no context

ur mere existence is an act of contradiction. U are, but u weren’t and u won’t be. So why is it so heavily scrutinized? I’m an atheist today but won’t be tomorrow, who knows? I might defend something to death, today but will oppose to it tomorrow, does that make me a hypocrite?

From political jargon to conversations that take place over afternoon tea, hypocrisy is inevitable. U say money is important but then waste it, u say it isn’t important but work hard to earn it. But it’s not that simple, the previously stated argument doesn’t make sense because money itself isn’t important, but it can buy important things…so “wasting” isn’t appropriate to describe “spending” it. But that wasn’t the original statement, was it? The argument lacks necessary context.

But then how much context is enough context?

Context (or lack thereof) is the very reason u even clicked on this “article”. What makes it so important that adding a singular word after a sentence can change its meaning completely. “This is a really smart blog, not!”

A phrase I use often (with my friends) is “never dumb yourself down to fit in a crowd” but I do change the way I speak and the vocabulary I use is definitely reflected in my understanding of their understanding. In fact, I’d argue it especially affects my humor. Am I a hypocrite then? Saying yes would make u a static thinker (static thinking as I call it). But what does that mean?

A person who can effectively convey their thoughts n ideas to a varying demographic of people by a way of assessing behavioral/intellectual patterns and modulating speech accordingly is said to be of high emotional intelligence, because as it turns out (surprise surprise), holding a phd isn’t indicative of high emotional intelligence.

Context is an important pillar of the concept I call “types of thinking”. Let me give u an example: I keep a glass in front of u, it’s half way full and I ask u to describe it. What do u say? Any reasoning along the lines of “glass is half full/half empty/any other possible outcomes” stems from static thinking (conservative sounded too harsh).

Whereas a dynamic thinker might not be able to answer at all, as every condition can be argued about (There can’t be an answer to the question because there can never be enough context) and there is never enough context for anything.

The glass is half empty and half full, so how is it hypocritical/contradictory to say it’s either? How is it contradictory for u to be when u won’t be, there isn’t enough context. Am I a hypocrite still? Because that would depend on what “dumbing down” and “fitting in” mean. An intellectual person isn’t tied down to their beliefs, in fact they will abandon them for better ones. “I’m an atheist today but won’t be tomorrow, who knows?” Is it hypocrisy or just dynamic thinking? Because sticking to your philosophies regardless of the context is simply static thinking. but static thinking has proven to be unreasonable?

Is murder wrong? Both answers “yes & no” are wrong…

It’s never that simple, is it?

I think every person should adopt dynamic thinking especially when voicing their opinions on matters of importance. It is okay to contradict yourself, it’s okay to be change ur opinions, its okay to grow from mistakes. No glass is just half full/empty the same way no person is good/bad or no crime is right/wrong. Context is the only thing that matters, and there can never be enough context.

So no, ur existence is not an act of contradiction (it’s not that serious) U are, but u weren’t, and u won’t be…makes no sense with no context.