For all ye struggling socal scientists...

Hmm.. I think most people don't appreciate the value of a theory. You can theorize about an issue until the cows come home, and your only sense of validation comes from the policy makers or the practicians, who determine whether your theory is worth their time. Well, most theories don't anyway, because we live in a world that is controlled by the logic of greed, violence and money. No one is above moral judgement, so everyone lives according to the lowest common denominator of what is morally and socially acceptable. For those who struggles to be some sort of an apostle of truth, they live in a constant dissonance with the lowest common denominator. I think most people believe that there is a God, but I think most people find it hard to respond to His Creation. Creation seems to be defaced by the lowest common denominator, and so everyone believes in an afterlife that will reflect the highest stage of human virtue. So between now and the future/ afterlife/ Second coming, there is a space for social scientists to think critically about normative theories; how the world could strive towards a City of God. Therein lies the chasm, for any so called 'normative' theory could only reside in the mind of the apostle, but he is basically a disillusioned philosopher in the eyes of realists.

So I come across this statement in a boring textbook that somehow inspired me for the night:

"[There is a] need to differentiate between human rights susceptible of vindication as a matter of international law and those human rights that exist for the moment in the realm of morality and humanity. On the other hand, if we do not take the law of human rights forward, we run the risk of never achieving effective protection for even very basic rights. Some commentators would argue that a continuing reappraisal of the reach of human rights law is the only way to ensure their protection in a rapidly changing world. Practice will always lag behind theory, and if theory does not advance, neither will practice."

In the above Martin Luther church which I stumbled across in Dresden I think, they actually have this little corner near the exit where you can light a candle, write a wish, and put the candle there. Pretty cheesy thing actually if you ask me. I did light a candle and wrote a wish though, for that bit of self amusement. I can't remember what I wished for though, maybe it was world peace. It is funny how humans express hope through different ways, but I think hope is that bit of a mind game at the end of the day. So which is tougher? Changing the mind, or extinguishing the hope? I'll go for the former, because you can't really defeat hope by hoping that it will wither away; you are double killing yourself. But at least, changing the mindset makes it easier for everyone to breathe. At best they call this 'compromise', at worst they call this 'resignation'. But we are all living in the lowest common denominator, aren't we?