Fragmental philosophies

[Nguyễn Hữu Toàn (hyper2002)]

Fragmental Thinking

--Toan Nguyen--​

The world is in chaos. All benevolent men turn egoists; the self-minding principle becomes a worshiped moral-ethic. Quelle horreur – the false ideas of our age!

***

The theatrical skill of women is that of a master. For men to make acquaintances with them, it’s comedy; to get entangled into relationship with them, it’s drama; and to marry them – definitely a tragedy! Nay, if divorces are available by choice, that will be the only probable happy-ending.

***

Religious individuals worship God; He himself worships the Preachers. To my delight, Jesus truly can dance, frivolously so (2). Nay, without Judas, how blinder will we get?

***

Fragmentally, one’s confidence is feeble; on whole scale, he’s susceptible to vanity.

***

Noble emotions cleanse one’s bosom of “perilous thoughts” (3). Too much of that – to the excess- can wipe away his identity. To deny Evil, after all, is to insult God.

***

I refuse to join in public’s rejoice. On one hand, I’m not welcomed; on another, I welcome them not. To be amused is a dangerous thing. For all it’s worth, it sharpens in one’s mind the sonorous contrast between “sorrow” and “un-sorrow”.

***

It’s not that I decided to treat Art too loosely, but that the public takes it too seriously , as it often does when confronting an unfathomable subject. Judging from the most recent exhibitions of modern art, I reach but one conclusion: ART, in modern term, indeed stands for: Anti-Recognizable Things.

***

In short, the public has not abandoned Romanticism. It’s Romanticism that disqualifies our daily obscenities.

***

Modern ethics are too hard to fathom; fathomable ideologies are too common to be adopted.

***

Passions, like debts of all kinds, are subjected to their own dues, and will certainly multiply itself over a prolonged course of interests.

***

In this age of ours, outer display of affection is but too common, its intrinsic value so overrated, its meaning utterly hollow! Matter of fact, anyone of a conscious mind should choose to defy it. After all, to declare to be affectionate, to gloriously claim authority over sincerity, is to portray but the outer veneer, the superficial intentions of a sobriquet artist. This individual thus decides, if not to go against the public, then to have creativeness triumphing over rhetoric.

***

Humanity should dispose of the limited range lying between “vain” and “modesty”, and adopt, instead, the whole spectrum between “vain” and “unvainess”. That spherical content of measure is of the most reliable source of truth these days. Every man is in vain, and tremendously modest is the generosity from God.

***

Ah, I can surely charm others, but I let not others charm me! That indeed initiates my self-destruction. Yet, it must be stated clearly, that this individual, consciously and consistently, a wretched slave to his habitual urge, insists upon maintaining that unbalance.

“Charm him, charm that man! Would that he feels fond of you! Send him to the abyss, the purgatory burned with unreturned love!” No, dear friend Ernest (1), I refused to be charmed. All amusements mark the trace of temptation. Religions are so, all deities are so, and feeble humanity is thus temped to become like them. (Certainly this alludes to one intrepid thing: namely, the ironically paradoxical dilemma of Buddhist.)

***
---------

(1): a frequent name in Oscar Wilde's critic.
(2): originally from a quote of Nietzche: "I will only believe in a God who can dance"
(3): Hamlet - Shakespeare