Skip to main content

A Short Story of the Modern Man’s Comic Tragedy

Over the course of time, man began to believe the messages coming across the screen; incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction, he found himself believing the most despicable of lies and the most incredible of claims.

 

Failing to notice his weakened condition, he trained himself to believe the screen over his own eyes, even his own experiences. 

Even in the face of the starkest of contradictions, his self-doubt kept him from believing what he had seen with his own eyes; he thus relied on the screen to vindicate, to instruct, and to affirm. 

In his estimation, nothing could yet be true unless it had first appeared on the screen. 

Worshipping it, he failed to realize the differences around him and that life had passed him by. 

For him, the screen was life and everything else was noise. 

The screen told him what to think, what clothes to wear, which car to drive; he gradually left every important decision to the wisdom of the screen, and it was always easier that way. 

He had become obedient, comfortable in making only the safest of decisions where they hadn’t already been made for him. 

In this way, his life had become a comic tragedy where, stripped of everything that made him human, he had accepted that he had only to keep himself entertained to survive the day. 

Without the troubles of thinking for himself, his life and the lives of those around him descended into this tragic comedy whereby nothing was ever taken too seriously for fear of upsetting the mood or questioning the wisdom of the screen. 

By this, life had become a simple affair of a most basic form of survival, whereby silence and obedience prevailed over try-hards diligently applying themselves in pursuit of an honest or meaningful life.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would