Kaitlin the unconscious Kantian.

I was reading through some of my old journals this weekend, and I realized that I had identified a prototype of Kant's categorical imperative at age 14. Most of the stuff I blathered about at that age was completely whiny and inane (my sincere and heartfelt prayer at summer camp that year: "I wish I could grow up so badly. 14 is even worse than 13. I know I probably sound really stupid, but I just get so discouraged sometimes, and I experience the paradox of being in the midst of so many people and yet still feeling all alone"), but this was a little more elevated. It's not entirely thought out, and I took it in some odd directions, but I was just so precious.

12/28/03

Kaitlin Barr's Theory of Relativity (That is, relating to people) Revisited

I first conceived this theory in ninth grade (and here I am now in tenth). The gist of it goes as follows:

If your method of doing things or your belief in the way that things should be cannot functionally be applied to, or does not include everyone in the world, then it is not a fair, valid, or applicable way of doing things.

Though I originally used organized sports as my proof (see attached notecard), I think that this theory has more profound implications when applied to religion.

Many religions of the world are exclusive, unfair, or, dare I say it, intolerant. Islam, no matter what the Muslims say, oppresses women and encourages hatred towards Jews and Christians. Also, as most would agree, the goal of religion is to understand humans' reasons for existence and the place that they go when they die. Buddhism and Hinduism paint a depressing, confusing, and unclear picture of both existence and destination, and they leave the casual observer with too many questions and without hope. How or why would anyone believe the claims of these religions, when there is a much more feasible, positive, and inclusive option?

Of course, I mean Christianity. Of all the major religions of the world, Christianity is the most liberating, especially to women and people of all races; tolerant; all-encompassing; and hope-filled. And though I've strayed from the subject a bit, my theory of relativity is further proof, at least for me, of the merits of Christianity.

[Attached notecard]

In organized sports, everyone wants to win. That is the object of every game, after all. Every year, one team always comes out on top. This means that one team has lost all of their games in proportion to the team that won all of them. So, how can everyone succeed? Some say you gain something from it by improving. But if everyone improves, it becomes harder for the individual to succeed. No matter the game, someone has to lose. It is a win/lose situation in which only 50% of those involved can possibly succeed. Now you say, "If you tried your best, you still win." Well, you did not win the game, for the object was to get the highest points and you did not. If you tried your hardest and yet failed to win, what then? Is that not the least bit detrimental? And if this happened every single game, would you still feel you were "winning"? So tell me: what is the point of organized sports if not to triumph over the weaker team and declare yourselves the betters? Exercise perhaps. Well, there are unnumerable [sic] other ways to become physically fit without subjecting oneself to the animalistic, or perhaps humanistic, destructive qualities of sports.