Some shit for school.

Excerpt of the essay I'm working on for school.

Feel as if it's content is relevant enough for me to cheaply pass it off as a blog post as well. Two birds with one stone. F-yeeeeee.


It is debated that in times of conflict, an individual will learn something about himself, something about the true nature of who he is. Under the vein of putting a veil up for the world to see, it seems the argument suggests superficiality within individuals, whose true nature isn’t revealed until forces of immense pressure are slammed into the persona; the same persona which protects the self from the judgmental eyes of the world. Slamming because there is an obstacle in the way, slamming because there is a denial to face the truth, slamming into the “Devil’s last preserve” until there is nothing left but the bare naked wholesome truth. Such is the nature of a Crucible, to apply pressure so great, only the strong will survive. There are some deep seated problems to this line of reasoning though. Is one really warranted in leaving things after the moment of intense pressure; leaving with the thought they had just experienced an epiphany of sorts after learning new about him? Pragmatically this edifying experience can only exist so long as there isn’t another moment of conflict. For if there was another moment in conflict, what is there stopping the individual from discovering something new about himself? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, one question still needs to be begged. Where is the logic in suggesting that one learns something about himself during times of conflict? In times of conflict, those who claim to act out self-interest and learn something from it must be considered. How they can be sure? They surely would judge their newfound knowledge with their mind. Yet, the mind, according to Armstrong, is a self-scanning mechanism; it only has itself to confer with in relation to matters of truth. Using the mind in itself to judge personal truths seems to produce results too edifying to be rigorous and proper. One would not use the same measuring cup to double check an amount of water for accuracy’s sake. For if the measuring cup were to be broken, how could an individual know if he only had one measuring cup? Likewise, if the mind were at fault somehow, how would one know – how would one confirm the truths learned from the conflict? Perhaps an individual could turn to another for advice, but due to the fact that an “outsider”/Crucible reference” cannot bear complete witness to the mental processes of an individual, this is an impossible task. What can be inferred then, is that the only person fit enough to decide upon truths about oneself (if one has acted out of self-interest or not) is the individual himself. In saying this, just because the individual analysing himself is better fitted to judgment of his actions, does not necessarily mean that the judgments hold any truth value. Is there any way that one can be sure if he is acting out of self-interest? It is not enough to justify actions with seemingly naturalistic fallacies, in order for one to be sure whether one is acting out of self-interest, one must realize that the only form of truth that exists is the truth that one finds with logic, not with passion, or values, or morals.

Through Armstrong’s theory, it can be said that the mind is generally unfit to make absolute judgment with regard to an individual in and of himself due to the lack of a confirmation factor for truth in the mind. It can be established then, that one can never be sure whether or not one is truthfully acting out of self-interest. At best, one may only be able to justify it through naturalistic terms. John Proctor is sentenced to death – first premise. John Proctor may save himself if he denounces his good name in the community – second premise. One would be inclined, based on these two premises, to conclude: Therefore, John Proctor ought to denounce his name and save his life. However, this is not a logical conclusion; it suffers from the naturalistic fallacy. One could just as easily conclude: Therefore, John Proctor ought to save his name and suffer death!


Please don't plagiarize this, I will dissect your live body with a sewing needle and donate the remains of my malice to a mouth of a volcano.