Let's talk about Virginia Tech.

-Note:Before you read this, be aware that none of the words following are necessarily the viewpoints I choose to accept, but rather viewpoints that must be examined to truly understand the tragedy that has befallen Virginia Tech. Also some information was used from Wikipedia for research on Charles Whitman. Lastly I do not condone murder as either right or wrong and that is not what this piece is about. It is about the bigger picture, so please do not think I condone the actions taken this past week. Society chooses what is illegal for the good of its well being, and murder is considered a crime in it. Thus I must stress murder is by all means wrong in our society, but the idea itself has no value at all. Thank you and I hope you enjoy it.

<u>Let's talk about Virginia Tech</u>

I was at work a few months back and some friends and I were having a discussion on whether we have a destiny or if the choices we make change the outcomes of our lives, or more importantly do those choices overcome our final outcomes to create a legacy. It’s important to point out that I come from the idea that in order to strengthen your own beliefs you must be able to argue the other side and still believe in your own beliefs after it all. And that is simply what this was; a conversation that began with a simple enough question and turned into a heated debate on what was truth.

I argued we do have choices but the choices matter very little because death is imminent, or in other words, we choose different professions, different places to live, different ways to act, and different things to believe in, but in the end absolutely no action is relevant because the outcome is predestined, and few people, if any, are remembered for who they were instead of some simple action. Take Napoleon Bonaparte, the man took over France and was a brilliant military strategist, but that isn’t Napoleon Bonaparte. They are simply things we have analyzed by looking back at our timeline of history. So in essence, I was saying he didn’t create a legacy of himself, but rather actions created legacies that included him.

I knew then as I do now that it insisted on three premises: first is that it was, simply put, a dark way to view the world. Second it goes completely against western philosophy, which is founded on placing a more humanistic spin on life, saying that the choices we make determine our fates. The final and most important, yet also most subtle, premise is that because our death is our fate then actions can have no consequence because it was going to happen regardless. Think about it like a man who has smoked cigarettes for thirty years, and decides to quit, but yet the next day he finds himself buying another pack and smoking it. The premise says that he was going to smoke a cigarette again regardless of his choice, and even more if he went back to the first time he smoked he would still smoke it because the action was going to happen. Now apply that idea to a rapist, rape is said to be wrong in our society, and consequences are placed upon that action that no one would ever choose over not having except we still have rapists. Believing in a destiny says that he will rape no matter the choices he makes in life, and even more says that rape isn’t wrong because the action does not define the person, and does not change the outcome of either individual, which is ultimately death.

The thing that intrigued me with this idea is that when one realizes his own death is imminent it generally does one of two things to the person: it invigorates them to live life to the fullest, do things they would never dream of doing before, because they knew their time was limited. They decide that even though death is coming they have to fill the rest of their short time with all the things they think will make them happy. Of course the opposite is true as well, because if they follow the second choice, they give up, and in essence are already dead. But what fascinated me most was that neither was right or wrong, because actions can’t be right or wrong. It’s a biased view of which we would find better, and truth isn’t open to interpretation so neither view is necessarily true. I tell you I have an arm. That is truth, it’s able to be clearly defined and not open to interpretation. But if I say my arm is white it is no longer truth because it is an adjective and adjectives are what we perceive them to be. White to me can be green to another, and neither is necessarily right or wrong. So to sum it up rationalization may exist but it is far from important and even unnecessary.

My friends were quick to disagree saying that while death is imminent, actions define what a person is, and thus legacies are born by the choices we make. Choices stand entirely on one premise: rationalization is vital to the existence of humanity. Take the Napoleon example I gave earlier in my argument and look at it this way, Napoleon is simply what we remember, a short man who was a military genius, and those choices to take a path that led to him taking over France was what defined his motives which in turn defined him. His legacy is a definition of what he stood for.

There are two important things that need to be realized, and if you’ve read the novel Catch 22 then you understand one of them already. Humanity is defined by our ability to rationalize actions, and by that definition all humanity must have an ability to rationalize. It’s like looking at an African elephant and an Asian elephant. The two are similar in appearance and actions, but they are defined by what makes them different from something similar. So saying someone is crazy is saying one does not have the ability to rationalize the consequences of his actions, or taking away one of the vital characteristics that defines our species. It dehumanizes them because they simply do not rationalize to the normal behaviors of society. Take again the subject of rape. Rape is perceived in our society to be one of the worst crimes one can commit, and if a man or woman commits it they were unable to logically rationalize the consequences of the action and are locked away to protect others. Yet you look back at some of the most recognized and civilizations in history and rape was not only legal but wasn’t seen as anything wrong. It was simply a part of life. Sanity is dependent upon society.

The second thing that needs to be understood is that the ability to have control over your own destiny means biological conditions, and addiction specifically, are irrelevant, and can be overcome in every case when a decision can be made. Now take the man who has smoked thirty years and decides to quit, and the next day he buys a pack and still smokes it. The logic says that he rationalized both outcomes and decided to smoke the cigarette and conversely could have just have easily chosen not to smoke it. Addiction plays no part because in the end it was that man’s decision to smoke a cigarette because that’s what he wanted to do.

Regardless my friends and I decided to disagree on the subject, and they even wondered why I would bring up the topic at all, and I told them what I’m about to tell you. It isn’t the fact that I wanted to fight with anybody or be right or wrong. I simply wanted to examine life, find out how the mind works instead of blindly trusting it. It’s like voting on a politician. It’s true you can still vote without doing any research on their stance, or even choose not to participate at all, but if you do those things you can’t complain when you don’t like how things are run. Sure it wasn’t important then but now the topic seems to be a little more meaningful.

There was an incident at Virginia Tech earlier this week and instead of simply following what the media said, I decided I would study this and incidents like it. I don’t care about the action itself because it is irreversible, but I do care about the logic behind it because it was one of two things: based on a choice that not only caused the action but also was based on previous choices and influences or it was destiny that this would occur and although sad, entirely irrelevant to be focused upon.

I will say now that I do feel for the families involved in the tragedy and I would wish this upon no one, but that does not mean I will now change my lifestyle based on an isolated event. It’s sad that it happened but it cannot be changed and living in the past only makes you less prepared for the future. I’m sorry if this piece offends people and I know many will disagree with me, but it is what I have rationalized to be truth, even if it isn’t universal.

In 1966 there was an incident by a man named Charles Whitman at the University of Texas in one of the school’s towers. Whitman was 26 at the time, a former Marine and a student at Texas, when for no apparent reason murdered not only sixteen people with an assortment of high powered rifles, but also his wife and mother the night before. He not only killed these people but also connected on shots that were nearly impossible to make. Even more was the incredibly high percentage at which he connected. During his autopsy a tumor was found in his brain and has been thought to cause the outburst but if that were the case it denies he rationalized the decision. The tumor instead forced him to act in a violent way and he was helpless to his own destiny regardless of his previous choices. But if you deny the tumor played a part you then say he rationalized his decision and decided to perform an action that in turn created his legacy.

What disturbs me most about the incident is few people knew about Charles Whitman before the Columbine and Virginia Tech incident, and even fewer knew that until the Virginia Tech tragedy this past week it was the deadliest student perpetrated shooting in American history. Except the story has been forgotten within fifty years. Does that not prove the theory behind destiny? That legacies are not a representation of the person but rather the actions, and that death was imminent, making the story no longer important.

Or if you believe in choice then you have to say this could have been prevented, and that every decision not only made by him but by those that directly or indirectly influenced towards him caused this shooting. Can he be blamed in the action’s entirety then or does it point towards a cultural problem that runs much deeper than what we think?

The point of the past is to learn from it so that it isn’t repeated, and yet we have repeated it within almost eight years to the day of the Columbine tragedy. He made the decision to kill thirty one people that morning, but it’s done and over. It can’t be changed and the fact that it is on the news constantly not only then but now says we still haven’t learned from the past. Gun laws aren’t the problem, yes he bought the guns legally, but let’s face it, the vast majority of legally bought guns are used in a legal manner. The problem doesn’t lie there as much as it does within the media further promoting this to happen again.

Now I know you’re thinking to yourself, “the news is discouraging this from every angle.” But look at it in a different light. I quit smoking this past week, and haven’t had a cigarette in over a week now, but I turn on the television and within a half hour period I can see one to two antismoking campaigns. The message says smoking isn’t cool and is bad but in my mind, in a smoker’s mind, it only makes me crave one. It only makes me think about how long it’s been since I had one, and when I was a non-smoker it made me find intrigue and wonder why people would go to such great lengths to prevent it. This is the same with this situation, why do we need to broadcast it a hundred times. It’s sad and a horrible tragedy, but the fact is it happened and life shouldn’t stop because of it. Death was imminent, and it was their time to meet it. Am I happy because they died? Not at all, but I also believe people should see the incident and instead of dwelling on it, think about how those choices can inadvertently affect others lives. But even more make sure they have chosen to make the most out of what little time we have. Death is nearer every second and to waste it on something we have no control over is just as bad as inaction itself.

Life is meant to be lived. Live it. Don’t live in what has already happened, it only creates more pain and despair. I hope this was understood, and I hope people do know I feel for the families out east, but I also intend to make my own impact in preventing events like this. It’s not gun laws, or even the media, it’s about people making choices that may or may not affect their destiny, and it’s about people learning from the past instead of dwelling on it. Bad things happen, and I wish they didn’t, but they do. But I do pray that just once people would quit focusing on things that didn’t matter and instead looked at themselves and think maybe, just maybe, they had a little part in this too. That one kind word or one different choice may have prevented what happened.

-If you did read all of this thank you. It does mean a lot, and I want to know what you think. I know it was long but I hope it impacted you. I just want life to not always focus on the bad, because so often we ignore the good. Their deaths do not affect yours in the least bit so please just live life, and what happens will happen. Focusing on things that don’t matter are waste of time, instead focus on what you still do have instead of what you don’t.