Lol, Talk to me.. Aha.

[scottish]

Lets see, I'm much into philosophy, soo let's see if anyone likes the things I put together.
Lets see, while I am writing this, my mood is changing, mentallity and thoughts all at once. What I may want to say may not be what I actually mean, due to the numerous amounts of things going on around me and within me. So, when a person writes document..or story, of what he/she saw, there are numerous amounts of things that are all occuring at once that can alter what he/she actually saw. While what that person may have wrote down, may not have actually been what he/she saw; it may have been something that that person wanted to see, may have changed through being cloudy outside due to mood, or it may have been written down in which it wasn't expressed right.
Going along with "the chaos theory" (where the little things have the most effect in life), I believe that most of history, even what happened yesterday, may not actually be what happened, in fact, let me change that, the same event that may have taken place yesterday that was reported on the news, may have been seen by lets say twenty thousand veiwers. Well, take twenty thousand pairs of eyes, and an infinite amount of activity going on within and around the people, you get twenty thousand different things that happened. So, is there actually a solid truth? Can we actually say that this happened or that happened?
Going along with this subject, well, the basis (kind of a contradictory :P) of this subject, perspective has a bigger role in our lifes than most people take into account.
Why does a judge or the jury have the right to declare if someone is guilty or not? Why can a person say that he/she is wrong and that person is right? It all comes down to whether you view the situation outside of the box. Can we actually put a legal definition on wrong or right? Good or bad? What might be good to someone, may be veiwed bad or wrong by another. If the law states that an action done by someone is wrong, then in societies terms, it IS wrong, no questions asked by many. What many do not take into account is the person breaking the laws. In his or her mind, that may have been right...so why is he being convicted or judge by others when in his mind it was correct?
People tend to be afraid of "anarchism" or having no autority to lay down rules or customs people should abide by. They usually want the most protection they can get, especially if it involves themselves. So, by societies terms, self protection is...most sought after? Then, how the hell do other people, have the right to convict someone who was convicted of doing something to preserve themselves?
On another note...is any one into Plato?..
Plato, a man in my veiws who actually was creditited with an idea that actually contradicts the idea. Plato had an idea, that all things in life, are never new. Nothing new exists, just things are based off of old ideas, that nothing new can ever be created. ( Many things are contradicting themselves in this little thing im writing here, just try to ignore it I guess because there is no way around it). Going along with the idea of Energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only be manipulated, (if this is true...), Platos ideas fit perfectly. If we think of ideas or thoughts as energy, which, I believe they are, everything always has to be based off of one solid platform, which is part of everything that branches off. While what I may be saying right now, wasn't exactly said by someone in sometime, it was thought to be in said but in a different manner. Technically Plato, who did not credit himself for this idea, was credited with this idea by others.
This sets up another example of history that I'd like to go into. While yes, Plato said it, he was well known, so people credited him, without even thinking about what it actually means, lol, it had to have been thought of before. Currently, we think that that idea is how it is stated, but once again, how was it stated when it was first said?
If you play telephone with i dont know, lets say ten people in a room, and start off with a sentece, idk " FFR is the best!", by the time it reaches the tenth person, that sentece could drastically change into a sentece with thirty words, a sound, or even may not even reach the tenth person. Due to opinions and perspective, once again, things change without notice. The slightest miss pronunciation of a word could throw off the entire sentence, and emphasis also goes along with that. So thinking, lets take...umm.. something we believe that happened in history..Van Gough chopping off his ear. Well, idk when that actually happend, but I can at least say it happend awhile ago. Lets put the situation like this, Van gough didnt actually chop his ear off, he clipped it with a knife, and skin fell off. Someone saw it, spread a word about him doing it. Soon, the town knows. Lets say the town has two thousand people, which would mean, at least a quarter of the initial veiwing was manipulated into something else. Word spreads and years pass, now were talking about..the amount of humans that have heard it initially, exponentially raised by a numerous amount. How do we depict what happened? By word of mouth? Hmm..I dont think so, well at least I don't.
Talking about words, we as humans rely on words to express what we want to say, as I am typing right now. What happens when we don't rely on words, how would we express ourselves then? Through actions? How would we describe the action of flying? By doing it? Not to sound cheesy, but honestly, how would we do it?
Any input or suggestions, comments or thoughts on what I have said? Anyone want to add or disagree? I'm always up for talking on this subject, and much more, so post your opinions and we'll talk