| Books Are Poison Nowadays there are individuals who wage war on validity of the notion that moving pictures are beneficial to society. To prove their point they often cite that such entertainment is rather iniquitous and often times base, but what do they know of morality? And they would say that the images projected on the screen accompanied by sound atrophy the mind rendering an individual essentially devoid of originality, intellect and character. These same folks then state that one would do well to immerse oneself in fine literature and are somehow unable to see the utter absurdity of such a proposal. Are books not made of material similar to that of the screen? These venerable individuals seem to disagree and go on to say that through literature one can better oneself, and that through literature culture is built, and through literature are ideas born and the intellect stimulated almost deifying the book and putting it above man. However, these men are unaware, or more aptly, blind to the iniquities of books. Before going any further allow me to say that I do not abhor literature or books I am simply wary of what they are and think that they should be used with discretion just like any other of man’s preferred poisons. Books are poison and detrimental to one’s character. You see, literature has many topics, one of which is morality. I am certain that many have noticed the moral lessons carefully injected into various tall tales and the like in order to help children and even adults become upstanding and considerate citizens. And one would assume that this is beneficial to the individual because it is beneficial to the populace, but that assumption is wrong. What is there to benefit by adopting arbitrary doctrines? Nothing compared to being free of such constraints. However, there are viler toxins than fairy tales and they are the publications of the philosophers, theologians and general moralists. These works attempt to convince an individual of their fallacy, to deceive them and bring them along on their dismal voyage. They wish to suppress the natural urges in man, they claim to make him civil, but in actuality they are domesticating him, making him better able to follow orders. Words in these texts influence man and make him servile and pathetic. They endow him with the slave mentality of the lesser, to bind him, and once bound society accepts him, loves him, praises his servility for it resembles their own and they call it virtue. O how wrong it is to call the degenerate man virtuous because he reads “good” books. There is an indomitable lust propagated by man’s instinct that moralists wish to suppress. Through their writing they attempt to persuade individuals that their lust is improper, immoral or that there is a better template for life. They speak of things such as love of the neighbor and the universal love knowing full well that such a “love” is detrimental to the individual or maybe even because they believe in their malfeasance. Love becomes a major focal point while the emphasis on physical love decreases steadily, or the emphasis on the shamefulness of physical love increases, undoubtedly inhibiting one’s propensity to copulate. And this all building to those who speak of the vilest poison, the love of the essence which many have tried to explain and indeed proved to exist knowing that it only exists because writers like them would not cease to speak of it and let the matter die near its inception with the death of its inventor. Unfortunately, the most ardent of this love’s proponents is read quite widely and is in fact the love’s inventor, whom you undoubtedly know and will recognize with the utterance of its name, Platonic Love. Yes, it is Plato, but that unnatural love is not his sole transgression for Platonism is a horrible thing. And now you ask what is so terrible if an individual wishes to submit to such fallacious morality? One who bases one’s ethics on fallacy is inherently weak that is why. Even the slightest gust is able to push such a person into despondency. And what is even worse is that that weakness is not even his; how pathetic it is that his weakness is alien. Verily, such a man’s fragility would be exemplified by his inability to justify the erroneous doctrines he has adopted. Why is it that whilst they claim to rain benefaction down on humanity they hurt it so? It must be because there are very few philosophers who realize that it is best to philosophize with a hammer. The last time the hammer spoke was long ago but nothing has changed so maybe it is time for the hammer to speak again. But who here is willing to use it? Intellect is also atrophied by literature since for entertainment purposes it is the same as the screen, without the pictures and sound of course. How is intellect atrophied when one has to use one’s mind to create the scenes? Well, one has to use one’s mind to interpret images on the screen as well but that does not augment intellect, does it? The scenes in literary works are often well described leaving little for cognition to fill in since anything left out is usually inconsequential. Anyway, I doubt imagining scenery increases ones knowledge. In reality, reading fiction for entertainment does little to increase intellect for, much like when watching a screen; few really interest themselves with the allusions, metaphors and vocabulary or even the underlying social commentary, but instead focus on the action thus having the same effect as a moving picture. Besides, the only books thought provoking enough to increase intellect are those that cause undeniable harm to character. What a blight books have been to man throughout their existence, their mendaciousness is supreme and ranks among greatest follies of man. One would now find it hard to deny that books are a poison slowly deteriorating man to decadence, corrupting his soul, his essence and withering his intellect into learned responses. What a sordid mess this is. |