Born Confused

in response to the earlier post on happiness…

streetfighter:
its strange that someone with very little can be happier than someone who has achieved all of his material desires
streetfighter:
so is the source of happiness the actual material possessions, or is the source of happiness the fulfillment of ones desires then?
me
perhaps the lack of both
me
transcending above and beyond that
me
and truly looking to ultimately Allah
me
the Comforter
me
and knowing that this dunya
streetfighter:
what if ones desire is to please Allah (SWTL)
me
won’t give you the TRUE fulfillment
streetfighter:
and by pleasing Him, do we feel happy
me
there is no end to the race of quality and perfection
me
and in this case for Allah (SWT)
streetfighter:
yeah
me
Allah gives us noor
me
I believe
me
it lightens
streetfighter:
yeah that is true
me
our fitrah detects this
me
a pleasure, the fulfillment of good
streetfighter:
so there is a difference between pure and impure desires right
me
yes
me
i believe so
me
impure–increases your selfishness
me
and concentrates on yourself
me
unhealthily
me
EGO
me
err what say you?
me
LOOLLz
me
I get on rants
me
:S
me

streetfighter:
i think that, good actions can only come from proper faith
streetfighter:
since truly pure good comes from pure intentions
streetfighter:
and pure intentions are to do something to please Allah (SWTL)
streetfighter:
if an action was to be done for other than Allah (SWTL), then it would not be pure, and thus would not be good
streetfighter:
although the outwardness may appear to be good
streetfighter:
but all actions are judged by their intentions
streetfighter:
good intentions come from pure sincerity
me
and that sincerity isn’t easily acquired
me
it’s a jihad
me
that’s where you strive I suppose
streetfighter:
yeah exactly

zeen: no fear shakespeare1
i dont even understand teh essay topic
which is due toorrow
Q:considering that language is mere “words words words” but which also speaks daggers, examine hamlet laertes or ophelia to explain how shakespeare demonstrates both the power and limitations of language which lacks meaning on its own throughout the play
me: like in quran
in language
words can’t hold the essence of Allah
but they can vaguely describe
with god-given voc
characteristics
of Allah
like “perfect”
zeen: hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
me: inifinte”
zeen: so the limitation, in that exmaple
me: we have no true concept of it
zeen: of language is that the being described is incomrpehensible for the human being, b/c we have no basis to compare
but the power therein, is that the words are from Allah, who is perfect in Himself
so obv theyre powerful wodss
but see i dont understand how to organize this paper
like……
i wanna say
language is made powerful when it is delivered with emotion and logic, but it is limited even then if the audience doesnt have context of what you are saying, if the audience has preconceptions about you, or doesnt get the subtelties
are those three separate points or just one?
me: seperate
you talk about the power of words
then the loss of them
upon an ignorant and prejudice audinece
zeen: what about the bits about the audience? can i just group them all together into “eperception”
me: eperception?
are they on the internet?
zeen: perception
i cant type
me: the subjects of perception
but everyone holds perception
zeen: IM SO CONFUSEDDDDDD
wait why are u awake this late on a sunday night m’dear
me: so perception is eventuable
zeen: u ppl
are too smart for me
i dont even know what eventualble means!
me: unaviodble
LOlz
(i can’t type either
zeen: yay!!
finally someone who cant type
like inevtiable

so the knowledge retreat at RIS is awesome mashAllah

(12:27 AM) me: so according to our lectures truth is contextualized
(12:28 AM) me: and God gives us what we can perceive
(12:28 AM) me: i like that a lot
(12:28 AM) pagil: deep
(12:28 AM) me: but umm
(12:28 AM) me: i was arguing and explaining this to someone
(12:29 AM) me: they said that through that reasoning, God gives us partial truth
(12:29 AM) me: and partial truth isn’t truth
(12:29 AM) me: it’s dishonest (therefore God would be dishonest)
(12:30 AM) me: but God isn’t relevant
(12:30 AM) me: arrational, right?
(12:30 AM) pagil: yeah i believe arrational was the word
(12:31 AM) me: yeah, it’s pretentious to make everything relevant when we know so little
(12:31 AM) me: and in relevance, there is no absolute
(12:32 AM) me: which in it self is an absolute
(12:32 AM) me: and therefore beats itself