I like to think about a lot of things. I think
a large number of people are the same, and though I often feel as if no one
thinks at all, this is only my
perspective.
So, I was thinking the other day about the
concept of laziness. I started thinking about what can be perceived as laziness
could be a misinterpretation of an individual’s formula for existence. A formula
for existence is part of the complex structure that one uses (either
willingly or not) to construct his or her worldview. Understand what I’m
getting at here? In other words, perception is based upon one’s worldview, so
laziness, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
But, then I read the penultimate sentence and
stopped for a second. I thought, “is it grammatically correct to have the words
can and could arranged such a way?” Then I start thinking, “what do these
words have to do with grammar at all?” I start to think that maybe it would be
better if I wrote instead “what might be perceived as laziness might
also be a misinterpretation of an individual’s formula for existence.” I
come to the conclusion that my concerns probably lie in the alliterative
quality of the words can and could rather than their arrangement. So
my concern is more an aesthetic one than it is a grammatical one. But wait,
isn’t grammar itself an aesthetic? Yep, I mean, I think it is. An aesthetic is, after all, a set of principles. Then again, I
don’t really know right now; I’m too lazy to think too hard on it at the moment,
and I know that I’m not thinking about grammar while writing this; it’s reflectively
linear more than meticulously and
surgically precise. Besides, I’m in the middle of something; I’m philosophizing.
Wait, the words can and could have to do with tense and
temporality, and who gives a crap about grammar right now except prescriptive
grammar snobs, anyway? Or is it descriptive? Who cares? AHHH. I AM EASILY
DISTRACTED.
Nevertheless, laziness is a perception. In other words, “laziness” is a judgment;
it is a juxtaposition of life-formulas, a comparison of one’s preconceived
notions of mental and physical action and inaction over another’s[1],
but it is still a judgment, and we should never forget that it is a judgment
based upon the “judge’s” very own standard of measurement, that is, his or her perspective.
Example: what one person might perceive as me lying on my couch, staring at a
muted-television, eating a handful of grapes, crackers, and cheese, crumbs
scattered around my general area, half-watching Sportscenter, half-contemplating what it means to exist, that is
“working out the formula,” another person
might perceive as me being, well, lazy.
What a person might perceive as me just spending a lot of time on my couch over
the years thinking (hundreds of hours perhaps) another person might perceive as
sheer and utter laziness. That’s just a perspective. I’m not being lazy. But,
then again, maybe I am.
I’m a philosopher, I’m just being.
[1]
And, when I write “preconceived” I mean “existed before as a quality established
by the culture in which a person was raised.”
