Something that seems another way at first glance, or contradicts itself, logically making it make a bit of sense, and then later you get confused and end up like, "What? This is absurd, yet is somehow True!"
Humans are flawed; their speech is subjective.
Subjectivity means that, usually, at least there is something that is not perfectly agreeable, meaning there is likely a bit of wrongness.
But talking requires a human body’s subjective perception.
If life is painful and consumes too many resources, yet the human desires to live, just for the chance to suffer more, because he thinks that death is scary.
See Nihilism.
A dead person is simply in a state of non-existence. Even if you pray, even if you burn money, or give them gifts, it is all futile as the corpse would not come back to life; it has already undergone death. Thus, it could be a waste of time and money and energy just because it’s a tradition; you should have said your last farewells when he or she was still alive! It’s just that the feeling of grief overwrites most humans’ thinking systems to the point where cannibalism is illegal even though technically it’s a free meat resource (however, this is likely due to health reasons), and methods to bury the dead “properly” are enforced with the threat of legal punishment otherwise (but this is also a health issue). It is mainly said to be just social synchronization because everyone else is doing the same thing. Respecting the dead? The corpse cannot feel respected as they have a lack of sensory input.
This does not indicate or show whether the listener is actually
"listening" or not.
On the most biological level, technically, only the ears are needed,
even if the sound is from different directions.
However, if I'm looking away, people think I'm not listening. Yet, by
axiomatic nature, listening is with ears, so practically, if you live by
the minimum requirement, your eyes do not need to be focused on the
speaker.
Society is wrong!
Rather arbitrary "respect", even if you forget what you hear soon after.
Technically speaking, looking at the speaker is of little importance of
how important the content is. More likely, it reflects the social
position of, or how "close" you are (for instance, as a friend) to the
speaker himself or herself. Teachers scold; parents scold. With basic logic, I could already
see this as a fallacy. Rather, focus is more important, and society likes eye
contact, so pragmatically you may still have to do so
against people who do not seem to want to listen to such logic. However, I do see societally
that in large groups, there needs to be a good indicator of who one is
speaking to, and whether one puts the attention to another's face is evolutionarily
quite significant at giving an implied message that you want to listen
to the speaker.
It can be implied that I am talking to THEM when looking IN THEIR
GENERAL DIRECTION, not specifically at their eyes. The funny thing is
that technically, just looking at the eyes is just another “object”, yet
some people like me are scared by it.
Thus, eye contact is also not that important, yet it is valid… and
wanted…
Well, focusing on the eyes actually makes it harder for some brains to think;
especially people with autism unfortunately find it hard to
overcome.
Yet, I don’t think a lack of it is fatal: from my perspective, as it
doesn’t destroy the medium of communication, which is to listen to
words!
Trying not to think of something paradoxically makes you want to think of it more; perhaps it’s one reason why distractions can actually be helpful? Please don’t think of the red elephant that is bloody dirty. I bet you didn't think of anything similar or identical to this. Perhaps it's literally because having a thought in the human brain, which can be gained by reading, of course, would keep it in working memory, wouldn't it?
Unfortunately, telling someone that they are "addicted' to something sometimes makes it worse. For instance, if video games bring someone joy, and you tell them that they are "addicted" and should "touch grass", they may get offended, mad, or even feel guilty about their life decisions.
You need work experience to get employed, but you need to get employed to get work experience. The one saving grace is that my school at least offers it! So finally something good, but it still is about getting into the workplace to get some money...
People don't make rational choices when told to do so immediately. This is linked yet again to heuristics, where there is not enough time to do critical thinking.
One wants to live, biologically. However, one also sees that meaninglessness does not support that theory. Thus, Absurdism basically tells you to live anyway, because what is the point of Intentional Death? Pragmatism of Absurdism.
It might be good or bad. It's complicated. Tech is better, mental health is worse, school is to blame, or is it the ignorance of mankind?
Either being quiet implies you don't wanna speak bad.
Or saying "no i didn't do it!!" implies denial/protection.
But admitting defeat too means legally certainly guilty.
Where a man is asked to shave all men who did not shave themselves. The problem is that the man not shaving himself violates the rule of not shaving men who do not shave themselves, while if the man shaves himself, he violates the rule that he should only shave men who did not shave themselves.
If you consider AT THE MOMENT OF DECISION MAKING he had not shaved himself yet.