Hi. These are some guidelines. I hope you like them.
(-1-) Life is absurd.
Resolution: Life is absurd.
Life- The sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
Absurd- Ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous.
Thesis: The sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual is ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous.
What this means for you: This, as in life, shouldn't have happened. Existance is by complete chance, reality is an irrelevant factor of existence, and the statistical improbabilty of life can be viewed in many ways. I offer two.
First: Human endeavor is pointless, since we will all end up in the ground dead. No medical development can counter it (WARNING: Do not say this near Aubrey De Gray, the beard will eat you). There is no point to doing anything. There is no point to being anything. Nothing is real. Life's inescapable end makes it utterly pointless. This will flavor everything you do, forever and ever. Well, at least until you finally bite the bucket.
Second: Human endeavor is the most valuable thing in the world. It is the process of creation that should be valued, because without it, we really are nothing, our lives really our pointless.
Have you ever taken a moment and looked at a door, and thought about it? It is horrifically unlikely that the reader (seeing as this is on the internet) has not seen a door before, so therefore it doesn't need definition. Firstly, consider the hinge the door rests upon. The design of the hinge can differ aesthetically, but the function is usually the same. It's existance, however, is legacy. The hinge is eternal life. You see, a person designed the hinges your door rest upon. Now, their mortality is just as frail as ours, but somewhere, one person designed what allows your door to exist as a useful tool, as a normal facet of modern culture, and a desirable one. As for the doorway, the knob, the lock, and the door itself, well, the same conclusions can be drawn.
The word man-made seems to have a negative connotation, since it speaks to things that are unnatural in one context (more on that later). We can even remake nature into our own liking with landscaping or other techniques. However, the idea that man making things is bad somehow is offensive on a number of levels. Firstly, the ability to express that idea is because of man. The ideas that form are a creation of man, as it is language and instruction that allows the idea -of- an idea to exist. Secondly, to discredit human endeavor is to join the first group listed, even if unintentional.
Human creation is beautiful. The wonder of everything is overwhelming, and thankfully schools are able to rub that out of people so they can function as what you can loosely call a human being at this point. Human endeavor can be any sorts of things. What if the lack of human endeavor stopped the migration over the bering strait? That's billions of people that never got a chance to see the world, for better or worse, to preserve what is natural, to preserve the life of nature over the life of man, over the wonder of man. The expression of distaste is allowable, but the use of man-made as derogitory is a horror commited with words. After all, human endeavor is the most valauble thing in the world.
So what is the difference between these two viewpoints, between life is useless and humans are awesome? And what of other such views, that employ dieties or collective unconsciousnesses? The difference is simply existance of context. Now, what is context? Context is the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.
To exist is to live, life is experience, experiences create context, context is conditional, the human condition is universal but individual, the individual exists.
It is the existance of context that allows this cycle, that permits it's existence. But, context is man made. Context is an idea, a concept, that has no natural life. It does not graze, it does not breed, it is a word that means something in a certain context. Context has context. Therefore, context both proves the existance of the individual, but it also discredits the same cycle since that cycle is contextual.