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.
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.
In past days I remember conversations I’ve held with friends about topics that held my attention. I once was instructed by a friend that there is no meaning when we ask the “why” questions about academic psychological inquiries. I understood the implications of this analysis, but the philosopher in me continues to ask the “why” questions even to this day. Mind you, this was back in the early nineteen-eighties when I was a psychology student and I seemed to question everything. I was thirsty for knowledge, and my studies directed me in paradigms that for me demanded further clarification. My friend whom had asserted his position was far more advanced in this field than I was, yet I seemed to be driven by a beat to a different drummer.
No matter what paradigmatic psychological school of thought you tend to follow, the basic questions I asked went beyond the psychological realm. Thus I entered into the realm of philosophy when I started to ask these types of questions. Even when I was a psychology student, the philosopher in me still thrived years before I decided to double my major in both disciplines.
I can’t really remember the exact topics at the time of this conversation, but I still remember the response of my friend to my questioning these matters that were of interest to me. Maybe this is the reason I decided to also major in Philosophy. Maybe this is also the beginning of the Skeptic in me.
Ironically I consider myself gravitating to the pragmatic philosophies of the world, yet I am still intrigued by many other differing types of philosophical thought. What stirs up a person to question their reality? Why do people become skeptical? Perhaps it is because they find conflicting information in what they see, read, and are told to believe as conditions they should except? Is it that there are fundamental issues with these assertions that contradict their notions of reliability?
However the rubber meets the road, we are still vaulted forward into discovery by our very nature of asking questions, and this is how many approach to learn about their world; by asking questions. I do not know all of the reasons that led me to become inquisitive. I only know that I am that way. I am not always inclined to act in this way, yet much of my being has an affinity with acting in this way.
There are many ancient skeptical schools of philosophy. Foundations of these schools come from India, Zen Buddhist, Chinese, and Greek schools, as well as the foundations from later Western schools of thought expressed by David Hume, René Descartes, and Immanuel Kant. I do not draw on these schools directly into their epistemological constructions as my form of skepticism is tied closer to matters associated with social pragmatic implications.
Doubt can be a useful tool. It is the basis for discovery into any assertion made. When we are told what to believe with little evidence, we can either accept it, challenge it, or dismiss it. I speak more of a way to diffuse opinion than to uncover the metaphysical and epistemological domains of human knowledge. You may think it is preposterous to live by such examinations, but sometimes it can help us achieve a better understanding of our place in this world.
I must say that before I knew anything about Skepticism, it was in my nature to ask these questions despite my intellectual foundations. Why did I ask them? Because I received information that somehow needed further explanation to understand it than to simply accept it as it was received. I was predisposed to question these types of questions. If we look further into my history, and we have demonstrated that it was not an intellectual awakening that summoned this spawn of thought, than where will we find the genesis of my disposition? Maybe the environment in which I was raised?
I was born into a family that did not quite understand the meaning of “intimacy.” The struggle to impart any kind of a healthy world view and skill of becoming a successful person in relationships, were not the best of what my parents could offer. My family had a difficult time just relating to one another my entire life, as with many families who face some of these intimacy issues. As I matured, I withdrew into my own perceptions and observations about the world as it unfolded. I was both the master and / or the slave upon which my beliefs conducted me into this brave new world. I sense that that my family’s interactive behavior had ultimately led me on a lifelong quest to find some answers to the questions that has perplexed so many of us from time to time. Due to the insatiable need that grew within me, questions began to emerge from a skepticism that was derived from the foundation of my family’s interactions and was conveyed through my own family experience. I have always loved my family and wanted closer connections, but my skills to achieve this were not yet formed.
I think this was the impetus of my approach to the world as I became the person known as me. The fundamental skeptical foundation that led me to question what I was told to see the world as it was by proxy of my family’s influence. Moreover, I did on my own accord because the information I was receiving was not satisfying my sense of the world. I had independent confirmation and differences of interpretation to how I encountered the world that was in direct conflict with what I was told. Thus the philosopher in me expressed itself into the world.
Today I am still questioning, I am still drawn to asking questions we are told about the world we live in, but not from my family’s input, rather it is from the world at large: the powers that be!
Clearly there has never been such a push for a dystopian era in past decades then our current situation worldwide. History has shown many such examples, yet we have not learned much from these as our push for a multicultural civilization is thrust upon us. Today I question multiculturalism which I argue is what globalist’s want to achieve as opposed to a multi-ethnic community that has indisputably existed around the world without massive inharmonious complications given one factor: that the multi-ethnic communities adopt the ethical foundations of the land such as the American experiment of governance among other Western Democracies.
Have you believed something to be true for years, and then suddenly received information that led you to conclude that your belief turned out to be false? Did it change the perspective of the world you live in and disrupted similar beliefs you once held to be true and valued? Such questions have prompted philosophers to ask and examine since the days of antiquity, and more recently others in psychology, behavioral neuroscience, linguistics, education, cultural anthropology, sociology, and neurology have also made inquiries about the nature of just what indeed constitutes “knowledge” and exactly how do we acquire these “matters-of-fact?”
A fundamental starting point for all of our beliefs and what we hold to be true begins with how we attain the information, what we do with that information when we process and analyze it, (or lack of processing and analyzing), and the resulting effects these beliefs have upon our world-perspectives and perceptions of incoming events, existing ideas, and thoughts or feelings that populate our minds.
Do we live in a world of our own creations, where our constructs of reality are determined largely by our abilities of intellect, perception, intuition, and logical analysis? Ask any law enforcement detective about the reliability of eye-witness testimonies and you’ll probably find the error rate is a good indication that we are not as accurate as we would like to be. Are we sure that the information we receive from the world around us is authentic and true, or can it be that much of this information is interpreted by the limitations of our minds and therefore susceptible to errors of judgement? Think also about how reliable our information actually is after we screen for biases from the originating sources themselves; such as corporate owned media conglomerates that have proven to fail to give an accurate account due to editorial pressures, political alignments, skill set deficits from journalists and other news team personnel, as well as budgetary concerns that all impede the conditions for a truthful contingency. If we are ultimately responsible for comprehending the beliefs that we hold to be true, why do we not then challenge more of the information that we perceive from a constant duplicity of sources?
pause
Instead of going off in the direction I think I once wanted to say something about, I find a compelling diversion with this topic. The author had the intention to connect to some of the readers with an illustration and an examination of the basic human desire for a deeper need for meaning in their lives. Since only a select population would have any interest in this subject, then this sample population becomes even more specialized. I have no utopian aspirations so I do not partake in the notions of posting something I believe everyone would like, but simply realize that I may only capture a fragment of this reading population that has any interest in such matters.
A closer inspection of what we may know, and how we acquire this knowledge of the world raises questions about the validity of these fundamental beliefs if we proceed down that path of reasoning. Despite all information that one can write on the topic of epistemology, much has been covered through-out the ages and this author has decided that a stale treatment of its history should not be read here. A conclusion that many have come to hold is the truth that most people cannot “be reached” through ordinary means or measures. Unfortunately logic alone, will not change a great deal of the population, largely due to their own limitations, awareness and comprehensive skills including the abilities of the author of this post. When I speak of “being reached”, the author intends to suggest that people often do not rethink their positions and thus continually fail to challenge the status quo in their thinking. I envision that one must have something more, something with more tenacity, and fortitude in the language of the communicator when considering this goal. One must have something that can connect to people on a deeper level, and possibly more than just one level; but rather on a multiplicity of levels which just might optimize this communication. ERGO: One must be able to INSPIRE!
The dangers of the fragility of the human mind have been demonstrated over countless ages that we have broadcasted our dominion. In the infancy of our intellects, for some of us we often imposed quasi-truths to make sense out of the world that fills in the gaps of our reckoning. As for others, many have often used alternative mechanisms to decide just how they should encode the world around them including illusion, myths, pseudo-sciences, and quite possibly the most prominent offender; misinterpretation.
Historically, whichever of the tolerant dictates of the current cultural paradigm are employed, there often leaves a byproduct of consciousness that has not yet been tapped. The courage to discard useless mythologies, and baseless or senseless philosophies has left an indelible mark in these societies that take special notice of some of it’s distinguished persecuted or heretical members. Whichever school of thought one imparted their beliefs to, it was either fear, or misunderstanding that would take precedence in past evaluations when these members have surfaced in the musings of the denizens over the years. The examples that come to mind are people such as Socrates, Copernicus, Mahatma Gandhi, Nikola Tesla, Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Jesus Christ, Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Plato, Lao Tzu, Immanuel Kant, Robert Bauval, John Anthony West, Robert Schock, David Hume, Søren Kierkegaard, and the list goes on.
The mass appeal to the misguided is only a reflection of the work we have to overcome as a people if we are to evolve our thinking processes. It begins by thinking for ourselves. Attend not to the spells cast out from the sycophant’s and the sophists.
•••
“Challenges are what make life interesting and overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.” – Joshua J. Marine –
•••
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” – Albert Einstein –
•••
“The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.” – Helen Keller –
•••
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.” – Dr. Seuss –
•••
“If not us, who? If not now, when?” – John F. Kennedy –
•••
”Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is regarded as self evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer –
You must be logged in to post a comment.