Thursday, September 04, 2003

Ooh. A blog plagiarist is on the loose. Much as it would normally tick people off, it's nothing short of funny.

And pathetic.

In fact, it's so ruddy pathetic, I'm not going to waste anymore bandwidth on it and change the topic.

So let's move on, jabronis...

So. Why am I not doing anything about you?

I said it before, jabroni, and I'll say it just one more time: I bear no ill will towards you at this point. There's no question about that. I don't bear any ill will towards HER either. But as far as you are concerned, I think it's high time I stopped being the one fawning over like a housebroken puppy, trying to patch things up with you. Same with HER, actually, but SHE prolly got the idea already.

If you feel willing enough to fix this, then by all means, you know where to find me, jabroni. I'm not going to give you a hard time, nor am I going to torment your very being. I sincerely hope that neither is your paranoia doing that to you instead of me.

Bottomline is: like HER, it's up to you. The ball is in your court, and I don't intend to call upon you uninvited because I respect the distance. SHE got the idea, but SHE apparently is leaving me hanging. You, I hope, would turn out differently.

But it still lies with you.

In other news...

- McCann is remarkably annoying, as we've been shunted all the way to next Monday to do our interview with them for our thesis. Asinine gits really get to me, but Hades, it's not like I really can do anything about it, neh? Ergo, we have no choice but to keep pushing on, and hopefully make some very tangible progress come Monday. In fact, we now have no choice but to go and interview five agencies instead for the fear that we don't come up with anything if we stick to McCann. Dagnabit, my work suddenly got more complicated... five interviews in a week? Help us all. Why didn't I pick blogging as a thesis topic?

- Varsity accreditation for the Ateneo Debate Society this coming Wednesday and Friday. Finally. My time has come, and if I make it in, just about everything on my must-do list beyond getting a byline in a national newspaper and a Cum Laude upon graduation will be achieved... wish me luck, jabronis. This is the moment I've been waiting for...

- Another irritating problem: I am currently being cheated by someone. Granted that there might be a lack of documentation (And wait 'til I find it.), but for someone to bite the hand that feeds that someone is downright low. I hope that person goes to Hades for this treachery, because I for one cannot call such a person my friend. And yes, I have given MORE THAN ENOUGH of the benefit of the doubt to this roody-pooh, but the git still refuses to learn. I find enough evidence to this person's tomfoolery, and this person will definitely regret crossing Marcelle. Unlike in other circumstances, I am completely blameless here. I have rendered an assistance, only to be stabbed in the back. What a costly stab that is, too.

- Interestingly enough, while I certainly am a strong advocate of free will (See the Oracle answer to Neo at the park in Matrix Reloaded to know what I mean.), I had no choice but to go against it in my outline for my Philosophy paper. I'll give you jabronis the actual outline next time, but suffice it to say that the crux of my arguments fall under:

1. According to St. Augustine, human free will and divine foreknowledge go hand-in-hand because what God foreknows is our WILL to do something. This will is independent from Him, and thusly, free.

2. I disagree with this on four counts. The first, being the scientific contention, that in the event that scientists prove everything we do to be nothing more than chemical processes (And we're getting there.), there is no free will at all but a mere chemical reaction within us.

3. The second, being the atomistic contention, that Augustine assumed God's creation to stop at our wills. Who is to assume this? If God is absolute, omnipotent, and omniscient, shouldn't His creation of us be likewise absolute?

4. The third, the fact that essence precedes existence when we assume the existence of God. If God created our essence, then due to his perfection, we end up doing in our existence what He has given to us in our essence. Even then, we cannot possibly assume that our existence is even independent of His doing. Moreover, I explain here that God's absolute control over us is not something that should be shunned, but rather, something that should acknowledge His absolute power and His divine plan that is beyond mere human construance.

5. The fourth, being St. Aquinas' very own argument from causality. Because God is the first, perfect uncaused cause, all the effects that spring forth afterwards go back to Him. Nothing we do is not involved in something God Himself has caused, ergo, none of our actions, brought about by stimuli that can be traced back to Him, are free.

There's one difficulty with this viewpoint, and one that I attempted to dissuade by citing the divine plan: giving God absolute control over His creations enable us to hold Him responsible for all the evil in the world. Anyone who can side with my argumentation and STILL debunk this argument will sincerely earn my respect.

That's all for the day, jabronis. Move along now...

No comments: