It's both... I am an atheist, but I also just like throw ideas out there and let people think about things from a different perspective. I don't actually hold to
logical positivism as rabidly IRL/in my own head as I present it, but I present it that way just for rhetorical value/to get people to think about it, even if only because they think I'm being a dick or otherwise want to refute me, as long as they think about it, I'm happy. But it's hard to get a lot people to think about things in that way unless you get under their skin just a bit and get them wanting to refute it, ya know?
As to my post in this thread? I was actually going against my usual positivist/reductionist views. I was trying to say that building a house is rather quite simple, and that I think it's too simple and too readily reduced into a set of equations (the engineering side) and a set of instructions (The physical building of it, i.e. meeting building codes and the like) to really be a rich/full analogy to the concept of building a life. It has some value as an analogy, sure. But I'm not sure I could describe the process of falling in love in the same way I could describe how to burn membranes onto a flat roof. TBH, I think "building a life" is such an over reaching and broad concept that it needs to be reduced into smaller chunks that have to be analogized on their own.
You sound a lot like me when it comes to the desire to make others think. I also do not care if they consider me a dick but I typically try to phrase my points in a more pacifistic tone which seems to alter how an individual considers a concept. Strange how tone in writing can so greatly alter ones perception and response to previously unrealized ideas. There are times though when a more dickish approach is needed. Yes, it can be hard to get people to think about things in ways that they haven't before but there are other ways to do that besides you getting under their skin and seeking for them to refute the idea. Instead of you getting under their skin go about the whole process in a way that makes them get under their own skin. This can be initiated at the start of the discussion of a concept.
You pose your question, they reply, and you answer their reply with another question based on what they said (the Socratic Method ^.^). Using this method to start the flow of ideas in their head is a more subtle approach than directly going at them with statements as opposed to questions. Going at a person with statements often results in them refuting the idea with a question, which puts you on the defensive and leaves them on the offensive. As long as the individual is on the offensive they will be less likely to focus on the concept and points that you are trying to get across and will only worry about their current ideas on a subject and defend it in an offensive manner. Using replies that are questions yourself though keeps the individual constantly on the defensive leaving them to have to constantly analyze their own belief and its validity. I hope all that makes sense ~.~
So to answer your comment one must look at the core concept of your argument, which is simplicity, and ask themselves is anything really simple? It is something as simple as an atom that keeps the fabric of our existence together but something as complex as an ever expanding Universe from which the simplicity of atoms are born, so does this make either part of the cycle any simpler than the other? Also once an atom is reduced into its place in the cosmic equation can it ever go back since matter cannot be created nor destroyed only expanded upon? In reducing things down to "simple" equations we are only allowed to see one side of the coin because it is indeed often very hard if not impossible to add back onto your reductions and receive an answer that is not skewed.
And yes, there are sets of instructions and blueprints when building your house, but just as in life do architects always go by the instructions that they are given or are they sometimes forced to abandon the original and simple instructions? When something complex comes up forcing the architect to either change but work within the framework of their instructions or create their own set of instructions to follow do the original blueprints still carry the same amount of weight on the final design of the house or the final design of ones life? We are all given instructions on life our entire life but few if any will ever follow these instructions exactly step by step. Are the inconsistent state of blueprints for a house or life really that rich and full, especially if an individual tries to work around any problems encountered with the original instructions or tries to alter the blueprints in a hurried forceful manner? If problems persist with the original instructions of life that someone receives then problems will only continue to linger when an individual attempts to quickly and forcibly change their life instructions resulting in a poor/empty life due to a lack of commitment to build their life with the greatest understanding possible. Their house will likely still be built but will it not be of lower quality due to the lack of commitment,understanding, and a complete neglect for anything resembling perfection in the construction of their house?
Basically, there is no such thing as something being easy when it comes to building the house that represents your own life. Sure, it might have easy parts and there might not be any complications at first but soon the house will fall into disrepair and the cycle of perpetual repairs to it will only result in the same challenges as before, but likely worse. So why not take the simple steps out of your current view of building your house/life?Build it up brick by brick by brick with your blood,sweat, and tears because to really live a "rich/full" life. Make it personal by touching and constructing each piece of life with your own hands and any instructions thrown away to the side. Nobody is going to speed up the construction of their house or the construction of their life ideas and philosophy with a set of instructions that neglect to keep that personal and spiritual connection that is so dear to giving meaning in the journey they wish to complete. Nor is anyone going to speed up the growth of their souls by living in their house of life by ignoring the patience,determination, and love needed to make not only the roof, walls, and floors sturdy and safe, but also the foundation of their life because in their hurry they missed key details on each, resulting in the weakened integrity of their house.
Basically, I too feel that life(or love) cannot be simplified down because of the very nature of its idea and the overall broadness of the concept. The finished product of your house of life should actually never be finished because the nature of life is to go with the flow even after the death of your physical self. When a person goes with the flow of life while building their house it can be broken down into smaller chunks and these chunks be analogized on their own. Who ever said that the house of life that you build must simply be just one floor high? If a person goes with the flow of life they will see the changes happening around them and add a separate level to their house for that period of time. They will put unique pieces of metaphorical objects on the additional floor that are individual chunks that do not need analogized because they simply tell the story of the creation of the second floor of your house of life leaving only the floor as a whole needing an analogy to describe it. However, if an analogy must be placed on one floor of the house, then one must come up with analogies for each floor of the house.
This is actually quite easily done within the idea of life as a house. Consider the first level like a living area where the largest portion of interaction within the house takes place and the area that if any guests were to come over would be the main one that the majority of them would see. This is an analogy representing those that are content with a less than mediocre life and existence. Now view the second level of your house as more of a recreational place where you go to do the things that you enjoy and bring a degree of happiness with the others who enjoy the same activities as you around you because you feel comfortable in sharing in this recreational time with them. This is to mean that those who have built two levels to their concept of life strive for at least a mediocre place in society and its activities. The third story of your house would consist of your areas where one would go to relax and to sleep at. With every individual on this level they would cease to notice anyone else even existing, the other people would be nothing more than an invisible wind passing by them. A great degree of contentment can be witnessed at this level of ascension in understanding life and with this contentment comes the wisdom to be awakened to the idea that life isn't about just being alive, scrounging by, or fitting in socially. Someone who has managed to build this many levels upon their house realizes that the goal of building a life is a process of becoming aware, testing the norms of society with your new awareness, and then becoming enlightened to the concept that all they were doing in building their house was creating an environment that they felt comfortable in with themselves even when away from society.
In conclusion, I feel that "building a life" is a generally broad subject not able to be simplified down,however, this is only when thought of any other way than the way of its nature, to simply flow like a river. When the foundation for our house is poured during our childhood we can either take and build nothing more upon it during our time alive on earth than a single floor hut and just float through life nothing more than a ghost unaware of the those who are trying to build their house up to either achieve socially or spiritually. Building a life as a metaphor of a house narrows down the concept to those who build just enough in life to get by, those who build enough to become socially accepted and participate in the physical aspects of being alive, finally to those who build enough onto their house to sympathize with those who only built one or two levels but at the same time not to not let that sympathy overtake the peace that they feel from being satisfied with who they are which is as close to as they can come to completion of their house in this life.
(keep in mind, the metaphors involving various levels of houses isn't meant to be taken as a metaphor for those who are poor,middle, or wealthy but a metaphor for those seeking their place in the Universe and the varying degree of which they approach the task, anyone no matter their status are capable of building a three story house ^.^)
Pariahprose
