originally published on 18/12/2020;
this was one of my earliest forays into philosophy and I was excited about it, while also thinking big. It's got these 'book' titles in it that are derived from Aristotle's writings

What are the Merits of Existence?

I will be looking at this question in this rumination, as I ponder what, exactly, it is that has made me remain amongst the living, if one can call them so, for as long as I have.

First, I should inform you what merit means, and what merits are. In short, the definition of merit, found in any dictionary, will service you as a good tool while you attempt to understand what I am trying to convey here, be it through my thoughts, be it through examples, or simply words that I am spewing forth, in a fine paste of inarticulately coherent babbling that might contain some meaning, though that is up to you to decide.

So, merit. What is merit? The quality of being particularly good or worthy. Deserving of praise or reward. Many merits would have to be many such qualities, worthy or good, deserving of praise or reward.

Then, I must look into the question of existence itself, as one cannot truly ponder what the merits of existence are without knowing what existence is. The state of living - I will have to inform you that living, in and of itself, is not existing. Having an objective reality, too, is not existing, and thus we can rule out what a dictionary might tell us about what existence is.

Thus, the first part of this will be dedicated to existence.

Book 1 - Existence

I

How are you reading this? Are you even reading it? It could be that you are hearing it. But it exists, does it not? Does this exist, whatever it is that it is?

Those are questions one can ask immediately, and an answer will be given. I am reading this with my eyes. I am reading it, but I am also hearing it. It does exist. This exists. This thing is the book.

To clarify the answers to those questions, I will explain the questions. First, the question ‘how are you reading this’ will be changed. Of course, it is heavily dependent on what it is that is being spoken of, but that will be beyond the point. Thus, the question will be simply rephrased to ‘how are you perceiving this’.

Because reading something involves the perception and understanding of whatever text, or thing, is being read. However, not everything can simply be understood, and so I will avoid making the question any more complex than it needs to be. On top of that, reading something can only be a manner of perception, rather than perception and understanding, as some things are written in such a manner that they cannot be understood while being read, or there are specific conditions to how one must read them to understand them.

The first question has become: ‘how are you perceiving this?’

Thus, it can be assumed that this, being a thing, must first be perceived, in some manner. Does that mean that a thing must be perceptible, if it were to exist? For the moment, so it seems.

II

However, the second question appears before you. ‘Are you even reading it?’ states that question, and I would like to help you better understand what it asks.

We have made the distinction between the concreteness of the questions and the proper manner in which the true questions must be asked, if we were to keep looking for the definition of existence, and so we must make haste in removing that specific circumstance. Instead of reading, you should think of perceiving.

And so, the question becomes: ‘are you even perceiving it?’

Thus, the question of ‘how are you perceiving this’ is followed by the question ‘are you even perceiving it’. That brings about the universal truth of sentience - one asks questions and ponders. Whilst it is entirely possible to simply ask the question ‘how are you perceiving this’, and end up with the answer of, for example, ‘with my eyes’, a true human would ponder on the truth of that matter.

Because, conversely, science has shown that, factually, the human eye is not anywhere near as precise as one might have come to expect. Thus, it could be that the perception of something is not performed in the manner one would assume it was. Let me provide another example.

You have seen a video, attached to a song. It is the official music video of the song. You have watched it a hundred times. Then, you hear the song, without the video. But you perceive the music video, even without seeing it. Then, I ask you - How are you perceiving this?

Your answer would have to be ‘with my ears’, as a song is perceived with one’s ears. However, when asked how are you perceiving this, and, more specifically, the music video, you might have no answer to give. Thus, you will be asked ‘are you even perceiving it?’, and you will have to ponder.

It is convenient, then, that the word perception is so varied, and has a rich set of meanings one can utilize. Perception is the way in which something is regarded, understood or even interpreted. And so, a thing does not need to be necessarily observed through the use of one of the senses, to be perceived, it can simply be interpreted, understood or regarded.

The vision of the music video, carried by the sound of the song, is the interpretation of the song, or just one interpretation of the song. Thus, the music video exists, and you are perceiving it.

That means that a thing that is perceived is perceived. And, to exist, a thing needs to be perceivable, now further confirmed by the answer to this question, as well as the previous.

III

And so, the existence of something is tied to the perception of that thing. Can one claim that something does not exist, then? As soon as the perception of a thing appears within the mind of a single person, does that thing exist, or does it not truly exist? To answer those questions, I must proceed with another example.

We will use the centaur, for the purposes of this example, a half-man, half-horse, where the neck and head of a horse have been replaced with the upper body of a human. Does the centaur exist?

Strangely, the answer is both yes and no. To properly give an answer as to whether the centaur exists, or not, one must first ask themselves what state of existence it is that this centaur possesses? Because, the sheer fact that I am using a centaur as an example means that a centaur exists - after all, you are visualizing one such creature right now, and so am I. But there are no centaurs, right?

The answer lies in the states of existence.

First, there is objective existence. Objective existence is merely the fact that a thing can be perceived through the use of the senses. To have an objective existence, the centaur must be able to: Be heard, be smelled, be tasted, be seen, and be touched, all five at once. It is widely known that there have been no centaurs who can be seen, smelled, heard, touched or tasted.

Thus, we can confirm that centaurs do not have an objective existence. But they exist - somehow. The common knowledge of what a centaur is serves as enough proof that, indeed, a thing we call a centaur exists. That is because it possesses a subjective existence. A subjective existence is one that does not necessitate the perception through all five senses, rather, it simply is.

Subjective existence is anything that is not objective existence, and it is such, because it is unique for every individual, while objective existence is mostly the same for all individuals. Exclusions would be those whose senses are damaged, or function in a different manner than they normally would.

As a result of this, it can be stated that everything exists, as existence, at least a subjective one, does not require anything. And, yet, some things do not exist. Does a color, that is not on the spectrum, exist? Colors, by themselves, all have subjective existences, but a color that is not on the spectrum has no existence. Why?

IV

How does one thing come to exist, even if only subjectively? It is created by some means, of course, and then it is brought about into existence. Those means are, most often, artificial - a thing does not come into being by itself. The only thing that is theorized to have began its own existence, creating itself, is the Universe.

Objective existence is brought about when other, objectively existent objects interact in some manner. A statue is made by having a human interact with a block of marble, by using a chisel and a hammer. A child is made by the interaction of two humans, possessive of different genitals.

How, then, is subjective existence achieved?

Let me provide you with an example. I will now create a thing, and bring about its existence. Imagine, if you will, a cucumber. It has been cut in two, and, from the sides that have been cut, sprout two forks, on each bisection - made of the material that makes up a cucumber. You have just confirmed that, subjectively, the forkumber exists, because you have envisioned it, through the utilization of your imagination.

Things are created, and they come about into existence, in such a manner. Now, the forkumber exists. I have created it, in a manner much like how Orcs have come to be, how Unicorns have been created, and how artificial intelligence has been made. All those things exist, subjectively.

However, what, exactly, was the process of bringing about the existence of something? It was the act of utilizing objectively existent things to create these subjectively existent things. How is a unicorn made? Imagine, if you will, a horse, but that horse has a horn sprouting from its forehead. Horses exist objectively, and so do horns. How is an Orc created? Imagine, if you will, a human, but they are green, and strong, and have tusks. Humans exist, objectively, green things exist, objectively, strong things exist, objectively, and tusks exist, objectively.

Thus, could one create a thing out of something that exists neither objectively, nor subjectively? Can this color, that is not on the color spectrum, and thus exists neither subjectively, nor objectively, be created? No, it cannot. The concept for it can, of course, be created. The concept of a thing that does not exist will be brought up, but it would remain a question, rather than an existence.

No one will be able to visualize a thing that does not exist, and so no one will be able to bring about its existence.

That is called nothing.

V

How does something become nothing?

Something is a thing that exists, either subjectively or objectively, while nothing is a thing that does not exist. There are things that have existed, but have ceased to exist, and yet they still do exist, while there are other things, which have existed, and have ceased to exist, becoming nothing.

Let me use an example. Remember, if you will, the forkumber. The forkumber exists, for better or worse, and it is something. Now, let us suppose that only you, and only I, have ever read this text, and so only you and I know that the forkumber exists, subjectively.

If you and I die, without telling anyone of the forkumber, will the forkumber exist? No. The forkumber will become nothing. Of course, as long as this text is accessible, the forkumber would actually always exist, subjectively, but if you and I die, and this text is destroyed completely - the forkumber would not exist. The forkumber would be nothing.

So, it is safe to assume that a thing exists as long as it is perceptible, no matter if it is subjectively existent or objectively existent. An example would be Attila, the Hun, the Scourge of God. Attila existed objectively, but he then died, and his remains were lost. Attila no longer exists, objectively, but he does exist, subjectively. How come he exists subjectively, even though he no longer exists objectively?

Attila exists as something that we cannot touch, taste, hear, smell or see, but he exists as something we can interpret, because he has been recorded in history, and we, humanity, have remembered him. If Attila had not been recorded in history, and he had been forgotten, he would have ceased to exist, even subjectively. Attila would have become nothing.

So, it follows that a thing becomes nothing by being forgotten.

VI

What, then, is existence? I have established that existence is the process of either having an objective existence, or being remembered, which is the process of having a subjective existence. I refer to them as processes, as they both have a beginning, which is when they start existing in their current state, and can both end, which is when they change their current state.

At the start of an existence, a thing can be either objectively existent or subjectively existent. At the end of an existence, a thing can transition from being an objectively existent thing to a subjectively existent thing, or from being a subjectively existent thing to being nothing.

Thus, it can be claimed that the existence, of a thing, is the possibility to perceive that thing, and existence, in and of itself, is perceptibility.

Knowing that, however, some questions arise. One would be that these things that have existed in the past, but no longer exist - how can one say they are now nothing? The answer to that would be that, if humanity has no knowledge of their existence, these things are nothing. Even if there was a period of time, when sentient forkumbers roamed the Earth, humanity does not have any indication that that was the case, and, thus, historical forkumbers are nothing, because they exist neither subjectively, nor objectively.

What of things that have existed all along, but humanity has been unable to perceive those things?

To answer that question, I must delve into a more in-depth explanation.

VII

Humanity is existence. That is a broad statement. A specific statement would be that a human is existence. I am existence, as much as you are existence. However, what would existence be without me? What would existence be, for me, without me?

A human can only perceive through the use of their body and mind. The world, as well as everything that exists, is brought about into being by a human who perceives it, and the world, as well as all of existence, exists for as long as the human, who has perceived it, can still perceive it. The moment that human stops being able to perceive it - which would mean that human is made unable to utilize the five senses needed to confirm the objective existence of something - existence ends.

Existence, for a human who has lost the five senses, has two manners in which it can go. It can remain a subjective existence, or it can become nothing.

Existence remains a subjective existence, as long as a human remains sapient and sentient, because that human can still interpret and understand things. How long that would be remains unknown. What happens to the mind of a human who has lost all their senses? That is a question that would need to be answered by a person other than myself, as I still possess all of my senses.

Existence becomes nothing when a human dies. The world disappears. Suddenly, one stops being. The sheer consideration that one can simply stop being is unfathomable for many people, but it is something that must be accepted. What happens after a person dies? Does that person see a light at the end of a tunnel? Does that person find themselves before a set of pearly gates? Those questions have answers that can only be answered by dead men, and, as it is known, they tell no tales.

But what of the rest of the world? Does it keep existing? Do things keep happening, even after a human dies? For the world itself, the answer would be a resounding yes. Of course, the world would keep existing, for itself. It has existed long before any human was born, and could perceive it, after all. Or has it?

Perception, which involves understanding, would suggest that the only thing capable of perception is a human, a sentient, sapient being. Why would that be so? Because I, a human, am currently perceiving this. I am able to perceive the world around me, because I am a human. If I was not a human, would I have been able to perceive the world as I do now? Would the world exist? I highly doubt it.

This text is written from the point of view of a human. Thus, as long as I am alive, I, the unique human, existence continues. However, as soon as I die, and existence becomes nothing - that is the end.

The existence of a human is linked to the existence of everything else. If the human perceiving something stops perceiving that thing, that thing becomes nothing. If a human stops perceiving anything at all, which is a human’s death, the whole of existence would cease, and everything would become nothing.

VIII

So, existence has been brought down to being directly tied to the existence of a single person. Of course, that existence is the existence of that one person. If that person dies, existence ends for them. Everything becomes nothing. Another person dying, while we are still alive, does not end existence for us as well.

If I were to die, the world would end, for me. There would be nothing. But for you, I can not be certain. If I die, you would not exist, for me, but would you keep existing for yourself? Perhaps, though that would not matter for me. The world would have ended for me - there would be nothing, and I would be unable to perceive, for I would be dead.

That is a public service announcement - if one were to consider their existence tied to the existence of everything else, they would not be wrong, but they would not be entirely certain that they could be completely right. A human’s existence ends, yet other humans, around that human, remain, and they keep existing. I, personally, have seen the corpses of other people, but I can vividly feel my existence.

The world has not ended for me, just because it has ended for them. Even if there is nothing for them, there is still something for me - I exist, and so does existence. No one should believe that, by prolonging their own life, they are keeping everybody else’s existence still intact. Existence is a personal thing - its two states, and its great subjectivity, they make it something specifically tailored to a single person.

When that single person expires, their existence, for themselves, ends. However, it continues for those who have been around that person. Existence ends for the one who exists, but for those who have perceived that existence, it continues, although it changes its state.

If a family member dies, their existence will end for themselves. Their world will end, and everything will become nothing. However, the rest of the family will perceive that person for a long, long time, even after that person’s death. That person will continue existing subjectively. That person will remain perceptible - understood in a certain sense, regarded in a certain manner, interpreted in a certain way.

The same goes for any other thing that exists, objectively. When it ceases to exist in that state, humans, who have perceived it before, would keep its existence subjective. The potential for a subjective existence is endless, as long as there are humans to pass on the memory of that thing that once existed objectively, or simply exists subjectively.

Book 2 - Good

And so, we have reached the waypoint at which we can begin the search for the Merits that can be found within Existence. Knowing what Existence, itself, is, and also knowing what Merits are, I can start making claims as to what, exactly, is a Merit of Existence, if there is one such thing, if there are many such things, or if there is no such thing.

First, I will inform the reader that I will take a look at what a Merit is in two ways - one that interprets a Merit as something that is Good, and another that interprets a Merit as something that is worthy.

A thing that is Good, naturally, must first be discerned as such. How does that happen? How does one decide if a thing is Good? What is Good, what is bad? Is a thing that is bad Evil, or is a thing that is bad bad, rather than Evil? Is Evil the opposite of Good, or is bad the opposite of Good?

I

There are many questions that arise with the initial question of what is Good. Naturally, the easiest way to go about the solution of these issues is to look for the simplest answer. What is a Good thing? Some would say that a Good thing is something that makes a person feel positive emotions, but then there are other things that are Good, yet they make people feel negative emotions.

Being vaccinated, as an example, does not make the person who is being injected feel positive emotions. In fact, the act of vaccination is very unpleasant for a large amount of people, and even for those for whom it is not unpleasant, they will not say that it is pleasant, as it involves pain. Thus, pain is not pleasant, and yet things that involve pain are Good. That means that things that are Good are not, necessarily, things that make a person feel positive emotions.

II

The problem therein is found in the complexity of the question, as well as the complexity of the explanation. What is Good? In the simplest terms, I dare say that Good is life. Living is Good. And, due to the fact that living is a large part of the objective existence of a thing, and living is all of existence for a single person, that is a truthful statement - living is Good.

But why is living Good? Simply put, it is Good, because it is the only alternative. If one does not live, one does not have the ability to perceive anything - if one does not live, there is nothing. When there is nothing, there is, simply, no possibility to wield concepts and utilize them in the creation of subjectively existent things, as there is nothing. And, when there is nothing, nothing can come into existence. At least, not that humanity knows of - nothing can be made out of nothing. Something cannot be made out of nothing, in other words.

Thus, living is Good, because the alternative to living is nothing. There is no alternative. And, as there is a lack of an alternative, living becomes a constant. Due to the fact that there is, indeed, no other alternative to living, living cannot be categorized as Good, because Good is one hand of a scale. There is Good, and then there is the other thing - be it bad or Evil.

So, living cannot be truly considered Good, as it cannot be considered otherwise. However, there are a few people who think that living is bad. Due to the fact that Good can be utilized in many manners, a distinction must be made - saying that living is bad is a qualitative assessment. Saying that living is Good, in and of itself, is not a qualitative assessment, and thus living can be Good.

Many of the people, who claim that living is bad, are biased. They have not found Joy, they are not Content with their Existence, and they are suffering. In that state of existence, they cannot truly consider living as good or bad, because their judgement is clouded by their personal experience. When I make my claims, I look at living as a concept from a point of view that removes the other factors.

Living, in and of itself, is equal to existing, for a person. Thus, not living, is the equivalent of not existing, for that person. The absence of anything, being nothing, is far worse than the presence of things, even if they are not Good, because of the simple fact that nothing is worse than anything else. Even things that are touted as the worst things to have ever existed are not worse than nothing, as the sheer concept of nothingness is something that humanity struggles to comprehend.

And so, Existence is, on a qualitative scale, good, because it is not worse than nothing. That, however, still does not answer what Good is, because we are not looking for a qualitative measurement, rather, we are looking for the concept of Good itself.

III

What, then, is Good? I have a proposition. Good is that which allows the existence of one to continue, which immediately makes Good subjective. Good is unique for every single person, but is it truly such?

If life is Good, because it allows existence to continue, then, would it not be right to say that the life of everyone else is also Good? Or, rather, would it be more appropriate to state that the lives of those who know a person are Good for that person? That would be because, if that person dies, they will continue existing subjectively for those people who knew them.

And so, that, which is Good, becomes greater than what it was before. Good was the life of a single person, because it meant their existence. But, if the life of other people also means the existence of that single person, then is the life of other people Good?

This calls for an explanation of another concept - the opposite of Good. Due to the fact that using good in its qualitative measurement would yield bad as an opposite, I will utilize Good as a concept, and its opposite will be Evil.

What is Evil? If Existence is Good, then is non-existence Evil? No, the answer is that non-existence is nothing. Nothing can be Evil - and thus nothing itself cannot be evil, as it is nothing - it is the absence of a thing. Then, Evil is something that Exists.

My suggestion is that Evil, and Good, as subjective things for every person, have two stages. First, there is the personal stage - which decides whether or not a person considers something to be Good, or Evil, and thus that thing is Good or Evil for them. There does not need to be a consensus between people, when it comes to what is Good or Evil, on the personal stage.

However, the second stage is the interpersonal stage. The clearest manner in which I can explain that stage is the Military Theater. An important military event is occurring, or, rather, progressing, and that event is the war against nothing. All of Existence is locked in this conflict against Nothing. However, due to the fact that Existence is unique to each human, that war is then changed. It is Humanity battling Nothing.

Humanity, as a species, possesses the ability to perceive Existence. Due to the fact that every single human perceives their own Existence, it is unfathomably difficult for a person to conclude that their Existence will not truly end once they die. Partially, the great problem of Humanity, is that people cannot transcend the personal stage, and they do not even glimpse the interpersonal stage.

Thus, Good and Evil can easily be separated. Good is Existence, in and of itself. Evil is personal Existence.

IV

The claim that Good is Existence in and of itself, and Evil is personal Existence, is relatively vague, and, as a result of that, I will attempt to clarify it.

As explained, the two stages - the personal and interpersonal - are connected. To be able to comprehend the interpersonal stage, a person must first be on the personal stage. However, simultaneously with that, if a person is too transfixed on the personal stage, they will be unable to comprehend the interpersonal stage.

That is owed up to the fact that, on the personal stage, Existence ends once a person dies. As mentioned in Book I, Existence, for a single person, ends when that person dies, and yet Existence continues for all other persons. In fact, it continues so fluently, that even the person whose Existence has, supposedly, ended, continues existing for a long time afterwards.

The example provided was Attila the Hun. He died, and his personal Existence ended. Yet he still exists, due to the fact that most of humanity has remembered him, and, even if he is no longer an objectively existent thing, he is a subjectively existent thing.

The personal stage is concerned with personal Existence, not with Existence at large. Due to that fact, it is inherently selfish, centered around itself, which was advised against, back in Book I. The world will continue existing even after your personal death, but it will not continue existing for you.

That is something that frightens humans, and with good reason - why would it not be scary, the cessation of all Existence for a person? Everything becoming nothing, in an instant - that is truly terrifying. But, run from it as one may, it always catches up. Death comes for the individual human, always. No one has lived forever, not yet, and so personal Existence is finite. It becomes nothing.

And, as was concluded, nothing is Evil. Or, rather, nothing is not Good. As a result of that, a personal Existence always ends up being Evil, due to the fact it always ends up to be nothing. However, as was stated in Book I, subjective Existence can continue as long as there are humans to remember that one thing existed objectively, once, or that something existed, subjectively.

The potential to infinitely exist subjectively, and to never become nothing, is what the interpersonal stage presents. Thus, as stated, Existence, in any form, in and of itself, is Good (in this case, a subjective existence), while personal Existence is Evil, because it always becomes nothing.

V

Now that Good and Evil have been established, it will be far easier to answer the rest of the questions posed earlier. In fact, it is so easy to answer them, that they have all been answered up to this point. Thus, the simple things are now covered, but there are still some more complex things that need to be addressed.

How does one discern if a thing is Good or Evil? Or, rather, does it lead into Good, or does it lead into Evil? That distinction was made, because Good and Evil are singular concepts. The Good and The Evil, each being what was established earlier. Any other application of those words, Good and Evil, or good and bad, is going to utilize them as a means of measuring the goodness and the badness of a thing. Thus, a thing cannot be Good or Evil, besides the things already established as The Good and The Evil, instead, the thing leads into Good, or it leads into Evil.

To discern between a thing that leads into Good and a thing that leads into Evil, or whether a thing leads into either, first, one must consider what that thing is. Let me provide an example.

Alcohol, or, more accurately, an alcoholic beverage. Is Alcohol a thing that leads into Good, or is it a thing that Leads into Evil? To make a decision based on that, one must first consider - what does alcohol do? What is the effect of alcohol?

In some situations, drinking Alcohol makes a person merry. In other situations, drinking alcohol makes a person feel sick. Thus, alcohol has an influence on a person, which influence differs based on the situation. How do these situations change?

Mainly, these situations change based on the quantity of alcohol consumed. If a person consumes a small amount of alcohol, they will either experience no effect, or they will become merry. If a person drinks a moderate amount of alcohol, they might find themselves merry, and maybe with a slight dizziness. If a person drinks too much alcohol, they will feel sick. They might even lose consciousness or, in the worst of cases, black out.

In short, alcohol can make a person feel good, or it can make a person feel bad. Feeling good leads into Good, while feeling bad leads into Evil, because, when one feels bad, that is an indication, made by the person’s own body, that something is wrong. In some cases, feeling bad is the harbinger of death. Purposefully, we will skip over feeling good.

Thus, alcohol, in and of itself, is neither a thing that leads into Good, nor is it a thing that leads into Evil.

Another example to be provided. A thing, such as a bow, is neither a thing that leads into Good, nor is it a thing that leads into Evil. The bow can be used as a weapon, to hunt game, and then bring food to one’s table, but, if used as a weapon, it can also be used to hunt humans, and then bring them death. A bow can be used to make one feel good - if a person shoots at a target, with a bow, and the arrow lands right where the shooter wanted it to land, that person will feel good. A bow can be used to make one feel bad - if a person aims at another person, with a bow, the person, who is being aimed at, would feel bad, and they would feel even worse if the bow was used to fire an arrow at them.

Thus, no single thing leads into Good or into Evil, exclusively. Each thing leads into both Good and Evil, depending on how a thing is used and what kind of effect the thing can have.

VI

Then, all things are neutral. They lead into Good or into Evil, based on the humans who interact with those things, and how those humans interact with those things. Essentially, a thing is just that - a thing. It exists, be it objectively or subjectively, and is just that. Only when perceived by a human, and then utilized by a human, can something, such as whether or not it leads into Good or into Evil, be attributed to it.

In fact, whether or not it leads into Good or into Evil is attributed not to the thing itself, but to the ACTION performed with the thing. I would have preferred to be able to make the claim that all things are like that, and that there is nothing that exists, objectively, which leads into Good or into Evil, but never into only one of those, however, there are examples of things being created, brought into existence, with the goal of leading into Evil.

An example would be a warhead. That is a thing, which, at first, had a subjective existence, but was then brought into objective existence. While it possessed a subjective existence, it was something that led into Good or into Evil. However, when its existence became objective, when it was created, it suddenly lost its capacity to lead into Good, and continued leading into Evil. A question might be asked - why is it that a warhead leads into Evil only? Does it not lead into Good?

The answer is that a warhead was created, and is used, as a method to take human lives and destroy objective reality. The act of taking a human life is, in and of itself, Evil, because it leads into nothing. Most human beings can attest to having an honest craving to avoid death. Most human beings can attest to having no desire to be killed - to have their lives ended prematurely. Killing a human being is equivalent to destroying all of Existence.

Killing a human being brings, with it, the possibility of destroying the last memory of a previously subjectively existent person, and thus ending the total Existence of another. Killing a human being is a direct attack against every single individual human who has managed to transcend to the interpersonal stage. Murder threatens Existence, in and of itself, and brings about nothing. Thus, it leads into Evil.

And when the reason something objectively exists is to be utilized in committing murder - that thing leads into Evil.

VII

It should be noted that many things that can be used for the committing of murder were created with other goals. An example would be the bow and arrow - this tool, although capable of murder, was originally created with the goal of being used for the purposes of hunting, feeding oneself and their community, and continuing the lives of all present. Thus, the bow, that can be used for the murder of humans, which leads into Evil, but was created with the goal of being used for the hunting of animals, which leads into Good, is quite unlike the warhead, which was created with the goal of being used for the murder of humans, which leads into Evil, and has no other uses besides destruction, be it of lives or other things.

The examples provided above are plentiful, and I believe they provide enough reason to make the following statement:

Things that lead into Evil are utilized, in the manner that leads into Evil, by individuals who wish to only benefit themselves, to better their personal Existence, at the detriment of others, or themselves.

Thus, the concept of selfishness becomes one that is associated with Evil. Why, however, did I say Evil, rather than something that leads into Evil? Because a concept is a subjective thing - much like Evil itself - and it exists only because humans exist. Many things that exist objectively, like the trees, for example, do not exist because humans exist. These things, which are natural, can not be tied to either Evil or Good, because they are not things that have a tendency for either. They can only lead into Good and/or Evil, as a result of the manner in which they are used.

However, as mentioned, things created by humans, which found their roots in subjective existence, and were then made objective, can be predominantly leading into Evil, or predominantly leading into Good. The example provided was the warhead, which leads into Evil, almost exclusively, and could be stated to be associated with Evil.

When I say associated, I do not mean that it is something that can be considered Evil - many things can be considered Evil, even things that are actually Good, or things that are neither Good or Evil, and that can be done jokingly, or not. However, when a thing’s purpose, when a thing’s meaning is so heavily tied to Evil itself, that thing is associated with Evil, because it is perceived as Evil.

Evil is personal Existence, which leads into nothing. The warhead is associated with Evil, because it cannot be used for anything else but the betterment of personal Existence, and the bringing of nothing, and, because of that, it is perceived as Evil.

Similarly, selfishness, which is the lack of consideration for other people, is a concept created to describe individuals who are unable to transcend their personal stage of Existence, and thus they crave to better their personal Existence, which leads into nothing. Selfishness leads into nothing, because one, who is selfish, would be unconcerned with the knowledge that every other human being would die, as long as that selfish person believed it would benefit them greatly. However, if all humans are dead, that selfish person, upon dying, dooms Existence itself, and brings about nothingness.

VIII

Concepts, which are things created, by humans, and only exist subjectively, can be categorized as extensions of Good or Evil, as the concepts of Good, The Good, and Evil, The Evil, are also extensions of each other. Without the concept of Evil, the concept of Good would also not be capable of existing, as the fact of the matter is that something is good, as long as it is not evil, and something is evil, as long as it is not good.

Without the concept of Evil, a thing could not be called Good, because there would be nothing to inform a person, calling a thing Good, what a not-Good thing is. The thing, which, as long as Evil and Good exist, will be called “a good thing”, becomes “a thing”, as soon as either Good or Evil disappears.

Good is Evil, Evil is Good, even if neither can be perceived as the other, due to the fact that they are polar opposites. However, the fact that one cannot exist without the other binds them, and makes them one whole thing. Good and Evil are two hands of a single scale. What does that mean? Why am I saying this?

Because that scale is fickle. If selfishness is perceived as Evil, then its opposite, selflessness, is perceived as Good. Being selfless is considered Good, and so people should be selfless. But, if a person were to think about the situation at hand, they might find that it would be truly selfless, and truly Good, to do everything in their power to make sure the Existence of other people continued, even if that were to happen at the expense of the selfless individual.

But, then, if a selfless individual lived selflessly, and spent their entire life devoted to helping others exist, would that selfless person, who was so selfless he dedicated their entire life living for others, have a life of their own to remember? Could that individual be regarded as remarkable? Could that individual remain a memory to be forever carried by humanity, and to exist subjectively for an eternity?

The answer is no.

Why is the answer no?

Let us return to the scale. One hand is up - it is empty. There is nothing. One hand is down - it is full. There is… Nothing. That, indeed, is the great issue. Who is this selfless hero who did everything they could for us? We do not know. We know they did that, but we know nothing else about them.

Indeed, Evil and Good are bound. If one does things that lead into Good, that would be incredibly beneficial for the Existence of humanity as a whole, but that individual, whose personal Existence has ended, will become nothing. Similarly, individuals, who do many things that lead into Evil, which would be beneficial for their personal Existence, but have done little that leads into Good, would become nothing, as they would not be remembered.

Thus, a person, who has done things that lead into Evil, but has also done things that lead into Good, might find oneself remembered.

Book III - Merits

Having established what Good is, it is easy to conclude that the Merits of Existence are not exclusively tied to being Good. Thus, I shall begin explaining what the Merits of Existence are.

I

First, as indicated by the beginning of Book II, I was going to look at Merits as either something good or something worthy. We have discussed things that are good, and it was established that Merits, or, rather, the Merits of Existence, are not directly tied to Good. Thus, I will look into Merits as something worthy.

In essence, the Merits of Existence, or the Merit of Existence, if it turns out to be just one thing, are the things that make it worth it to exist. Existing, even if Good, is still not, in and of itself, pleasant. However, Existence is a process, and, over the long period of time that a person spends existing, their Existence must show its Merits to them, otherwise that person would find themselves hard pressed to keep existing.

That is something very important. These Merits of Existence are the only thing that makes it so that the life, and then the rest of a human's Existence, be it objective, as a corpse, a skeleton, a jar of ashes, or subjective, as a memory, are bearable. Because, if these things, the Merits, turned out not to exist, why would any human struggle to survive, and to continue existing, when Existence is without Merit?

That fact, in and of itself, confirms that there is at least one Merit to Existence. Otherwise, why would humanity still exist? Why would the act of taking one's own life be so frowned upon? Why would it be said that life is good?

II

So, it can safely be concluded that there is, indeed, at least one Merit of Existence. What, then, is this thing, the Merit of Existence? To discover that, I will look into things that people chase after during their lifetimes. Things people dedicate their lives to. Maybe, through that, I will be able to uncover the Merit of Existence.

Let us begin with a simple one. Money. Many people dedicate their lives to generating currency. However, when a certain threshold is reached - which would be the equivalent of 100 000 U.S. Dollars of income per year, a person suddenly finds themselves with so much money they know not what to do with it. Unfortunately, in most cases, instead of utilizing these riches by doing things that lead into Good, they instead do things that are inherently selfish, and thus lead into Evil.

And that makes me wonder if money is, at all, a Merit? Does money make it worth it to exist? Many people, who have a lot of money, have spoken out about their personal issues. About their struggle with getting that much money, about their struggle with dealing with having that much money, about their personal, human issues that cannot truly be solved with money.

It would appear as though money is not a Merit of Existence, if only because of the fact it is a means to an end, or because it is something created by humanity, something that is associated with things most vile and repulsive. How could something a person struggles to obtain be a Merit of Existence itself? No, it should be different.

Then, money is not the answer. Perhaps a profession– No, that is tightly connected to money. A successful career? No, that is also money. Interesting, how come many of the things that people dedicate their lives to are money. How about science?

III

Science is something else, indeed. It is not a pursuit of material wealth, but, rather, a mental fortune. Solving the great mysteries of the Universe, one tiny step at a time, or advancing the incredible technological power of humanity, or, perhaps, exploring the human body, which, although relatively well known, is still so vastly mysterious to humans that it remains an uncertainty. Perhaps, this search for whatever lies ahead is the Merit…

No, it is not the Merit of Existence. It is, indeed, a merit, but it is a merit of those who search for it. Of those who struggle to get to the answer. And the reward is the knowledge that is obtained by accomplishing the great ordeal. But there are things that, maybe, seem to be Merits of Existence in their own right.

Moments, small, little instances. The great effort, the countless, sleepless nights, all merging into one, the unfathomable exhaustion, the proximity to hopelessness… And then, a breakthrough. A success, a great joy, it washes over those who have toiled, and it makes it seem as if everything was worth it.

But is that a Merit of Existence? I think not. After all, it is the reward those who work hard obtain. They did not earn it by existing, but, rather, by existing and also doing something else, far more strenuous than just being.

Science, the pursuit of it, cannot be considered a Merit of Existence, but I think we have found a little seed that we can use to begin.

IV

So, the pursuit of anything is not a Merit of Existence, but, rather, a Merit of the pursuer. That means that neither sport, nor art, nor anything else a human strives toward can be considered a Merit of Existence. Maybe that is a far to absolute statement, so I will narrow it down a bit. Nothing, that a human dedicates their lives to, can be a Merit of Existence.

The Merit of Existence must be something a human can do nothing to find, other than exist, yet still discover. There is, definitely, a possibility that a person could dedicate their life to chasing after the Merit of Existence, but that means that individual would be doing everything in their power to be rewarded for existing at a greater frequency than others.

While it is true that a person striving for something is likely to not find that thing a Merit of their Existence, another, who is not striving for the same thing, might find themselves feeling as though the thing, in and of itself, is a Merit of Existence. An example, to make this messy statement clearer: An arist creating a work of art is likely to not find the product of their work to be something worthwhile, but another, who observes it, might find it to be incredibly valuable.

An artist, striving to create art, dedicating their life to art, will always see the mistakes in their creations, even if those creations appear immaculate to others. An artist, as a result of that, will see the work they have done as sub-par, and will be unable to find it as a Merit of Existence. However, to another person, one who has not done anything, might see that piece of art and feel as though it is a Merit of Existence.

That feeling - this great joy, the awe a human being feels when observing something special, special, because it is the result of hard work and the merit of another, that sensation is, perhaps, that thing - the Merit of Existence.

But, I think, that it is not exclusively that. While joy and awe are wondrous things that make living life much easier, are they truly Merits of Existence? Are they truly rewards for just being? I think not. They are things a human makes for oneself, and they are unique for each single person. One derives joy from one thing, and another finds it in another source.

No, the Merit of Existence is not joy, nor is it pleasure. But I can not refute the fact that joy and pleasure have something to do with the Merit of Existence. After all, people say “It is moments like these that make life worth living.” And they say that thing when they are experiencing great joy.

Coincidentally, there is also another statement that is uttered by people. “It is moments like these that make me want to just end it all.” And, most unreasonably, those words can be uttered by individuals observing the joy of others. Joy is a skewed thing, as it is made what it is by the person experiencing it. Joy is not a universal concept, it is something very special, which is different for every single individual to have felt it.

However, that does not mean that joy is not a Merit of Existence. It means that it is a part of the Merit of Existence, due to the fact that some people are incapable of feeling joy, be it because they simply lack that ability, or because they have lost it. Something that cannot be attained by all humans could not be a Merit of Existence, as it would indirectly place a divider between all humans, and interfere with Existence itself in a detrimental manner.

V

What, then? What was it that made it so humanity found things worthwhile? Could it be that the Merits of Existence are unique to everybody? Would that mean that they cannot be defined? No, that cannot be. There must be something that connects them.

Perhaps, if one looks into oneself, one might find an answer. I have done that, and I think I have seen a glimpse of it.

People like things. They do, and they like a lot of things. Why do they like things? Well, they like those things, because there is just something about those things that jives with them, that seems to click, that fits in the complex puzzle that is the human mind.

People like music, paintings, clothes, buildings, animals, places, views, other people - people like everything. There is no such thing as a thing that people do not like. It is not a collective liking, but a unique, personal taste for things. Each person likes a set of things - others might like those things, they might not, but that is not the important thing.

What is valuable in this situation is the fact that this action, this liking of things, is, most likely, what I am looking for with this rumination. Could it be the liking of things is the Merit of Existence? No, I do not think so. Indeed, liking a thing is connected to the Merit of Existence, but liking is an action. It is a process - it is not a thing. Thus, it could not be liking.

VI

Yes, beauty. The concept of it. A quality, or many qualities, that pleases the senses.

Naturally, one would assume it is pleasure, then, that is the Merit, rather than beauty, but that is not correct. Beauty can invoke great displeasure, even pain, be it physical or psychological, and yet it still remains beautiful.

Then, some might ask, but is art not beautiful? Of course it is, but the pursuit of art, for the artist, is a selfless endeavor, because an artist will be unable to perceive their work as beautiful, and yet others will be able to see it and decide whether or not it is a thing of beauty.

But beauty is not created only. It also happens. The sun setting, that is a beautiful thing, for many people. A pretty woman or a handsome man, those are beautiful things for many people. A tiger is a beautiful thing, as long as it is perceived as such.

Beauty, hidden in the eye of the beholder, uncovers itself as being the Merit of Existence, because, truly, to witness beauty one need not struggle. They could listen, they could look, they could touch, they could taste or smell - a thing of beauty is beautiful, as long as it is perceived as such. There are individuals who find even the most repulsive, for others, things to be magnificent.

A thing of beauty, once beheld, remains beautiful forever, or for as long as the person who witnessed it lives, as it is within their memory, existing as just that - a beautiful thing. A thing of beauty is oftentimes something that leads into Good, as it invokes a sense of gratitude.

Truly, one is grateful to be alive, to exist, when they see a thing of beauty. It is the Merit of Existence.