| The Vodka Incentive While on an uneventful excursion to the laundry room I began to think of various philosophical topics, but was unable to complete an actual thought, and then I began to write this work. Upon the onset of my mental voyage a phrase kept recurring in my mind, and that phrase was, of course, the vodka incentive. “What could this mean?” I thought to myself as I began my manuscript. And now, to interpret its meaning. At first glance the phrase would seem to have something to do with alcohol and also a reason to accomplish a task. However, train of thought led nowhere and the phrase had seemed pointless. But then a bolt of elucidation struck me; my mind’s presupposition of its meaning had strayed my cognitive exploits away from its true meaning. You see, the vodka incentive has nothing to do with alcohol or incentives, but served to exemplify the target of this piece, which is the interpretation of words. What causes us to define our words as we do? Would day still be day and night, night if we were to switch their names? Verily so, for the definition of the words would change, but the entity would not. Consider this however: If there were no entity known as night, what would be day? Would there be a word for such a constant? For what is a day without its converse? Surely it is still day because the sun shines and lies in the heavens. But how could it be day if no night exists to differentiate between days. You may argue time would play a part, but how would you know the time? In perpetual sunlight the concept of time would be difficult to grasp, for the sun crossing the sky acted as the first clock. A different standard of time would exist, which would forego the use of days and also deny their existence. For is “day” not a span of time? But if that span was infinite how could define it? It would be nigh-impossible. On another note, words that are opposites such as night and day are dualities, and one cannot exist without the other. This is because each are defined in terms of the absence of the other (though one could argue that that is circular and not a true definition, but in most cases that is precisely what is done). If it is not night then it must be day. And in a world with no night it must always be day, correct? You may say, “Yes,” but if nothing was defined as night, how could anything be defined as day? This duality of words is pervasive in all languages in which an entity is defined in relation to another. The greatest exemplar of the duality of words is known as “good and evil”. When one defines something such as charity as good then the opposite, thievery, must be inherently evil. Another would be the consideration of religion being good, which would make science, its converse, evil by default. Though the definitions of “good” and “evil” vary throughout the populace, their duality does not. The notion that evil can be expunged from the planet has been pondered by many philosophers and writers of fiction, but is totally unfounded. Good cannot exist without evil. If evil did not exist then good would be constant. There would be no way to discern something as “good” if no contrast was extant. How would one define a constant entity of that mode? It is simply inconceivable. Hence, good and evil must coexist or not be present at all. In a duality when one part does not exist, neither can the other. Parts of a duality exist solely together as whole for their function is as such, alone they would be useless, nonexistent. Therefore, there can only exist “good and evil” or nothing at all. All dualities exist permanently as one, and cannot be deconstructed into its lesser parts. As a portion of a duality ceases to exist, the complementary fraction also attains the propensity toward nonexistence in the same instant. For you see, dualities must exist as a single entity or not exist altogether. |