What Exactly Happened in Five Nights at Freddy's 4?

What Exactly Happened in Five Nights at Freddy’s 4?

Many a FNAF fan rejoiced when the fourth instalment of this devious franchise was released early. Many of these same fans then finished rejoicing after they’d experienced the game and sat with a confused look on their face, myself very much included in that. Being the last instalment meant many were expecting some answers to the many questions. What we got however was more questions, however Scott Cawthon has said himself he’s happy with the game and the Halloween dlc won’t be adding to the story so somewhere in there are the answers. Time to try and find them.

 

Any time when discussing FNAF 4 there’s always something looming overhead which I’ll get out of the way. Fredbear and his chomp on the child’s head, is this the famous bite of 87. Short answer no … I think. Even when I first saw the night 5 cut scene my eyebrows were raised, I thought something wasn’t quite right and there’s a lot of evidence saying that this cannot be the bite. Firstly and most obviously the child dies after night 6. We hear the heart monitor flat line which surely means the child’s death. Phone Guy tells us on night 1 in FNAF 1 (The only mention of the bite throughout the series interestingly) that the victim survives. FNAF 1’s year is vague but it is later than 1987. The child could have been in a coma (Although phone guy never mentioned this) for all that time and eventually passed after FNAF 1 but this seems unlikely.

 

There’s more too, the bite has to have taken place before FNAF 2 due to the presence of Fredbear and Spring Bonnie. However this isn’t possible due to one more damming piece of evidence. The bite of 87 is the reason animatronics cannot walk around during the day as said by phone guy on night 1 of FNAF 1. Fredbear bites the child while on stage performing (Not moving around) and in FNAF 2 phone guy tells us the animatronics can walk around during the day meaning this ‘bite’ cannot take place before FNAF 2.

 

I’ve seen many theories where people try to prove loopholes to make this event the bite of 87. There are many theories like this out there, saying that maybe the child died after FNAF 1 or that Phone Guy in FNAF 1 said that people can live without a frontal lobe and didn’t actually specifically refer to the victim and they can walk around in FNAF 2 because they’re toy animatronics. They’re well put together and interesting theories and they had me believing something like this to when I started putting this together put unfortunately I just don’t think it’s possible. Maybe it was the intention for this to be the bite of 87 but it’s just not possible when following the events of the previous games.

 

So what did we actually see? A spring lock failure is what springs to my mind. Terrible puns aside we already knew there was an incident with “multiple and simultaneous spring lock failures”. The bite in FNAF 4 fits the description and also explains how the purple man wore the spring Bonnie suit safely for all that time, the problem was with Fredbear. However if this is the case and this was the reason the spring suits we stopped being used by the pizzerias then what happened to this child. From the night 6 cut scene in FNAF 4 it seems highly probable he became a recurring figure in the series. There are multiple theories. Firstly and perhaps the obvious idea is Golden Freddy due to the Fredbear plush and obvious link to Fredbear in general. The problem with this is Golden Freddy was bought to life by the Puppet as seen in the FNAF 2 mini game Give Gifts, Give Life. The Puppet is strangely not in FNAF 4 (Although I think he’s in the locked chest) and it’s the Fredbear plush that is scene saying he’ll put the child back together. Even this however is not cut and dry as it could be the older brother saying this to the child who is at this point slipping away for good.

 

So maybe this child is the Puppet? The problem with this is the Take Cake mini game in FNAF 2 where we see a crying child being murdered followed by a jump scare by the Puppet. I think we all agree this is the first event we know of in the timeline (When else could it be) and if the Puppet ins’t being created here why the jump scare. Some think this is Fredbear being created and not the puppet but I do not believe this to be true and the proof lies in Golden Freddy.

 

Are Golden Freddy and Fredbear the same entity? Sort of but not really. Fredbear is a physical animatronic as we know but notice how we never see the physical animatronic after the event we see in FNAF 4. Instead we get Golden Freddy who can go through closed doors and seemingly teleport. He’s been speculated to be a hallucination in the past but I think he’s a ghostly entity. The Puppet in the Give Gift mini games is seen putting the bodies in the suit but we don’t see this with Golden Freddy and the fifth child. What happened I think is the dead child’s soul was bought to life in the form of a ghostly version of Fredbear that we all know as Golden Freddy. Watch the Give Gifts mini game this is clearly what happens.

 

Another issue I’ve had with placing this child as an animatronic is that the animatronics all want revenge on the man that murdered them right? Isn’t this why they attack night guards in the first place. Remember what phone guy said in FNAF 2, they react to the kids’ just fine but when they encounter an adult they just stare. The FNAF 4 child has no reason to attack adults and night guards after being killed by Fredbear but due to the final cut scene we know he’s likely around somewhere as an animatronic. The answer I think lies in Nightmare, the brand new animatronic. It’s a dark version of Fredbear which sounds awfully familiar. FNAF 2 has a dark version of Golden Freddy, the infamous Shadow Freddy. Shadow Freddy doesn’t kill the Night Guard, he sits around in the parts and services room and leads Animatronics to purple guy which leads to the children’s souls being released.

 

In my previous theory (Which is linked below, a lot of it still holds strong) I suggested Shadow Freddy and Bonnie were early renditions of phantoms. Where my new idea leaves shadow Bonnie is unknown to me but I think most logical evidence points towards the child in FNAF 4 becoming Shadow Freddy.

 

So who actually was this child before his unfortunate demise? Many have suggested he’s purple guy’s son and there is evidence to support this. We know purple guy works at the pizzeria (we see him helping someone into Spring Bonnie in what looks like a safe room. This would explain how the child keeps ending up at the pizzeria, how he has all the toys and how he has access to the mangle in the other room. The house layout is also very similar to the office and corridors in FNAF 1 and the pizzeria we see in the game I think was before the one in FNAF 2 opened which happens to be the same building used in FNAF 1.

 

The problem with this I have is how the Purple Man murdered the children for the revenge of the death of his younger son. Firstly, his older son was one of his children, if he cares so much about his child to murder in revenge why would he actually kill another child of his own. Secondly, the murder in the Take Cake mini game has a child completely unrelated to that incident so why murder that child (This murder took place before the events of FNAF 4) and finally more murders appear to take place in FNAF 2 which would mean the purple man continued murdering children after taking revenge.

 

There’s one more point I wanted to discuss, the Fredbear Plush. At first I thought it was an imaginary friend type thing as it spoke to the child but as the game went on it seemed very apparent it was possessed. The question is possessed how or by who. The only answer I can come up with is it’s the Puppet talking to the child through this plush. However I admit that is a bit of a stretch as is quite a lot of this theory, honestly I’m still not sure if I missed something that proves Fredbear’s bite was actually the bite of 87. For the record I’m not claiming this is a bite of 83 rather that it was a spring lock failure took place at some point.

 

So that’s what I’ve got, I’m working on a complete timeline so if you enjoyed this look out for that and if you think I’m wrong tell me why, I doubt anyone could figure out this lore without help. Finally check out the previous theories linked below for the identity of the purple guy, on that FNAF 4 changes nothing.

 

http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at.html

(Part 1)

 

http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at_11.html

(Part 2) 
 
 
 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Is there Life after Death?

Is there Life after Death?

It is likely that you have both asked this question and been asked it yourself during your life. There are so many different ideas and beliefs on the subject but are we just looking for reasons not to fear death? I hope to put a few discussion points forwards here.

 

Let’s start with the very well-known belief of Heaven and Hell.  Some people believe that when we die we go to a place that exists as a type of spiritual realm. It is seen to be as a reward for being either righteous or faithful to a given deity and being eternally happy in a wondrous place. The opposite is Hell, a place of eternal damnation and a punishment for your sinfulness.

 

Another common religious belief is reincarnation. It is believed by some that our soul or spirit will leave our body and enter another physical body. Reincarnation takes the actions of our previous life into account. Better known as Karma, our current life is believed to be consequence to our actions in a previous life. This gives very good incentive to be a good person in this life if you believe in reincarnation.

 

Like with most religious idea’s science has tried to prove or disprove whatever they have to say. The afterlife is a conundrum that has puzzled science probably for as long as science has existed. There are many scientific theories about what happens after we die, one I find particularly interesting is how we enter an almost dream like state, with plenty more evidence attempting to disprove the religious ideas but as with many ideas, nothing can be proved. It’s equally as possible after all that after we die we have no feeling or sense and everything is gone, it’s not like we can ask someone who has passed on what happens when we die. The point of this post isn’t to theorise however, it’s too discuss.

 

Death is a strange and let’s face it, terrifying concept to try to understand. Think of what I said above, imagine that all that awaits us when we die is an empty void, nothing but emptiness. Close your eyes, shut them tight. You can still hear, still feel. Imagine having none of that feeling at all, there’s just nothing. It could very well be what awaits us when we die. Death is such a difficult thing to comprehend, honestly it makes me personally feel cold and almost empty just thinking about it. Nothing ever again, not even the smallest ray of light is a terrifying concept and I don’t care who you are, it scares you. The afterlife, in whatever way you may believe is clearly a better alternative.

 

I should point out I in no way mean to bash any religion or say any person is wrong in their beliefs of the afterlife or their faith in general. However I would argue that it is more than likely that some people have fabricated their beliefs out of a fear of death. No one wants to believe that after everything we go through in life in a split second it all ends. Is this why we look for an answer to the question of life after death? Because we’re afraid. Its common knowledge that people are afraid of the unknown, what’s more of an unknown than what happens after we die. More than that it’s something we will all experience eventually.

 

So do you believe in your idea of the afterlife because you fear death? You know what, it doesn’t matter. If you believe in Heaven or reincarnation or anything else for that matter it doesn’t really matter what actually happens after we die. Your beliefs are yours and if they are strong beliefs that you genuinely believe in then they are to be respected. If you read through this whole thing and shook your head when I talked about the emptiness then good for you. No one will ever be able to prove what happens when we die and you cannot be wrong about something that no one will ever know. Perhaps more importantly though you lived your life believing in yourself and your ideals. I don’t think there’s a better way to live.

 

There is something else to this discussion however. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fearing death, just don’t use that fear to dread death, rather to enjoy life.

Pretentious and Proud

Pretentious and Proud

Last night I watched Oscar winning, classic Disney animation Beauty and the Beast for the first time. I had been told of this masterpiece and how I needed to view it now. So I sat down, I watched it and what did I think? A resounding meh. At first I thought I was just watching an overrated film but then I realised it may be my own pretentious nature setting in. Feeling very pretentious and pleased with myself that my standards are far more refined than Oscar winning animation I went with a friend today to watch SpongeBob Square Pants a Sponge out of Water. My refined standards spontaneously combusted as I not only enjoyed but laughed out loud multiple times throughout the film. Sure nostalgia played a role but why was I so pretentious about a high quality film but loved a random kid’s film that showed me what it would be like to be stoned?

 

The definition of the word pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed. Here’s the problem. I was not attempting to impress anyone with my opinions of these films, if I was my opinions would surely be switched around. But these are just two films, a very small sample. Maybe I should look deeper.

 

When you meet a new person and you hear them speak what kind of thoughts are going through your mind. What are the first few things you will often say after the typical greeting? I am a very dry individual so I often can’t help myself but use a bunch of witty and sarcastic humour. My friend meanwhile will be incredibly happy and bubbly and try to be as enjoyable as humanly possible. While all the happy makes me very sad it does point out that one of us is very accepting and friendly while the other is more reserved and pretentious.

 

Yes I am admitting I am pretty pretentious at times. When I sit with my large group of friends I interact in a witty and sarcastic way. Sarcasm in itself can be pretty damn pretentious. All comedy is based of misery, sarcasm in many ways simply put’s the user slightly above the victim for a brief moment in highlighting something they’ve done. To me it’s funny but many dislike it for being too pretentious which is understandable.

 

Being pretentious is kind of similar to pride. At times it seems both are necessary, just not too much. When you call someone pretentious you mean they are pretending to be more important than they are. Isn’t being more important one of life’s great goals for some of us. Some of us are happy being in the background but some of us want to be the very best (like no one ever was). Some of us want to be recognised, to be remembered. Some of us just want are born to strive to be better.

 

We all have that one friend. They’re a massive idiot and let’s face it … a bit of a cock. We know who they are and we know what they’re like but they’re our friends anyway. Why exactly? Because they’re the type of idiot who is very likeable along with it. The likeable idiot amongst us isn’t an idiot because they’re not smart, rather they’re an idiot for being pretentious. They’re pretentious because they became like that from their surroundings and they’re pretentious because they enjoy it. They see themselves as societies elite and why? I don’t know but who cares, they’re still a cock but your friend anyway!

 

Fellow pretentious people don’t let anyone stifle your natural ways. You carry on using unnecessarily long words, you carry on speaking metaphorically for no apparent reason. You carry on using wit and claiming you’re the comedic genius of the group and carry on claiming you’re the intelligent one of the family! Why? Because it’s who you are and what you are and if you’re like me you’re probably right anyway. After all, I am the genius of the family.

A Five Nights at Freddy's Recollection

A Five Nights at Freddy’s Recollection

All things that are popular are popular for a reason. Batman is popular because he’s awesome, Twilight is popular because lonely and desperate housewives want to feel fulfilled and 50 Shades of Grey is popular is popular because there is no justice in the world. What about Five Nights at Freddy’s. It has three games now and the third is certainly dividing opinion. Now more than ever opinion seems to be split on the franchise so what better time to talk about it?

So for the three of you who have been living under a rock what is Five Nights at Freddy’s? Well while each game adds more mechanics and gimmicks each game features a security guard sitting completely still in an office, trying to stop yourself from being killed by animatronics that may be possessed by murdered children or stuffed with dead bodies. Yeah, not disturbing in any way. Add a heap of tense and creepy atmosphere, some deep and interesting lore and backstory and some compelling gameplay and you have a great trilogy right?

 

When the first game came out I couldn’t find anyone who disliked it. It was original, it was intense and it was downright scary. Thousands of theories were spouted from the backstory, it made many YouTubers from their over the top reactions to the jump scares. Then again, it scared a lot of people. Most horror games are scary because of what you find and the atmosphere of the location. Five Nights at Freddy’s was scary because you were completely helpless. You couldn’t run away or fight back. All you can do is close your doors and hope your power doesn’t run out. I wasn’t the jump scares that was the scariest bit, but rather the waiting for the animatronics to come and seeing them move around the building. I think this game is great.

 

The sequel was certainly interesting. Its mechanics were slightly changed up and more animatronics were added. A large slice of new info on the lore was presented to us and some weird ass death mini games entered the game. At the time it came out many thought this game was even scarier. I understand, you didn’t have doors anymore, you had to wear a Freddy mask and watch them stand in front of you and glare with their messed up faces. Strangely however, I wouldn’t say it’s scarier per say. The jump scares were more surprising and the mini games were a good addition but the atmosphere wasn’t as thick and it felt a lot less Claustrophobic. It was still really good though and the franchise was still just as popular.

 

The third game was released and things got more interesting. This is where opinion started to split amongst the crowd. The game had sort of a 50/50 split with people having savage arguments in YouTube comment sections. The game was a bit different, there was one animatronic, there was a ventilation system you had to keep on top of and you had to lure the creature away. The death mini games were back in the form of compulsory mini games at the end of each night with hidden mini games to explain the lore and get the alternate ending. Personally I didn’t think this one was as good. I seemed like it was being a bit pretentious with its ridiculous hard to find mini games (The tiles in the office … really) and it was nowhere near as scary. It was still decent though and not worthy of huge amounts of hate like it has been. So why is there so much hatred?

 

Maybe because it’s popular? On the internet people love things that are fairly unknown, it makes it really cool. People tend to dislike popular stuff. It’s not hipster anymore. But there has to be more … there is.

 

People complain it’s not scary anymore. Well duh. Things get less scary the more you experience them. The game isn’t as shocking the longer it goes on, that’s normal. Even the most terrifying things ever created will eventually get scary. Maybe saying having a cutesy animal animatronic jump out at you wasn’t even scary in the first place. It was the build-up and the tension. This was especially apparent in the first game. Every time you put the camera down you could get attacked. They moved, you anxiously waited for them to move before your power runs out. Foxy was genius, the slow and tense atmosphere would become quick and hectic as you scrambled to close the door before it gets down the corridor. The game was great and remained tense even when it got less scary because you wanted to make it to 6 AM. The second was similar in how scary and tense it was and while the third was disappointing and felt like it was there to serve the lore it was at least enjoyable and a nice way to tie up the series.

 

Let’s talk about the lore a little more. I find it hard to believe this was ever supposed to be a trilogy. I imagine it was meant to be a scary one off game with a vague but interesting story. The game was expanded and more sequels were added and the lore was increased but I have always thought the story telling was very clever. It gives enough to theorise but not enough to 100% prove anything and equally never just giving it away. It is very clever as the creator knows at this point an out and out answer would never be able to live up to the hype and expectation you have in your head. In reality any theory could be correct and Scott Cawthon may not even have an entire backstory mapped out. It leaves it to us to fill it in and it makes a highly interesting plot.

 

I think the biggest reason Five Nights at Freddy’s has lost its popularity is because after the success of the first one everyone over hyped the sequels. Hype is a terrible thing for a game, a game will almost never live up to its hype and our opinion will be tainted before we even play it. Maybe we expect a bit too much. These are fun and tense games, is it too much to expect them to go down in gaming history as some of the great horror games like a Silent Hill 2. Will we still be talking about them in about 5 years’ time? Probably not. Were they a good experience when we played them and for a long while afterwards as we pondered on the identity of the purple man or the significance of Golden Freddy? Absolutely yes. So let’s enjoy them while they last and enjoy that lovely feeling of nostalgia when we stumble across them somewhere years later and always remember to watch pirates cove and wind up your music box. Or maybe just get a job where you’re probably not going to die, that’d work too.

Introverts and Extroverts

Introverts and Extroverts

I was sitting with a large group of people, having a discussion about something I can’t remember when someone talked about someone they dislike and said “They’re such an introvert”. Confused, I asked what was wrong with that to which they just shrugged it off. It got me thinking, what is bad about being an introvert or are they just misunderstood?

 

What actually are introverts and extroverts? The first thing google says is an introverts are shy, reticent people. This is the general consensus but it is not true at all. In fact being shy has nothing to do with being an introvert, it is very possible to be a sociable, self-confident introvert. An introvert is someone who energized by being alone and concerned with their inner world rather than external things. An extrovert meanwhile is someone who is energized by being around people.

 

We all need our time to relax and re charge. If you’re an extrovert then chances are in your spare time you try to meet up with people a lot and spend all your time with other people if possible. But is it so hard to believe some people need their time alone to recharge? It doesn’t make them unsociable, it means they relax in different ways and just because you may enjoy your alone time, it does not mean you don’t enjoy spending time with people. It just means after time with people you need some time alone, this is the definition of introvert. In fact 60% of the worlds gifted population (Look it up) is made up of introverts. You could easily be an introvert without even knowing it.

 

It is common for an introvert to sometimes want to spend some time alone, even away from people they are comfortable with. As I said earlier an introvert will like to spend time sieving through their own thoughts and reflecting on past experiences and thoughts. Even if they have great social skills, this time alone can be key to an introvert feeling secure and content. It’s similar to an extrovert needing time with people to socialise and talk about anything that comes to mind. Neither is a bad thing, it’s just different aspects of their personality.

 

Introverts can often enjoy talking with people just as much as extroverts, it’s likely to be the desired topic of conversation that is different. An extrovert will often enjoy or be happy with talking about anything. This can be from deep discussion to general small talk about anything that comes to mind. It is also more likely to be in a large group. An introvert will likely prefer the deep in depth discussion about ideals, ideas and concepts, not just random small talk. An introvert is more likely to think before speaking. They can thus be wittier but then again can add less in a big group. It can be more reserved but thoughtful. This mirrors the kind of thoughts during the alone time.

 

Everything I have said so far does not negatively capture being an introvert in any way. It also does not say anything bad about being an extrovert, it’s is simply a different trait in a person. I also don’t want to generalise people into these two categories, in fact introvert and extrovert are the two extreme levels of a scale, everyone has a bit of both in them, just usually more of one than the other. So why does introvert have such negative connotations?

 

Maybe it’s because introverts are rarer. They take up about 25% of the population while people with more extrovert like qualities are more common. It is easy to be wary of what’s different, equally old presumptions and stereotypes can be difficult to forget. However I think there’s more to it than this.

 

People think introvert just means shy. Shyness is the product of nerves and anxiety, while introvert just defines how you can be re-energized. Maybe people do just misunderstand what an introvert is and don’t realise people they like or even themselves have these qualities. Going off alone to re-energize doesn’t make you un sociable or depressed, if anything an extrovert who has to spend a lot of time alone is far more likely to be depressed. I think they key is to embrace either set of qualities and just like with many things accept the people who are different. Being an introvert myself, while I dislike hearing people bad mouth people like me I am incredibly glad I know a large number of extroverts. They have qualities I lack and I’d like to think I have qualities they lack and if nothing else I’d be very bored if we were all the same and everyone was as great as me.

The Facade of the Real You

The Façade of the Real You

Last time on random psychology / philosophy / society thing blog post I talked about the Real you. Who you really are? Well this time I’m going to expand on this with how maybe we sometimes don’t want people to see the real you. That we perhaps like to wear a metaphorical mask that hides it away. Why does this façade exist, what are we afraid of?

 

We want to be liked and accepted is the simple answer. This makes a lot of sense. Being alone is something everyone on earth fears at some point. Especially when going somewhere new we all want to make new friends and be accepted. The last thing we want is to be an outcast. Seems simple right? Sadly no. Hiding away the real you is a temporary fix, but it can also be exhausting. To make real friends and be truly comfortable is to be accepted for who you are. Letting out the real you is necessary in order to be happy, nothing is fun about constantly having to keep up the pretence of who you are.

 

You know ‘those people’. Those people who follow everyone else and just say and do what’s popular. The sheep type people who follow the crowd. It’s too be popular of course, but does it work? Kind of, maybe. Okay, they always have a large group of acquaintances and know a lot of people. However people tend to bitch about them behind their back. They don’t make those close friendships that other people do. You know those unpopular people who you say are strange or weird. It stands to reason they have an admittedly small number but very close friends. Which would you prefer?

 

Now I’m not saying this applies in every situation, far from it.  The point is thinking to yourself which you would prefer. I think about my own situation and I could ask my friends but all three of them are busy at the moments so I’m not really sure. It’s easy to say be yourself and you’ll be fine but we all know that isn’t true.

 

It’s almost tragic at times, being yourself can be a terrible thing for your social life. They may be stereotypes but they do exist. It’s fact that certain types of people and certain activities are far more common and popular. That’s not bad against those people, it can just be difficult for other types of people. Hence the façade of who we really are comes in to mask over the personality traits that won’t fit in. How would most people react if you asked about their favourite yu-gi-oh card or favourite piece of classical opera? There’s nothing wrong with these things at all, they’re just not popular. But to fit into the trends you may have to pretend to be a fan of popular music or something less nerdy than yu-gi-oh like Magic the Gathering. It can be a difficult line to tread.

 

So what’s the solution? Is it good to mask your personality in the pursuit of acceptance? I’m not ignorant enough to say you should just be yourself and you’ll find ‘your people’. However I am ignorant enough to say that you should try. After all, it is better to have tried to find your own way than live life as a sheep. Or as per usual when I write these things, you may think I’m full of crap. That would be understandable. Either way have a think, you may enlighten yourself a little and join me for the next psychology / philosophy / society thing blog post thing next week which will hopefully be on Monday. I think it’s a good one.

The Real You

The Real You

We are all told multiple times throughout our lives that we should be ourselves. After all we are all beautiful on the inside right? Right? Here’s the question, what exactly it, the real you.



The Real You?

 Shouldn’t this be an easy question to answer? We know ourselves better than anyone else surely. However being ourselves is not as easy as it may at first seem. Perhaps you should simply act on instinct. But if this is true then you’re ignoring your thoughts, something most of us would not do. This isn’t the real you. Do what you feel is right? What does that even mean? Right and wrong don’t exist after all, it’s a matter of opinion. So follow your opinions. They change, people change. We develop our opinions from what we experience and our surroundings, not from just being us.

 

Each person is kind of like a canvass, a blank piece of paper waiting to be painted. In this analogy the artist uses our own past experiences to paint the picture that is our personality. The real you. However people will discuss self-identity and how they are searching for themselves. While we would like to say we are who we want to be, we all know we always want more for ourselves. It’s what drives us forwards at all.

 

It’s normal that we all want to be better. It’s also normal to do what we think is right. However the right path is rarely the easiest path. If it’s right to be ourselves, then it would certainly imply that it is difficult. There’s obviously more to it however. Sometimes we choose not to do ‘the right’ thing. Does that mean we are bad people?

 

There’s a film called Unbreakable by everyone’s favourite director M. Night Shyamalan. While having a lot of his usual boring twaddle, it does pose an interesting point on the idea of good and evil and destiny. It makes the possibility seem quite terrifying. Yes I doubt this is what Shyamalan was going for but to me at least it did pose the question of what would you do if you were destined to be the bad guy, the villain. This translates here as if we are looking to be who we are, is it possible that the real us is an awful person. Maybe a selfish, greedy person is who we really are. Can we change that?



Yes we can. In reality the real you isn’t really important. It’s our actions that affect those around us. It’s our actions that shape our future. Taking action when it’s difficult, even when it may be impossible is good if you think it is right. What am I saying here? Am I just going around in circles?

 

What I’m saying is you can try searching for the real you. You can spend your whole life searching, going through many experiences and meeting many people. You’ll find nothing. I don’t think it is anything so spiritual or philosophical. Perhaps human beings are lucky in a way. We have the choice and the responsibility, to define the real us ourselves with what we do and who we are in our lives. Or maybe I’m just full of crap. What do you think?

The Meaning of Life Part 2

The Meaning of Life Part 2

Welcome back reader. If you haven’t read part 1 then I highly recommend that you do, partly because it will give background to what I say and partly because I like to shamelessly advertise my own stuff (Check out my other posts too). Now onwards with the discussion of the meaning of life

 

Many people will say there is not meaning of life at all. If you don’t believe in destiny and you believe you make your own choices like I discussed last time then what possible meaning could there be? After all, you are the one who chooses what to do, no matter how bad the situation. Could it really be that simple though? Let’s for a moment think of the animal kingdom. Every wild animal on the planet wants to survive and reproduce. It’s the whole reason their species survives in the first place but why does this matter to them? Obviously we can’t look into the mind of a wild animal but surely they don’t think about the survival of their species. They want to survive themselves but why? Many wild animals live in extremely harsh environment filled with danger. Unlike a human being they’re not achieving anything from it, it’s just where they live.

 

Why do animals have an instinct to reproduce? Wild animals surely don’t think about the long term future of their species and while male animals can have the want to mate built in as instinct, for females the mating process can be uncomfortable at best to downright painful at worst. Yet wild animals do reproduce without question and they eat and drink water and do what they must to survive. No one has told them this is what they must do yet they do it anyway. Let’s face it, some species have a far worst quality of life but if they were gone it would upset the food chain and balance of nature. They don’t know this but they try to survive anyway.

 

Obviously survival is a natural instinct in wild animals but with humanity it’s a completely different story. Sure some human beings just want survival but many want so much more. The crucial difference between humans and animals is that animals live to survive while humans survive to live. Some human being’s do thing that compromise their own safety for the thrill of being close to death. Some human beings decide they don’t want children. Not wanting to reproduce isn’t something that occurs in the natural world but humanity is different. When you find a partner it’s not because you want children, it’s because you want to be happy and share your life with someone. Couples sometimes decide they don’t want children and that’s that. Some people don’t even want to meet someone to be with romantically at all. This is a far cry from what happens in nature.

 

Human beings are clearly the most intelligent creatures on Earth. Don’t be naïve and pretend this isn’t true. Look at what humanity has accomplished in comparison. Look at how much of Earth we inhabit. Yet survival is not the main goal for humanity. It’s to succeed in our goals. Ask someone what their goals in life are.  I guarantee it won’t be to further the human race. It might be something work related or sport related. Maybe they want to make people laugh or maybe they just want to be happy in any way possible but it’s not just survival. In fact most people would not want to live past a certain point where you start losing your sense and independence. So is success the meaning of life?

 

Success in our goals? This is what we’re all aiming towards is it not? To succeed in whatever we are doing, no matter how big or small. For some people success is the key thing, myself included. There’s a catch though. A lot of people don’t take success as seriously. Sure it’s important but they don’t mind if they don’t succeed. Some people are content not pursuing a whole lot. Some people are perfectly fine with just being content and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. We all have different levels of ambition but that doesn’t impact on the meaning of life does it? If there is one meaning for everyone it surely shouldn’t.

 

What I think these two points demonstrate is that human beings have evolved beyond the need to simply survive. We need more, to thrive and succeed. So does this mean humanity is beyond needing a meaning of life?  The problem I have with this is if we create our own meaning then how come so many of us don’t know what we want to do? How come so many of us change our mind so many times. Equally a lot of people are perfectly content not chasing their dreams and goals and just settle with what they have. So is there no meaning of life? But surely a world with no meaning is just pointless. We have a reason for doing everything we do, nothing we choose to do is completely spontaneous we have always decided ourselves for whatever reason.

 

We live with our own goals by our own principles. We determine ourselves what is right and wrong and we act out accordingly. This much thought does not go into an animal’s thinking, they do what they must to survive and that’s it. For a human sure we do try to survive but we also have the freedom to do what we want for enjoyment. Equally right and wrong are concepts not present in nature, a predator won’t refuse to attack a helpless animal out of principle. I think it comes down to this. There could very well be a meaning of life. Maybe we make our own or maybe it’s there given to us by a higher force. The thing is achieving what is meant by life itself is no longer possible. People always want more, people always do more to be happier. Humanity is out of reach of such a concept. Maybe we’re above it, or maybe we have distanced ourselves from it by expanding too much. Maybe the reason the meaning of life is such an enigma is because no one on earth is willing to give up their life in order to truly find it.  Or maybe I’m just talking rubbish. Either way have a think about it, you may just find that motivation you’re looking for. Thanks for reading.