Thoughts On Things

Entry 16

Today I found a decapitated mouse in my kitchen, courtesy of my cats no doubt. I'd say, going off  of one of few experienced bleeding or seeing real blood, that the colour of their blood is practically identical to that of humans. Very bright. Surprisingly, despite the decapitation and pulling out of what I can only assume to be a spine, or some other large thing, there was not a drop of blood spilt. I wonder whether my cats therefore executed the mouse outside, and dragged each part in separately, or, killed it inside, and somehow leaked not a drop of blood. I suppose mice don't have much blood, but I still find it impressive nonetheless. It was split up into 3 parts, from what I could see - some may have been eaten. The main body, which was fairly intact, only suffering the wound of decapitation; this wound too off the entire neck and head, along with some shoulder I believe. Upon further examination, it seems there are 4 parts - a single foot was ripped off. The other 2 parts are the head and the unknown body part - it's very large, practically the length of the entire mouse body, so I can only assume it must be some sort of spine; yet, some of it appears to be covered in fur, so I am completely perplexed. 

Other than that, the day was uneventful and the same as any other day.

I don't wish for a heaven or hell or anything after death, nor do I believe in it. I am a product of my brain and I am dependent on it to exist. Once my brain ceases functioning, I die and there is nothing. No boredom or pain or pleasure or time or space or anything. No body no dream no reality. It's nothing and that is heaven itself. 

I recently had a small debate with a friend, about the kind of thing you should debate according to Socrates. That is, the existence of evil, or I suppose of evil before or without humanity. I was arguing that without humanity, evil did not exist, and not just in the sense of the word. He argued the opposite, that even without people, evil did exist. His argument was that, even though no one was around to call it evil, it was still evil. My argument was that with no one around to decide evil, it did not exist. Evil is subjective. What is widely considered evil is just that, widely considered evil. Most people agree that murder, rape, theft is evil, yet not all. Some are apathetic, some view it as good. Therefore, even though most agree it is evil, it is not, it is simply viewed as evil and decided as evil by the majority. Nothing is actually evil. That's my idea anyway. His was, from what I remember, that since the majority decide something is evil, it is evil. I see his point, but disagree, for the majority is not the whole, and even if the whole decide something is evil, I disagree, I just say that every living being views it as evil - once they die it ceases to be evil. I would've been more inclined to see his point of view if he believed in a God, or some other being, who is always around to observe things and therefore there is always someone to say something is evil; but, alas, he does not. I do not think anyone won, for neither of us changed our minds, but what is winning an argument anyway? Do you win the moment you decide to fight for or against something?

I would like to be open minded, for a stubborn man is a fool. But, I often find myself sticking to my opinions, out of pride, I suppose; such is the nature of man, and that is one reason why man is to be overcome? My brain doth indeed hurt.

Good night.