I started writing a short story today in between classes. I have had the idea brewing in my head for a few days now. I am starting the story off with a long monologue by one of the two main characters. His name is yet to be determined. I figured I would post this on here instead of emailing it to myself to use at home. This way if anyone happens along it they can tell me what they think.
I am no story teller. I am simply a relentless observer of human nature.
“I have no empathy for mindless day thinkers. The murderers, the arsonist, the thief, and the liar, I have empathy for them. They are the ones who deserve salvation. We have lost the idea of human nature. We have decided to shut it out and replace it with a romanticized view point of who we are and where we come from. Since Adam and Eve were shunned from the garden it was the intention of our maker for humans to be a self regulating force. We lack all qualities of who we were created to be and so we resent ourselves. We have been taught to ignore our urges and go back on all things instinctual. We have outgrown humanity. We are by nature savages after all. Fighting for power, but we have replaced war with words, rifles with rhetoric, and spears with sports. We live in a culture obsessed with sports. Where do you think this fascination comes from? We crave battle. It is in our genes to do battle with others yet we are taught from infancy that fighting is wrong so we allow overgrown men on fields and in stadiums to fight for us. We are jerking-off our brains need for violence with dumbed down pseudo- brutal games, and for some it doesn’t work. So yeah I feel sorry for the guy sitting in the room with a needle labeled death because the man acted on a basic instinct to prove he was fit for survival, that’s just fucking human.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the little political agenda towards the end there, but I'm getting the feeling that this character is giving pardon to people on the basis of their inability to act as a full autonomous agent in their actions and decisions. On that basis, this character would then most probably reject the idea of free will. Let me play a devil's advocate and posit the idea that this character has undergone the same "absolute value" of social indoctrination as the people he talks about; for example, being raised "well" makes use of the same amount of indoctrination that being raised "poorly" does. So this character, obviously insightful, would have to make a morality judgement on whether or not these people are right or wrong, despite their inability to act against the way that they are brought up. He is, in essence, equal to them; and thus, he must make a judgement on himself, because he makes a judgement on them. Does he then hand himself moral authority?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, offences that are punishable by capital means are "wrong," (I am acting as a moral authority, forgive my hypocrisy) and truth may have it that it is not their fault, in the strict sense, but should the most practical society imaginable recognize that, or continue to punish people for things outside their doing? Herein lies the dilemma with idealism... you silly idealist :)