Povodom Svetskog dana filozofije, Zrenjaninska gimnazija je organizovala takmičenje u
pisanju eseja na engleskom jeziku
u subotu, 27.10.2012. sa početkom u 11h. Ovo
takmičenje održava se pod pokroviteljstvom Uneskove Međunarodne asocijacije Baltic
Sea Net i Finske asocijacije profesora filozofije.
Eseji su se pisali dva sata, pod šifrom, a četiri teme su bile saopštene na samom
takmičenju. Učenici su izabrali jednu od ponuđenih tema koje dotiču različita filozofska
područja. Eseje je vrednovala međunarodna komisija profesora filozofije, a dva najbolja
rada
bice proglasena 15.11.2012. promovisana i štampana u domaćim i međunarodnim
medijima. Takmičenje je priprema za Nacionalne kvalifikacije za međunarodnu
filozofsku olimpijadu koja će se održati u Požarevačkoj gimnaziji u martu 2013.
Ovogodišnja Filozofska olimpijada je u znaku jubileja 200 godina od rođenja Serena
Kjerkegora i održaće se u Danskoj od 16 - 19 maja 2013.
Rezltati takmičenja:
1. mesto i prosečnu ocenu 9.18 osvojio je učenik Bojan Veselinov, III4,
gimnazija: „Dušan Vasiljev“, Kikinda, mentor, Božana Karanović
2. mesto, 8.95 osvojio je učenik Vuk Marković, IV razred, gimnazija: „Jovan
Jovanović Zmaj“, Novi Sad, mentor, Danijela Grujić
3. mesto, 8.56 osvjila je učenica Jovana Maksić, III razred, gimnazija: „Ruđer
Bošković“, Beograd
4. mesto, 8.15
osvojio je ucenik Đorđe Milosav, Hemijska škola: „Miloš
Crnjanski“, Kikinda, mentor Nadežda Lazić
5. mesto, 7.67 osvojio je učenik Uroš Mitić iz Požarevačke gimnazije, mentor,
Miloš Jeremić
1
Takmičenju Baltic Sea net prisustvovalo je 19 učenika iz 10 škola iz Srbije:
1. Gimnazija: „Jovan Jovanović Zmaj“, Novi Sad, učenici Sonja Saraljić i Vuk
Marković, profesori Danijela Grujić i Branko Stamenović
2. „Tehnoart“ Beograd, učenici Sofija Petrović i Simona Kanjevac, profesor
Aleksandar Stevanović
3. Gimnazija: „Svetozar Marković“, Subotica, učenice Danica Popović i Ana Katić i
profesor Dragan Krstić
4. Srednja stručna škola: „Miloš Crnjanski“, Kikinda, učenici Nina Vico i Đorđe
Milosav, profesor Nadežda Lazić
5. Elektro-građevinska škola: „Nikola Tesla“, Zrenjanin, učenik Rastko Zoranović,
profesor Gajo Biberdžić
6. „Požarevačka gimnazija“, učenici Helena Rajković i Uroš Mitić, profesor Miloš
Jeremić
7. Gimnazija: „Uroš Predić“, Pančevo, učenica Tijana Savatić, profesor Zoran
Vuković
8. Gimnazija: „Ruđer Bošković“, Beograd, učenice Carina Popa i Jovana Maksić,
profesor Ivan Šurlan i direktor Nada Vuković
9. Gimnazija: „Dušan Vasiljev“, Kikinda, učenici Dunja Ilić i Bojan Veselinov,
profesor, Božana Karanović
10. „Zrenjaninska gimnazija“, domaćin, učenici Zorana Dimitrijević i Filip Đorđević,
profesor Aleksandra Maksić, organizator takmičenja
Teme na koje su učenici pisali eseje su:
1. ”To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to
say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true. ”
(Aristotle, ”Metaphysics”)
2. ”So death, the most dreaded of evils, is nothing to us, because
when we exist, death is not present, and when death is present,
we do not exist. It neither concerns the living nor the dead, since
death does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer exist.”
(Epicurus, ”Letter to Menoeceus”)
3. “One is not born but becomes a woman.”
2
(de Beauvoir, ”Second Sex”)
4. Can a machine think?
Takmičenju su prisustvovali i predsednik Srpskog filozofskog društva gospodin
Slobodan Kanjevac, Una Popović i Rade Kalik. Uspostavljena je značajna
međunarodna saradnja sa Svetskim udruženjem filozofa FISP, kao i podrška
kolegama profesorima filozofije iz srednjih škola u organizovanju vannastavnih
aktivnosti. Dogovorena je i medijska promocija pobednika ovogodišnjeg takmičenja,
kao i gostovanje u beogradskim srednjim školama.
Centralna tema ovogodišnjeg Uneskovog Svetskog dana filozofije je:” Buduće
generacije”. Dok su učenici pisali eseje, profesori su razgovarali o Međunarodnoj
filozofskoj olimpijadi, o značaju nastave filozofije, o koordiniranim akcijama povodom
Svetskog dana filozofije i o proslavi važnih jubileja za ovu školsku godinu.
Predstavljene su proslave Svetskog dana filozofije u Zrenjaninu 2011. u okviru
manifestacije:“Dani indijske kulture i filozofije“. Takmičenju u tumačenju filozofskih
citata ex tempore prisustvovalo je 30 učenika iz 12 srednjih škola. Članovi žirija bili
su teatrolog Jovan Ćirilov, Milana Kostić, studentkinja filozofije i prof. Dr. Milanko
Govedarica sa Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu. Manifestacija je u dnevnom
časopisu: Blic ocenjena kao najbolji kulturni događaj u Srbiji 2011. U Srbiji se
Svetski dan filozofije obeležava od 2009.
Žiri ovogodišnjeg takmičenja birao je dva najbolja eseja iz Srbije, ali je isto tako
učestvovao u vrednovanju radova iz međunarodne mreže Baltic Sea net. Pobednici
međunarodnog takmičenja proglašeni su za Svetski dan filozofije 15.11. 2012.
Članovi žirija su bili:
1. Una Popović, asistent Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu
2. Ivan Šurlan, profesor filozofije u gimnaziji Ruđer Bošković
3. Miloš Jeremić, profesor filozofije u Pođarevačkoj gimnaziji
4. Jadranka Pesti, direktor SSŠ Mileva Marić iz Titela
5.
Sonja Antonić, profesor filozofije, Zrenjanin
6. Melanija Lojpur, doktorant filozofije, Filozofski fakultet Beograd
7. Milana Kostić, student filozofije, nosilac počasne medalje na Filozofskoj
olimpijadi u Beču
3
Profesori filozofije oformili su stručno udruženja pod pokroviteljstvom Srpskog
filozofskog društva. Kontatki profeora koji su prisutstvovali su:
1. Zoran Vuković, Gimnazija:„Uroš Predić“, Pančevo,
zo.vuković@gmail.com 065 5822 387
2. Božana Karanović, Gimnazija: „Dušan Vasiljev“, Kikinda,
bozanak@ open.telekom.rs 064 2454369
3. Danijela Grujić, Gimnazija: „Jovan Jovanović Zmaj“, Novi Sad,
danigrujic@ gmail.com 060 7173001
4. Miloš Jeremić, Požarevačka gimnazija, prof.milos@gmail.com
063 8602844
5. Nadežda Lazić, Hemijska škola: „Miloš Crnjanski“, Kikinda,
nadicalazic@ gmail.com 062 525766
6. Branko Stamenović, Gimnazija: „Jovan Jovanović Zmaj“, Novi Sad,
064 2361527
7. Dragan Krstić, Gimnazija: „Svetozar Marković“, Subotica 064 285 22 74
8. Jadranka Pešti, STŠ: „Mileva Marić“ Titel, jadrana-p@eunet.r
063 545 164
9. Čolaković Radisav, SSŠ: „Uroš Predić“, Zrenjanin,
radosavacolakovic@yahoo.com 064 2790459
10. Aleksandar Stevanović, „Tehnoart Beograd“, 064 1549169
munrutestemone@gmail.com
11. Slobodan Kanjevac, Srpsko filozofsko društvo, kanslo@sezampro.rs,
063 255 610
12 Aleksandra Maksić, Zrenjaninska gimnazija, filozofesa@hotmail.com
064 206 39 03
4
Pobednički rad:
1. mesto
A brief introduction
Machines are becoming an everyday part of our lives in the 21st century, they are even
replacing humans in some activities, they are, sadly, essential to how our world nowadays
works. We depend on them as much as they depend on us. The question however isn’t
the relationship and position in which us and machines are, it is what makes man man
and machine machine. The nature of both. Where is the boundary, the line which
separates us? My goal in this essay will be to analyze this, to discern the difference and
hopefully come to a conclusion where that line lies.
Arguments
What sets man apart from mere animal is his ability to think, to be self-conscious. We
ponder, we ask ourselves, we contemplate our place and significance in this universe.
Turing considered an intelligent machine one which a human can mistake for another
human being, that is, one that can seem human. But is this enough? Is seeming human the
only necessity for what makes us that which we are? To answer such a question we’d
have to delve into what constitutes a human being.
Emotion is a key component to human thought, a complete separation of the two is
impossible, they are interwoven and affect each other greatly. It is from the feelings of
hopelessness and
anxiety ,when faced with the meaninglessness of suffering and
existence, that we tried to formulate answers concerning reality and our role in it. To ease
our burden and make life bearable. Something machines, due to lack of the
aforementioned emotions, are incapable of. Perhaps somebody will object to the idea of
thought and emotion not being mutually exclusive, allow me then to present a different
argument.
Humans are also rational beings. We are capable of logical thought. Our main way of
expressing ourselves is through language, it gives thought form. Language itself is often
not logical, but it is possible to construct one, as made evident by Wittgenstein. But
Wittgenstein himself said that what lies beyond the capabilities of language is important
too. Metaphysical questions, death, being. To paraphrase him, “That which we cannot
5
say, we should stay quiet about.” Those things cannot be expressed through such a
language. And those things are essential components of our lives, they make us who we
are. Are machines capable of this? Machines are made logical, to be so they have to be
programmed with certain axioms. But that is their limit. Ergo, they’re not capable of
asking themselves about the nature of their existence, things which lie beyond logic and
language. Another thing which sets us apart.
Axioms, on which machines are made, are human constructs, they themselves do not
exist outside and without us. They had to be made. Then implemented into machines. The
human mind creates, explores, the machine is bound by the way it is programmed.
Functioning outside the system they are based upon is impossible for them. To face
something they’re not familiar ends with error. Helpless in front of the unknown,
incapable of responding. But this means machines cannot innovate, be creative. As such
they are simple tools and ‘slaves’. Man’s creativity and curiosity is what pushed our
civilization, what urges him (for better and worse) to progress even now. We did not
evolve, overcome ourselves, by following rigid rules, it was through dreaming of the
impossible, aiming for the stars and beyond, going against what was considered
acceptable; that is, by rebelling. Thus all things worthy mentioning became through
opposition, struggle. A tool cannot rebel, it may cease to perform its function, but to
actively defy its purpose (as seen in HAL 9000’s case), no.
What is thought considered? Machines can house countless more data and info than
humans. Their memory exceeds ours tenfold and more. But merely stating facts isn’t
knowledge, it isn’t thinking in the true sense of the word. Thought that is ascribed to
machine is a response in a predictable way (manner), it is a simple reaction to a question,
a situation that they’ve been made capable of responding to. No improvisation. They give
the illusion of thought. To humans it comes somewhat involuntarily. It is not purely
reactionary. It is independent and capable of standing on its own, without a necessary
cause for it.
Conclusion
Men as opposed to machines are capable of genuine, (in)genius and ‘revolutionary’
thinking. Theirs isn’t a petty imitation. While the form might seem the same, the
importance lies from where it stems and how it comes into being, and how far do the
6
capabilities of both extend. All things taken in consideration to state that a machine is
truly capable of thinking would be an erroneous one. Asimov’s vision is still wishful
thinking, and ought to stay so. For the concept of a sentient machine, and the implications
that come with it, is something to be dreaded.
2. mesto
Topic 2
The entire human understanding of the complexity of the universe we feel around us,
whether it actually is or is not, is based on the most simplest and fundamental axioms that
we dare not to question, frightened of the unimaginable consequences it could have on
the mankind. Now, to understand the absurd in our own thoughts, we must begin from the
earlier times; let’s go for a moment two millennia back in time.
It is a tragic eve in the eyes of a young man whose dreams have been crushed.
Aristotle is not the next leader of the Plato’s Academia. He was a man who had a vision,
who wanted to see the Ancient Greeks enlightened, thinking with their own minds,
stopping the superstitious beliefs that the myths had given them. He knew that he was just
the man to do it; seeing his fatherland collapsing on itself, he knew that the future of the
European civilization was in his hands. He founded his own school, Lyceum, because he
wanted to teach his fellowmen how to think and how to use the reason as the ultimate
tool. Of course, the beginning of that philosophy was his to make.
The most basic things of them all, said Aristotle, is to learn logic. It is to be
learned before any physics, ethics, politics, or any form of science of creative thinking.
Learning the logic is like molding our mind for all the information, theorems, rules, and
principles that are to come later in our lives. Learning the logic is accepting that A is A.
Is everything truly that same thing it is? “Yes,” said Aristotle, “it surely must be. If I hold
a jug, it is that same jug that it is.” But then I ask, “If that same jug breaks, would you say
that the broken one is the same as the whole one? Would you buy a broken jug from a
potter?” “Oh, you’ve misunderstood. One thing is the same as itself in one moment of
time. I know that right now I am myself”, he thought. That seems like a reasonable
answer, assuming that you take for granted that you can actually look at a specific point
in time. “Now, let’s look at this another way. We live in a universe that constantly moves,
doesn’t it?” “As our Heraclites said – everything moves” “And then tell me, have you
7
ever imagined a lack of moving? Have you ever seen or felt a moment, as you’ve said
one moment of time?” “Never have I.” “And can you think of what it would be like?” “It
seems that it is unthinkable.” “Can we then agree that it isn’t? That a single moment
isn’t?” “I don’t like where this is leading. But I can not agree more. We truly think of a
word ‘moment’ but the meaning of it, it somehow still seems unreachable, just like our
ancestors thought.” “Then follow my thoughts further. The time is made of single
moments, isn’t it? We defined moment by freezing the time, but, we’ve also concluded
that that moment isn’t.” “That is correct thinking.” “But if time is made of moments, and
those moments aren’t, then the time isn’t, is it?” “There is no being from non-being.”
“…and we come to a conclusion that we live in a universe without time.” “It seams that
we do after all.” “And then what? Then we know that everything that we thought is in
time isn’t, because the time itself isn’t, and it seams that we have concluded that the
whole space which is in time, actually isn’t.” “So there is neither space nor time? What
do we have from our universe left?” “Let me lead you to that. The universe is defined by
space and time, and we now know that neither space nor time is, so then…” “The
universe isn’t.” “Precisely. And if universe isn’t, nothing can be, so saying that A is A
doesn’t even make any sense because A isn’t in the first place, because nothing is in the
first place. Nothing is.” “So starting from that A is A it seams that we’ve concluded that
A is not A because A isn’t itself. It is a dreadful conclusion you’ve led me to. It feels like
Socrates was your teacher, doesn’t it?“ “He was and is a teacher to us all.”
Let’s go back now to the true meaning of the quotation. “To say what is is not, or
that what is not is, is false”. If we think with a mind of a genius soul of the Antics, we can
understand the meaning in its original sense. If nobody thinks of a drawing that no one
had ever thought of, then that drawing won’t be because nobody had thought of it. And,
reverse, for example, if I hold a rose and feel it, and believe that neither my eyes are
making that rose up nor that my receptors in the skin are making me feel the branch
against my fingers, then it is a part of the universe, a part of my mind, and therefore, it is.
“But to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true.” Of course, again, if we go back
to the Aristotle’s time when he believed that if the thorn cuts trough his skin and if he
feels that pain, that then that rose is, the concept of the quotation is clear. What we know
that is is, and what we don’t know we don’t know, or what isn’t truly isn’t.
8
Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the first physics, of ‘before physics’ deals with one big
problem: what is in the essence of all beings? Or to reformulate, what makes all beings
be? It was a question that bugged all the Ancient philosophers and after them all the
mankind - the question that became known as ‘the meaning of life’. The Christianity gave
a straight forward answer: there is one ultimate force. God is what makes all the beings
be. He is the one and only responsible for all the beings, he is the essence and the
meaning of the universe, and for that we should praise him and pray to him. The Greeks
gave us different answers: they looked at that being as an unreachable form, a main
substance, but an unknown substance, and they’ve unsuccessfully tried to give us the
answer. But don’t be fooled, Christianity was wrong too. Modern science doesn’t need a
God, he is avoidable, and how can something that is the essence to all be avoidable? It
can’t. So, the God isn’t in fact the ultimate factor. What is then the meaning of life? To
see that, we should again embrace our skeptic thoughts. The universe isn’t. And then, the
asking for the meaning of life which translates to asking ‘What makes all beings be’ is
useless. If nothing is, nothing makes any being be, because there are no such things as
beings, there is no such thing that is. The only thing that is is nothing, or not-being, so
even it isn’t. So there is no basic essence to beings, because there are no beings. There is
no meaning of life, because there is no life. The universe is just a clever trick of our brain
trying to confuse our mind. The universe was created the day we were born, and it will be
gone the day we die.
3. mesto
4. Can a machine think?
When an average person is asked to describe the future world, the first thing he/she will
say is ‘Robotic organisms sharing everyday life with humans’ or ‘Hyper technology and
machinery is to be seen everywhere’, in a positive context. People usually refer to a
brighter, happier, better future. However, a certain part of the population also believes,
that the power of artificial intelligence must not be underestimated. Humans do tend to
play God, by altering their surroundings, modifying the natural DNA codes of living
beings, and, by trying to create artificial consciousness.
9
One of my favorite speculations on the ‘man-machine’ topic is the Japanese anime called
‘Ghost in the Shell’. The story is placed in a future world, with a post-apocalyptic
atmosphere, where a vast electronic network is controlling almost every aspect of human
lives. Also, human beings rely on electronic parts more on their actual biological organs.
The line between man and machine is blurry. The story follows a cyborg policewoman,
who is investigating a curious case of a mystical hacker called ‘The Puppet Master’. He
claims that he has no body, and that the only representation of his identity can be found
inside that network. So, if he can master the cyberspace, there is no need to ‘be trapped’
in a biological form. The essence, ‘Ghost’, can be projected into a simple machine, or
‘Shell’. This can be interpreted as a critique to man’s over-reliability on technology.
In Darren Aronofsky’s film ‘Pi’, we see a brilliant mathematician who believes that in
nature, a pattern exists. The pattern could be found through mathematics, and it appears
as a spiral, in almost every aspect of life – biological forms (Nautillus shell), migration of
birds, the rise and fall of Nile, even in some simple forms, like the swirling of milk in a
cup of coffee. He is struggling to find the ‘universal’ pattern in the stock market, because
it represents a vast network of numbers, constantly moving and changing, like an
organism. In the meantime, he is being contacted by a group of Jewish mystics, who
believe that the pattern he is looking for can also be found as a secret code in the Torah,
and that it actually represents the true name of God. The race for the number code
continues, and, as the mathematician slowly approaches the true value of the code, his
desire to reach the unreachable increases, until his computer finally digs it out of the
stock market. But, the discovery lasts only for a few seconds, before his computer shuts
down and dies completely. First, he doesn’t understand why that happened, but then it
occurs to him. The computer found THE universal pattern, the very essence of life, which
is not meant for us, humans, ever to find out. Just for a few seconds, the machine became
self-conscious.
As science progresses radically, it is important not to forget the role of ethics. The perfect
example of this issue can be found in genetic engineering. Is it ethical to artificially create
another being or toy around with its DNA? The Deoxyribonucleic acid is the ‘universal’
code found in every organism on this planet. And the most sacred fact about it is that two
10
exact same copies of DNA do not exist, or should not exist naturally. However, humans
have already distorted the natural order of living creatures.
A very intriguing and important question appears. If we find a way to give the ‘light’ of
self-consciousness to an electronic organism, or a machine, will it turn against its maker?
Is it even ethical?
A philosopher called Habermas indicates that, cloning could actually be represented as a
form of slavery, because the clone would not have the freedom of having its own unique
DNA. That is why Bioethics has a very important and perspective role in our future.
Donna Harraway was one of the first philosophers and anthropologists, who constructed
the term ‘cyborg’. Cyborg is a half-biological, half-electronic organism, or, a cyborg
could be a human who relies on electronic parts. At this moment, across the globe,
humans already rely on electronic parts (cell phones, computers) which are closely
connected to their identity, but, in most cases, the parts are not physically attached to
their bodies. However, exceptions exist, and some people actually have electronic organs
which help them survive. Also, a few months ago, an experiment has been conducted on
Harvard University. By merging biology, nano-technology and chemistry, an actual
‘cyborg tissue’ has been made. It is a biological tissue that has electrodes attached to it,
which were programmed to imitate the behavior of the human nervous system. A
medicine was tested on the tissue, and the results were more than satisfying – the tissue
had the same reaction as a normal biological human tissue would have. So, humans are
not really that far from constructing an actual cyborg organism.
With all of these changes in science, caution is needed. What if the future turns out to be
completely different from what we expected? Developed, but not bright at all? Humans
need to embrace this as an option, and not only try to prevent it, but also, try to question
the relationship between science and ethics.
4. mesto
3. topic
This topic is a matter of constructing genders in particular societies. First of all I
would like to explain distinction between the terms of sex and gender. Then I would write
something about consequences of this cultural construct for women and LGBT people.
11
When a baby is born, his or her genital organs automatically determine if he or she is a
boy or a girl. At this point we could say that specific person is, looking from the terms of
sex (which are given by our genital organs), a boy or a girl. Throughout life, he or she
would “act” roles provisory constructed in a particular society. This means that I, as a
boy should play with trucks, cars and similar stuff known by everyone from western
society as “boy toys”. In that matter I do not have to enumerate more. This is also the
case for girls. They must play whit dolls simply because dolls are “girl’s toys”. This
example of what is to be a girl or a boy, looking throughout children’s toys is a matter of
gender.
This is perfectly fine until boy grabs a doll or reverse. In such cases those kids
are stigmatized in some way. Most of parents would be terrified (I don’t want to
generalize but in Serbia I think that is true) to see such thing. If we think a little better we
would assume that all that noise is coming out from a simple piece of plastic (or any
other material that is used for making toys). But in every way the consequences of this
are extreme as for the children as for parents.
So, the question of this very problematic topic is what makes us course our
children for not using the “proper toys” and as I would explain later what are the
consequences in terms of constructing genders, not trought toys, but our whole lifes.
I think that sexuality is one of the key roles of constructing what is to be a man or
woman. On first look it looks simple. Men love (and have sexual relationship) with a
women and reverse. So, we can conclude that being a women must include emotional,
intellectual and sexual affiliations to man. Beside that, Bordieu in his study about Kabils
constructing house rooms says that most of women are, or should be committed to house
and caring for the children. On the other side, everything that includes social life, in other
terms everything that is out of the house is a matter of men. This might be rigid and
simplified statement, but there is no room or time to go trough it as I should. If I may say
so, women in Vojvodina, now days maybe less (I hope so) are in very similar position to
Kabil women, that Bourdieu was talking about. So that is another “fact” that explains
what women are or should be. This may go, all day long, saying that, specifically in our
society, women are “not for education, not for football, car races ect.”
12
I would sincerely ask WHY? The answer of this question surely lies in cultural
perception of what is to be a man or a woman.
So let me then deconstruct these so called “facts”. When we include LGBT
persons in the story of people sexual affiliations, we encounter one of the most important
problems considering gender roles. I think that most of western society is constructed in
heterosexual normative. Everything is based on that kind of relationships. Women do not
drink beer, they just sit next to their boyfriend trying to look nice with a cup of gross
martini in her hands. This may be an extreme example, but I am sure that I got to the
right point. If we include LGBT persons in the context, we would get to the point that our
idea isn’t valid for all of the people. Lesbian woman just can’t find a good place in our
society because it does not exist. If it’s in our “nature” to be a woman or man by the
heterosexual standards, why then some people can’t find their place in that so called
nature based societies? (So what is in our nature then, what IS nature after all?)
Next to that I do not understand the “fact” the idea that women are “genetically
born” with the knowledge of the mechanisms of a washing machine. I would rather say
that men are “genetically determined” to wear heavy weight clothes to and from the same
washing machine because they are stronger than any other woman in general. Beside that,
“men do not fear, they are brave enough to stand the smell.”
In those examples, throughout joke and sarcasm it sounds clear that some of those
gender “facts” are not born with us. They are invented and given by the society.
So, to assume, the thing what makes me a man in my society doesn’t have to do
anything with my or anybody else’s nature. It’s truly and fully constructed by the
particular society we live in.
5. mesto 1.topic
As we say that something exists we make a statement about its existence and if
something exists we can say that it is. When we talk about something that doesn’t exist
we talk as that does in order to say that it doesn’t [exist]. The problem is that nothing is
used as something, but nothing is nothing and something is something.
As we make a statement, that statement is made from our past. We call our past
ourselves, we use the memory as ourselves – to be what we think that we are. So as we
13
live in the past and not in the moment, because we use that past and what we learned and
had in experience to judge, we don’t look on the things as they are. We look at them
trough the images we have about them in our memory. As we look at the desk we don’t
see the desk that is in front of us, we look at the image of the desk we have in our mind.
Follows that we don’t see what really is and that’s a problem because we say that
something what is something is something what it is not. When we look at that
something, to say what it is we must see the idea about it, because if we look trough the
image we see something else then that something – something that it could be or what it
is meant to be. The appearance is bound by the idea beyond it, and it can exist because
the idea about it exists. To judge about its existence is all about seeing the idea of it.
When we talk about nothing, the idea of nothing, it is nothing so the existence is not, but
the idea does exist and the idea of it is that it doesn’t exist. So if we indentify the idea of
nothing with an idea of something, we are dead wrong – because we indentify two ideas
with each other and blame that the first is the second one.
The idea of u human being is the one that makes us, but we are different one form
another and make different images to ones who sense us but we still exist. When we die
we are no more, we become nothing but the image someone had about us. As the image
exists in our memory we take it as an idea of a human, but it is really an idea of nothing,
because that image is about something that doesn’t exists, so it can’t be bound to the idea
about a human anymore because a human is something that exists.
If we say that something doesn’t exist because we don’t have an image of it or we are
not aware of it is wrong, because it doesn’t need us in order to exist. In order to exist it
needs a idea, but we are a idea too, and as one idea exist as it is, the other one exist on the
same way and doesn’t need it [the first] in order to exist.
If we want to see it for real we need to let go our past, and live in the moment, as we
identify with our past we can’t look beyond the images, probably not seeing the ideas
itself because we are bound by our past and what we call our self [ I ]. In order to see the
idea truly we need to look at them without former experience because nothing is same,
everything is different for other, only the idea can be the one which makes the difference
and we need take them as they are. If the idea of something is in being nothing, it is at it
14
is – it can’t be something, but also as something doesn’t exist it can’t be bound to the idea
of something because existence is needed in order to be so.
15