Horny goat thinks crazy thoughts while breaking Wind

What is Sophistry? I guess it can be defined simply as a deception of arguement or is it argumentative deception? Is that just an actual definition or rather an attempt at a definition? Anyone who has lived the life of the big cities know the pressures, expectations and harsh reality of life. This is gonna be my life story, how i can interpret myself and find some direction and meaning to the life I am obliged to live.

It is impossible to define anything as an absolute. Simple analogy; can we say that we are the same person from day to day? Is this the result of experiences combined with ever changing bio-chemistry our body undergoes or can it be explained by religion? I have no facts, rambling thoughts do not deserve that. Facts are for individuals that require a substantiated view of what they know. Are facts, statistics the truth? Can they define our existence? and Why? Why *should* facts define our existence?

We live by a few core values which generations of ever more educated men have built on. Firstly, we have Law, then culture (or the obligations of such) and then religion. WHY do we require such guidelines to direct our existence? Do we no longer go by our emotions? our feelings? Assuming a child is educated strictly on neutral terms with total sensory deprivation, would he be able to judge right and wrong? Can we no longer rely on ourselves to do the right thing? In a need to justify themselves, men in power like to tamper with things. Is "do good" too broad and general a command for all three values? Why must we constantly seperate and force a nomenclature to every situation?

No one can really imagine a utopia where everyone does what is lawful and good. But can it happen? Why cant it happen? Social experimentation is the next step in our ever developing race, but no one likes to upset the masses. Its all about approval, how can we really say that the right way is really the right way? Is it just the best way to proceed from the best economic, political standpoint?

I have loved once. I went totally by my emotions, my roller-coaster of emotions. They threatened to engulf me. I could find no respite, I was running a gamut of feelings so varied that unless I could define it, I would never rest. That is man's greatest fault. Trying to define something which cannot be defined. I have no doubt that sufficient scientific progress can define love in equations. But not everyone is a physicist.

She rejected me. I can be forthright and say that it is my fault. But whose fault is it really? Is it just so much strength in spirit that it can never be put down? When life is ruled by circumstances, is it really life or just a program in which deviation means disaster? Can we trust anything that we can feel so deeply anymore? Do we allow ourselves to love too much or do we close ourselves because of expectations from everyone? Why do we go insane over such noticeably trivial things? Individuals form expectations which are transparent and seemingly non-attainable. Should we try? Is our greatest fault and strength our overwhelming ambition and the need to live up to expectations? Can we even face ourselves if we do not try our very best? Can we be happy under-achievers? instead of unhappy successful over-achievers?

There cant be a definition for everything that goes through my head. That is the problem with men in general, we need to define what we cant understand. Do women just understand and flow with nature? Why do we always strive to change it. Anger cant be a factor in everything although sometimes it works itself in mysterious ways so much so that even we do not know we are angry until it comes rushing out like so much unexplained non-intentions.

Society is much too rigid, we stage protests and we apply permits/licenses for it. what happened to spontaenous change? Why protest when instead of deliberating on what to do, we just feel? Maybe nothing is ever wrong, It just is a different approach to the end. Even if a singular approach reaches its objectives faster and with less expenditure of resources, do we learn as much? Is our world so cluttered with regulations, legal issues and the interests of the shareholder that not even we can do something different to even try to see if cluttered in that unholy mess, there is an answer waiting to be unearthed? When stripped of purpose and challenges, do men automatically recede into self-degredation? If so, then are the current pillars of our society just so much justification from centuries of men trying to fill up their empty lives or do they feel an instinctive need to show the easy road to peoples after that?

Is it right to just let individuals absorb up to decades of study while actively surpressing "wrong" thoughts and encourage just variations of the right way as creative? The error inherent in everything is a learning process. But essential errors in a few things can be the answer to others. That is the path to true understanding. to first go by your gut instinct then correct it yourself. Would that be a more actively approachable learning method. Is this the beginnings of chaos or just the manifestation of a more thought orientated society. Answers must always be provided and not found. If left alone with the question of pythagoras's theorem, how many individuals can orchestrate the solutuion? How many more can come up with their own unique methods?

I believe in free will, truth and above all love. So bittersweet a concoction. So tender in its silent moments but so elemental in its fury. Sometimes we can ill afford to deliberate on the ecstacy of its existence, we just live it. did I not however, want to define everything? I admire love, I admire those who are in love. Equally, I pity those who have never experienced true love. Who let the gradual progress of friendship build up into something more. Can passion exist in such a romance? Built upon stability and the gradual orientation of each individual to the personality of the other. This fosters love which is the preferable love. Logical, connective and totally stable. But can it hold a candle to love that burns the soul, consumes all rational thought? A love that sweeps away everything and lays bare the soul without regards to any values or education. To go beyond rational thinking to the abstract feelings and emotions of that human being. It does not have to be erotic, it does nto have to be about caring for that individual. Even proximity or the sight of the object of love can send tremors up spines, paralyze thinking and make fools out of geniuses. Rarely is this form of love reciprocated, rare is the instance that both feel the same way. That is the most perfect love of all. That can be defined as a soul partner. So rare the possibility that such opportunities fire the imagination of entire societies. Culture is born from that very thought, cultures are broken from that very thought.

So what exactly is sad? when it is not reciprocated of course. Such can only be described as denial of one memeber from the very essence of what he/she is and has already made him/herself a tool of society, to the demands and will of society. This is not only a sad thing, it is deplorable. But what if the other individual does not reciprocate because he/she does not feel anything? Is that the sadder? Is compatibility everything? Or can we just depend on our senses?