence in “Indictment” is God’s line: “It was not the knowledge that condemned him, but the belief that knowledge could stand apart from Me”. That line clarifies the whole project: curiosity, philosophy, and science are not condemned in themselves, but autonomous reason, reason severed from divine truth, becomes a repetition of Eden. In “Trial,” the same idea appears in poetic form: “We turned away and now rely on what is fallible,” followed by the question, “To trust on oneself, is truth now intangible?”. He connects this to Satan’s lies, especially “God withholds good things from us” and “trust in the deity of self,” which means the failure of reason is also a spiritual temptation toward self-reliance. The “Indictment” expands the philosophical side by putting empiricism, rationalism, Kant, and Wittgenstein into the courtroom. Empiricism is challenged because “the senses deceive,” rationalism is challenged because pure reason still finds “limits in subjectivity,” Kant is invoked to show that human knowledge is bounded by phenomena rather than noumena, and Wittgenstein is used to show that language itself is unstable and context-bound. The contrast is between human knowledge, which is finite, mediated, sensory, linguistic, and fallen, and God’s knowledge, which Gunnersen describes as “unmediated, omniscient” and “unbounded”. Strengths • Strong mythic frame: The courtroom device gives the argument dramatic force because Man is both accused and witness, Reason has a defense attorney, and Divine Wisdom prosecutes with the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. This makes abstract epistemology feel existential rather than academic. • Balanced enough to avoid crude anti-intellectualism: Gunnersen lets the defense say that inquiry is an “act of hope” and that man seeks “to illuminate the darkness,” which prevents the piece from reducing all thinking to sin. The strongest version of his claim is that reason must be humbled and rightly ordered, not abolished. • Good diagnosis of rationalization: In “Trial,” he links reason with temptation, self-deception, and the need to be right, asking, “Consider the reasons we argue? Consider why we fight? The need to know? The need to be right?”. That is psychologically sharp because reason often does serve ego, appetite, tribalism, or fear rather than truth. • Theological clarity: The argument is strongest when read as Christian anthropology: human beings are fallen, finite, tempted by self-deification, and unable to reach omniscience by philosophical systems alone (The Trial of Human Reason; The Indictment of Human Reason). Weaknesses • It sometimes conflates limitation with guilt: Showing that human reason is finite, sense-bound, language-bound, or historically conditioned does not by itself prove that reason is morally rebellious. Kantian limits or Wittgensteinian language-games show humility is needed, but they do not automatically show that inquiry is an Edenic sin. • The argument depends heavily on accepting the Christian frame: If the reader does not already accept Genesis, original sin, Satanic deception, and divine omniscience, the conclusion will feel asserted more than demonstrated. Inside Christian theology the argument has coherence, but outside that frame it needs more independent support. • Empiricism and rationalism are treated somewhat schematically: The “Indictment” presents empiricism as demanding proof where faith once rested and rationalism as building systems where obedience once sufficed, but that risks making philosophy sound like pride by definition. A stronger version would distinguish humble investigation from arrogant self-sufficiency more carefully. • The unresolved ending is poetically effective but philosophically incomplete: The judge issues no final verdict, leaving “the indictment of human reason” open and the “trial of human reason” forever in debate (The Indictment of Human Reason; The Trial of Human Reason). That ambiguity suits the literary mood, but it means the argument gestures more than it proves. Bottom line Gunnersen is arguing that reason is on trial because it is tempted to become its own god. His best insight is that the human mind does not merely seek truth, it also rationalizes desire, pride, control, and self-justification. His weakest move is treating the failure of unaided reason as though it almost automatically confirms the need for his specific theological conclusion. The argument is powerful as Christian poetic theology and moral psychology; it is less complete as a philosophical proof against secular reason.
Can you recall a time in your life that you woke up and decided to fundamentally change a direction in your life in some way? Was it from a dream, a real experience, or was it after several experiences that so affected you that you finally awakened and told yourself no more! Did something within you “click”, and you were able to see things from a different perspective, and that maybe you now needed something different or something more than what you were getting? Was it a friend that gave you some feedback, was it at some social function that created a dissonance between what others thought and what you yourself thought that seeded an idea that there was something you wanted to do differently, thus started you on a journey for looking at things differently and changing your current orientation? Commonly our observance of others’ ordeals often triggers something within us to make sure that we do not travel down a similar path or conversely they show us a way that we would like to emulate.
I know that many might use examples often found within their own families growing up that might make them think differently with having both positive and negative examples to draw from. The lifetime built upon someone Else’s dreams can be a hard pill to swallow when they later reflect on their success of a notion that was not theirs in the first place. I have seen many examples of parents indoctrinating their children with ideas of the direction they should take in their own lives without any consideration as to what the child themselves may wish to aspire to. I think in contrast it is noble when parents inspire their children by way of example, unlike that of a prescribed directive spoon fed to them day in and day out. This pontificating can lead to some serious issues as the children grow up with unrealized dreams of their own. Those who do not break free from its grasp may lead lives fulfilling the dreams of their families, yet failing to meet the potentials originating from within them.
As Robert Frost wrote in The Road Not Taken
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I– I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. – See more at: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15717#sthash.cfShtprA.dpuf
I do think that this has been misinterpreted as Frost himself has shed some light on his work in letters and correspondence to others.
The last lines “I took the one less traveled by / And that has made all the difference” are often cited as emblematic of America’s individualist spirit of adventure, in a reading that assumes they are to be taken literally. This is doubtful: whatever difference the choice might have made, it was not made by a discerned difference between the two paths that opened up before the traveler. The speaker admits in the second and third stanzas that both paths may be equally worn and equally leaf-covered, and it is only in his future recollection that he will call one of the two roads, the one he took, “less traveled by.”
The “sigh” can be interpreted as one of regret or of self-satisfaction; in either case, the irony lies in the distance between what the speaker has just told us about the roads’ similarity and what his or her later claims will be. Frost might also have intended a personal irony: in a 1925 letter to Crystine Yates of Dickson, Tennessee, asking about the sigh, Frost replied, “It was my rather private jest at the expense of those who might think I would yet live to be sorry for the way I had taken in life.”
When you do not have much of a support group, when others around you pay little attention to you, and you have questions on what would be a good direction for you to pursue, than you must primarily rely on your own resources and experience with the world, thus, trial and error may play a large part in your decision-making. Your talents and opportunities are predicated on what you have developed, what you have chosen to concentrate on which is also a starting point, but my focus is on those particular areas that you have not quite figured out for yourself, those areas that you do not have much experience in, or that what you once thought of as a sound path, has now been altered by a new perspective.
I can certainly remember times that struck a chord within me to change my aspect. I think that maybe at times the persuasive forces that refocused my energies to gravitate towards these redefined goals because of my observations, or because of the feedback that others had given me was a metaphorical crossroad materializing before me. I learned in part by the trial and error experiences in the social realms, an area I still have not even closely mastered to this day. By that I mean that there are many situations that still elude me, as I continue to meet people who never stop surprising me with their behavior.
The question that keeps coming back to me is the kind of impression that is left upon me? The deeper the impression of an event in your life, the more attention you give to it. I like the song by INXS Don’t Change as it reminds me of a fresh start when pursuing new venues. Our paths we choose are up to us. The power of choice is within us. What’s yours?
I’m standing here on the ground The sky above won’t fall down See no evil in all direction Resolution of happiness Things have been dark For too long
Don’t change for you Don’t change a thing for me
I found a love I had lost It was gone for too long Hear no evil in all directions Execution of bitterness Message received loud and clear
Don’t change for you Don’t change a thing for me
I’m standing here on the ground The sky above won’t fall down See no evil in all directions Resolution of happiness Things have been dark for too long
Have you caved in on your beliefs due to others you associated with looking upon you for agreement, reassurance, or for some other form of approval when you were in a professional or social situation? Surrendering your opinions or judgements because of a fear that you will not fit in on what others might believe can alter a majority of minds not yet tempered.
Maybe you choose not to do something because other people were watching and you felt awkward or were embarrassed, such as performing in front of people, like maybe singing or public speaking. Perhaps you have chosen a particular line of clothing to wear because it is the style that is most popular during the season. Your concern with how you will look in your new outfit will often dissuade the original choice due to what others may think about them. Nervousness can cause us to have the same outcome, specifically the doubt in ourselves is a very common occurrence and is heightened when others are watching. I think that for those who do so in the professional arena, may fear a retribution from their peers or supervisors on a personal and even possibly on a professional level as well.
The thought of not being true to your beliefs due to the judgements of others can be a very strong factor that influences our behavior. Dr. Wayne Dyer has said …”When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.”
I remember in my 10th grade English class, we were given an assignment by our staunchly conservative teacher Mrs. Leuth. She apparently had the reputation of having a very challenging class in the English department, and if it wasn’t an honors English class, it certainly should have been. Only two people in that class did not have to take the final, and only two people in that class received an A. One mid-semester morning the assignment to write a critical essay was given to all students in a classroom of under thirty. I believe we wrote the essay in the classroom that day and handed it in on period end. The following day we were handed back our graded papers, thinking nothing was to become of it when we all viewed them as usual in the privacy of our seats. Just another assignment many of us thought. Little did I know that some of us were selected to read out loud to our classmates the papers we had written the day before. I call upon this experience because my paper was chosen due to the content that was in it. Mrs. Leuth told the class prior to my reading that I was not afraid to reveal my thoughts, and for that reason I believe she had selected me to read its excerpts.
I’m really not sure what the assignment details were, but I will never forget that day when I for the first time was called upon to speak publicly in front of my peers about my own conclusions. My own intellectual processes were to be divulged to all in that class, my own thoughts in the presence of others to be voiced aloud in a room with statistically speaking some very critical recipients. Sophomores can be brutal. I do remember as I read to the class my paper discussing a subject that involved imprisonment, and torture. I believe that I was using a particular frame of reference in the paper, and inclusively writing about the mistreatment one could receive in their captors violent rages. I distinctly remember a section which spoke about cutting the ears off of their captor when not cooperating with them. The torture of that person was highlighted in the body of the text and the argument on the crimes of humanity probably consisted of the thesis.
In the tradition of Walt Whitman I nervously yawp’d my paper’s contents to the classroom. It was my portrayal of Dead Poet’s Society.
A sweaty-toothed madman with a stare that pounds my brain.”
“Like a blanket that always leaves your feet cold…. From the moment we enter crying to the moment we leave dying, It’ll just cover your face as you wail and cry and scream.
I’m not sure I was that poetic as depicted in the film, but perhaps recognition for the frankness of personalized content I injected probably gave me the spotlight.
The drive we have to fit in can have some disconcerting effects upon our behavior, and our individuality. In philosophy the topic of individuality brings us to several authors that have discussed the ethical and moral implications brought upon by the subject of the individual. You find treatments such as John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism or Ayn Rand’s Objectivism in the historical record. A treatment from the existentialist’s and the humanist’s are also notably rendered in the mix.
Wikipedia cites that ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people do only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds merely that it is rational to act in one’s self-interest.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help and serve others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one’s self with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and “the self” to a status not granted to others), but that one also should not (as altruism does) sacrifice one’s own interests to help others’ interests, so long as one’s own interests (i.e. one’s own desires or well-being) are substantially-equivalent to the others’ interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial) as it does not treat the subject’s (i.e. the self’s, i.e. the moral “agent’s”) own interests as being more or less important than if the same interests, desires, or well-being were anyone else’s.
Whichever school of thought you may align with, the fact that our decisions become politically charged without true comprehension happens to a majority of us in group situations. An awareness of why we make decisions that have an impact on us and others just may help us to forge better ones. A balance of approaches would be recommended by this author. Being yourself, and remaining true to your beliefs no matter what the situation will often come to aid you when sleeping at night. If you were still wondering, Yes, I was one of the two who received an A in that English class.
“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
― Robert Frost
You must be logged in to post a comment.