Ideas in the Night

Category Archives: Philosophy

It seems that I have forgotten lots of things recently. Luckily I haven’t forgotten anything in oven while making food… Even in this short blog post I had to use dictionary a lot.. 🙂

Recently I started to think, that have I forgotten what kind of person is a strong person. Sometimes in my experience nowadays we live somehow in a heartless weak world. Is it then easy to be strong here? No.

One good characteristic of a strong person is balance in a wide sense. For instance, one characteristic of strength is restrain, what represents balanced person capable of sensible consideration and judgement. A strong person doesn’t easily get upset or angry; one should remember, that hate blinds and makes eventually weak. The ”power” of hatred is only a delusion.

To grow up a strong person is hard and to keep oneself strong is hard; in practice one must have courage to be weak and face the truth: One must face oneself, own weaknesses and win them in order to grow a strong person.

One problem may be blindness to own weaknesses; one may believe that something that in fact represents weakness, represents strength.

If one doesn’t have courage to face oneself — the whole truth about oneself — one doesn’t really have courage to face anyone else either in a true way; one doesn’t really see other people. This may cause one to harden oneself and become ”tough”, what in practice means cowardice. At least eventually.

How could love in this case be strong, which represents real strength. True strength.

We all have inner demons called hate and fear among others, that we must conquer. Perhaps someday we will see a world without wars, when everyone has defeated their own inner demons, particularly fears and hatred.


Image courtesy of zole4 at

In big heart there is room enough to pain too, so that pain or fears can’t suffocate the starting sparks of love. Eventually love will melt all the pain when it gets its chance. Perhaps I’m only dreaming… Though, I hope not.



Set Z consists of all negative and positive integers and zero:

Z = {…, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …}.

Human’s intuition easily make to think that zero (0) is the middle point of set Z. But is it?

In every finite subset of set of Z {-p, -p + 1, –p + 2, …, 0, …, p – 2 , p – 1, p} (p > 3) zero is the middle point on grounds of symmetry:

|(-p) – 0| = |p – 0| = p

(With difference in absolute values, one gets the distance between points.)

But what about the whole set Z? It is an infinite set without beginning or end. Can it have a middle point?

I’ll take a role of a creator. I say: I create the set Z from zero to negative and positive infinity. Someone says: Then zero is the middle point. I answer: No, I ”started” the creation from zero, but after creation of my infinite work, my work doesn’t have a start or an end. Therefore it does not have a middle point.


Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at

Back to the role of a blogger: Because the set Z doesn’t have a start or an end, it doesn’t have a middle point. One can’t measure the distance from “infinity to finite number zero”, at least we humans can’t. The best we can say is that the distance in this case is infinite, but that’s all.

One could also ask: Does set N have a middle point? (N consists of all positive integers and is an infinite set) In this case human’s intuition doesn’t make it to think that set N would have a middle point.

No-one must accuse without truth.

* * *

Solution without meaningful goal may be an apex of stupidity.

* * *

If an absolute truth does not exist, only truths, every truth may be a lie; and every lie may be a truth. Without absolute truth there exists ”balance of falsehood”; lie and truth are equal. Everyone is right and wrong; and every fight is useless, because everyone are equally right or wrong with each other; in this madness it would be insane to claim that one is more right (in something) that some other; that would be inequality in ”balance of falsehood”, injustice.

But let us assume, that absolute truth does exists (we don’t editorialize in the number of absolute truths). Now every truth that isn’t in meaningful way related to an absolute truth is sometime a lie; and every truth that is in a meaningful way related to an absolute truth, will shine in time with an absolute truth.

The truths kinds of previous can be real building blocks of philosophers, if the goal is to get out of the tin of glass without breaking the glass. With tin of glass I refer to ”balance of falsehood”.

Veden kivi kädessäni

* * *

(This is just my humor.) In apparent democracy where one is not allowed to think freely – not to even have own opinions – there exist three kinds of opinions:

  1. Wrong opinions

  2. Own opinions

  3. Right opinions

With more precise analysis we can get following result of kinds of opinions

  1. Wrong opinions

  2. Own opinions

  3. ”Right” opinions

  4. Right opinions

And maybe we can add the most relevant:

  1. The official opinions (=”the facts” on the other hand ”the truth”)

* * *

What is implication from logically false statement? In genuinely meaningful set of concepts always logically false.

But if the set of concepts isn’t genuinely semantically meaningful, particularly if the set of concepts is internally contradictory, it may seem, that the logical implication from false is sometimes logically true (or vice versa)!

Internally contradictory set of concepts is apparently logical world of concepts, what make it possible the rise of paradoxes.

* * *

With mathematical proofs we have the familiar concepts, sufficient and necessary condition. For example, a condition can be necessary to proof a theorem, but it is not sufficient.

Since mathematics as such has nothing to do with life (it’s only ideas in one mind), let us apply a little these concepts to stress managing.

If someone has strong need for example hit someone, he/she can consider, that it is necessary. If it is (in someone’s opinion), but it isn’t sufficient, the whole decision plan must be re-thought: The whole plan to solve the problem must be something else.

The rules of mathematics are “solid” (in their context), but humans’ life is dynamic, therefore one can’t always and in everything behave in the same way. For example, one can’t always follow one’s every emotion.

This post is part of what I’ve written in a cafeteria when I was too alone and lonely in 2007…

Is my loneliness my “friend”? Why it doesn’t want to let go of me? Would it be alone then? Does loneliness need someone in order it wouldn’t be alone? Would loneliness die, if I wouldn’t be alone? Is loneliness my only friend who wants, that our “friendship” doesn’t cease to be?

Is loneliness like evil spirit that tries to encapsulate an individual inside itself? Furthermore, is it so, that loneliness can’t take being alone itself; and because of that, it forces someone to be its “friend” and therefore lonely people does exist? Is loneliness afraid of loneliness itself? If so, does it try to put its own fears to its victim?

If the victim is not afraid of loneliness, will loneliness die as useless? Does loneliness need the fear of loneliness? What if that fear becomes useless?

Is being lonely substantially different thing that being afraid that one is lonely? Yes.

Does loneliness try to scare people? From what does loneliness find its purpose to live? From the loneliness of other people? What can take away the purpose of loneliness? Is it enough that one is not afraid of loneliness? Will loneliness begin to be afraid of loneliness itself then?

Image courtesy of PaulR at

Will the heart of the loneliness be broken, if no-one doesn’t want to be alone and lonely? Is loneliness then itself alone and lonely? Is loneliness then afraid of itself? If so, loneliness can’t eventually exist; is that like loneliness had found itself?

If so, it is afraid that it will be left alone for good and that it is deserted, even though hardly no-one ever wanted or liked it.

Its own fear teaches to it then, that it is evil. Friendship will burn it into non-existent.

Let’s imagine we have a philosopher, who has an audience, that gladly listens to his thoughts. Let’s then imagine an other audience (A2), who begins to consider our philosopher’s thoughts as waffling.

The philosopher asks from A2, what is the smallest contention between waffling and philosophizing he can make. After he has agreed about this question with A2, he begins to philosophize from this point with a little (agreed) gap to both directions from the agreed point where he could still be considered a philosopher.

After some time A2 again considers our philosopher a waffler not a philosopher. Our philosopher continues to reduce his thoughts with an agreement with A2 so that A2 at first considers him a philosopher again, but always after a while considers the philosopher a waffler.

Eventually A2 considers the philosopher only a waffler not a philosopher at all. All he says is only some kind of nonsense.

Now the audience that gladly listened our philosopher at very beginning and continued to consider him as a philosopher starts to invent new kind of philosophy thinking the difference between philosophy and waffling, particularly the psychology about what changes other audience’s view to consider something waffle rather than philosophy.

Perhaps even new school of thought arises with whole new theories. Lots of work for many future generations. Now, how would A2 react to this new school of thoughts? Would they consider all those people as wafflers?


Image courtesy of atibodyphoto at

Since this is some kind of humor of mine and just short little story, below is the original Finnish version of it. As some people probably notice, in my translation some spirit of the original story has been lost.

Olkoon meillä kuvitteellinen filosofi jolla on kuulijakunta, joka mielellään kuuntelee hänen ajatuksiaan. Olkoon meillä sitten toinen kuulijakunta (K2), joka alkaa pitämään osaa filosofimme puhetta jaaritteluna eikä filosofiana. Filosofi kysyy selvittää K2:lta mikä on pienin siirtymä, minkä hän voi tehdä puhumisessaan siten, että puhe ei ole enää jaarittelua vaan filosofiaa.

Tästä päästään yhteisymmärrykseen. Filosofimme jatkaa pienellä pelivaralla tällä uudella rajalla filosofointia. Lopulta K2 toteaa jälleen, että ei tuo ole filosofiaa vaan jaarittelua. Jälleen haetaan yhteisymmärryksessä pienin liikkumavara jaarittelun ja filosofian välillä ja filosofointi voi jatkua. Lopulta jälleen K2 pitää filosofointia jaaritteluna.

Filosofimme jatkaa pienimmän rajan hakemista tahon K2 kanssa jaarittelun ja filosofoinnin välillä. Lopulta K2 pitää kaikkea filosofimme filosofiaa jaaritteluna. Kuitenkin nyt on muu kuulijakunta, joka on alusta asti pitänyt filosofimme puhetta filosofiana koko ajan samalla, kun K2 pitää kaikkea filosofimme filosofiaa jaaritteluna.

Nyt filosofimme puhetta koko ajan filosofiana pitänyt kuulijakunta keksii kokonaan uutta filosofiaa yhdessä filosofimme kanssa pohtien jaarittelun ja filosofian eroa, erityisesti psykologiaa siitä, miksi filosofia voi joidenkin kuulijoiden mielestä menettää merkityksen seurauksella, että alunperin kiinnostunut kuulijakunta keksii uusia filosofisia ajatuksia usean sukupolven ajan filosofiasta, jota K2 ei enää pitänyt lainkaan filosofiana vaan jaaritteluana.

Ehkä syntyy jopa kokoaan uusi filosofinen koulukunta ja teoria. Nyt, miten kuulijakunta jonka mielestä kaikki filosofimme filosofia olikin jaarittelua suhtautuisi mahdollisesti syntyneeseen uuteen teoriaan?

This month I decided to translate into English some of my Google+ page’s Philosophy collection’s thoughts written in Finnish. Some thoughts are quite hard to translate, since direct translation often changes the meaning too much. With an alternate choice of words there may be a slight difference in the meaning, but it is often more close to  the original meaning of the thought than the direct translation.

In the Finnish language there are no prepositions or articles for any words, all the words have different forms depending on the context.

The nouns have most forms. The amount of these forms has varied in time. Nowadays there are 14 forms for one word with 15 grammatical cases. The accusative grammatical case always appears in the same form than some other grammatical case of the same word. In the dialects there exists at least one grammatical case, that doesn’t exist in the written standard language.

Furthermore, in practice every language culture as such is slightly different, so that the direct translations are not often sensible. One must choose words, that most closely match the original meaning. In addition, every language culture lives its own life, varying and changing in time…

Finally to the translated thoughts…


Image courtesy of surasakiStock at

1. A thought, I came up at one night, that can be interpreted in multiple ways: The nature doesn’t betray. That’s way it should be respected.

[To the word ‘betray’ one online dictionary gives 26 alternatives to the original Finnish word ‘pettää’ that is in form ‘petä’ (Luonto ei petä) in the original Google+ post.]

2. Bad help can be more harmful, than helping not at all. – Can help in those cases (always) really be considered as help? 

3. The philosophy of the lyrics in the love songs: The lyrics should not be defining; otherwise the freedom and full potential of love is missing.

4. My childhood’s (I was 12 years old) pondering at the middle of the elementary school’s class immersed in my own thoughts: If anyone could make the choice between good and evil, why would anyone choose evil?

5. The next thought is pondering of a Finnish saying (though, this saying may be somewhat widespread, I don’t know where it may originally come from), that could be translated as follows: ”The most important thing isn’t the goal, but the journey.”

Sometimes these kinds of old sayings may have arisen from blunders: For example there may have been people on their journey to somewhere, but they have got lost. Then someone may have said to relieve the situation this saying, that has left its mark in life/language.

If we assume, that the mentioned saying has arisen from some blunder, it may not be wise to take the saying as an actual guideline — particularly if in the assumed blundering the goal that may have been set, had never been reached. On the other hand, the saying can be used in a reasonable way too: If, for example, some journey has ended up by getting lost, what could be better way to cheer up each other, than to say: ”Well, the goal isn’t so important, but the journey.” To add some humor from the popular Finnish TV comedy series ”Kummeli”: ”Tomorrow again.” 🙂

6. [I had shortened the next one a bit, because of different kind of humor that the Finnish comedians often make (at least used to make) compared to many others.]

Humor is a difficult field. For example everyone can (probably) clown around, but it isn’t always humor neither it can be considered as comedy always. To succeed for example in sketch comedy the actors and/or actresses must enter into one’s role in the way, the viewers can experience the comedy so that it doesn’t look like acting; it is particularly bad case, if the viewers notice, that the actors and/or actresses laugh to their own jokes as they are acting.

In addition, from the point of view of morale it’s not good, if any humor has been made by someone else’s expense (from real life). The mentioned may, for example, cause different kinds of negative phenomena, for example discrimination of some people.

The test of mental health is, that can the viewer make a difference between the fact and the fiction.

7. Living the life in a humble way, without expecting or asking anything from life, life can reward one and give something ”back”; when it’s its time, life knows it. This present or gift of life is something one may not despise nor can one be proud of; otherwise life may take more than it gives, take even more, than it has ever given.

8. Sometimes being still, by stopping everything, giving oneself time for a ”moment”, doing nothing, being ”loose” from everything, can take one forwards in life more than an express train – and faster.

9. In time a lie becomes unbearable in truth.

A lie is like a cancer, that tries to take over its host, in the end to kill the host, that is, hiding the truth by blinding and by leading its host into darkness. Finally the cloak, that the lie represents, falls into impossible and truth gets its place; for when the darkness of a lie is big enough, the lie is also a lie to itself, so that the lie is cancer to itself too, exhausting itself; so the lie dies.

10. According to the assumption/supposition as the Big Bang happened, also the laws of the nature were originated. According to the assumption/supposition that, what we call life, is evolutionary phenomenon, in practice in many sense ”dynamic”.

Now, can one for certain assume, that in the field of physics the study of the laws of the nature are in life’s varied and dynamic evolution in certain ”static”, that is, always the same after they have first been discovered and modeled ”for the first time” in so called sensible accuracy?

What if the chaos theory and the fact that it is utilized in many fields of sciences, reflects in fact in addition the dynamical nature of the laws of the nature themselves too, somehow?

If the laws of the nature are in fact somehow ”dynamic” besides life itself, can ”the theory/theories of everything” be forgotten, if it/them doesn’t/don’t ”live in the spirit of the time”.

The previous thought of mine is really only a poetic question and speculation…

There are some more thoughts on my Google+ page that are both in Finnish and in English and there are more to come…

The world we live in, is somewhat imperfect and there are many kinds of often invisible walls, obstacles. In addition, to keep one in love is hard, after one believes, one has found love.

But what has one in fact found? Is love the partner, one has found? Or is this love person him/herself, who experiences loving his/her partner? In both of these views can be something imperfect, yet something right.

One substantial failing in these views can be kind of missing symbiosis of love, that at best in coaction would grow love of the both, particularly both of the partners could feel and experience that one is loved by the other.

One fundamental matter is, that it is important, that both of the partners are mentally as much as possible present, when they’re together. This way they can touch each other also mentally, at best all the time.

It is very significant, that the both are able to achieve inner harmony in love, that is the source to everything, they do. In which case for example doing the dishes is not just housework, but when it is done from love, the housework gives something back. Even doing the dishes can thus grow the love of the both, when one doesn’t do the dishes just for oneself, on the other hand not just for the partner, but does the work for both from love for the shared path.

Now doing the dishes (and everything else the partners do) grows the love of the both and the home of the partners is protected by the common love of the partners with kind of harmonic, yet complex, form of love, which makes the home, even if it were as such somewhat modest, a pleasant place to live in.

At the beginning of this post, I brought forth the imperfectness of this world. Can love be measured? If it can be, does it have some maximum value, from which it can’t grow anymore?

One — on the other hand simple, yet complex — point of view of mine is, that in this world living in love, in addition to make this love grow, is ”dynamic” yet harmonic metaphor of the sine wave.


It kind of seems, that in this life, one can’t go only to one direction, at least it is difficult. But when we take a look at the sine wave, we notice, that it goes harmonically up and down, but the direction is always forwards without any limit (as seen in the set of real numbers, in the set R). Aforesaid pointing at the sine wave I was after, is substantially the metaphor of living in love and how to make it grow.

Now it is important, that my point in sine wave metaphor is not the ”downhills” and ”uphills” of life as such, but the fact, that it seems, that in this world there is some kind of limit to love. In the sine wave metaphor I’m after the idea, that as the partners grow their love to each other, in their way the direction is all the time forwards and in their way forwards in life being up and down can mean at best something else than misfortune.

It can be about the strange fact, that sometimes the both partners in a way go inside misery (the bottom of the sine wave), but instead of being in misery in the bottom of life, life can be lived in love remembering, what is important and at the same time the partners are in fact growing their love (at the bottom of the “sine wave”).

Now, when the partners next time ”achieve the top of the sine wave”, love is more varied than before. It is important to notice, that the question is there now more love in a measurable way, is not necessarily meaningful. Better view to love now is, that it has taken new forms and is more varied than before. In other words: More understanding in love.

In the lyrics of the video below, you can hear “Can love be measured by the hours in a day”…

Further reading:

The inspiration to this blog post came from my girlfriend, the Morning Sun; without her this post would not have become into existence.