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

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. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f