Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Theories seem to cannonball out the idea cannons of the big thinkers (Scientists,philosophers,psychologists...I could go on,but I can't think of any more -"ists" who mean a damn to you all.)So,I decided to share "my" own theory, one I wouldn't be surpised if it already is an established theory and has a much more attractive,scientific name. If it does, tell me, so I can end my masquerade of accomplishment. But on to that theory...

The "Squirrel" theory goes like this: You've seen pictures of squirrels on TV and in books,and you've heard other people tell you that they have seen squirrels, but you yourself have never seen a squirrel in your life. Do you believe Squirrels exist? If you do, why? One would probably answer with the information stated above, that OTHER people have told you that squirrels exist, and so you ASSUME that squirrels exist based on the experiences of others,not yourself.

What does this mean? It could mean that, psychologically, people rely on assuming certain knowledge points based on other's opinions, for if other people don't tell them how to think, they fear they may not be able to think on their own. In shorter terms, we as a species LIKE being told how to think, and until we can ultimately make a conclusion for ourselves, we just assume the answer is either one way or another.

I may update this as time goes on, but for now, the "Squirrel" theory is defined.


The following comments are for "The Squirrel Theory"
by Icymatt

excellent theory and I tend to agree with it.

Your title also caught My attention, because 6 weeks ago I rescued a baby squirrel. What a learning curve upwards this lil gift was. They are amazing animals and grow very fast. Hand raising one however is fraught with pitfalls as they need quite specific and dedicated care.

So I proved to Myself that Squirrels do exist in My world :D


( Posted by: SinamonAngel [Member] On: June 15, 2004 )

they're there
I've been seing thousands of squirrels since I grew up so you might have to move out of the big city to see one... And turn off the TV and go outside once in a while helps as well...

( Posted by: hummel [Member] On: June 15, 2004 )

I think your conclusion is a little off-center. If I am looking at a photograph of a squirrel, or better yet, a film, it is true that my assumption of them existing is based in part by the experiences of others, but equally important is the experience I have of them myself, drawn from whatever media.

In terms of knowledge, sometimes people rely on the experiences of others to light the way because it is implausible any other way. I mean, I've never seen an atom before, I'm not a qualified physisist, but I believe Democritus & Co. were up to something when they postulated that all matter is comprimised of "unbreakable" elements, or atomos. So what?

It doesn't mean I'm afraid to think for myself. It doesn't mean I like being told what to think. The moment I hear a new idea is also when I decide to accept, reject, or remain neutral on the matter in lieu of new information.

"and until we can ultimately make a conclusion for ourselves, we just assume the answer is either one way or another."

Interesting statement. How can you assume the answer is one or the other and not ultimately make a conclusion? Aside from that, the quote implies a duality, which is not true. Like I said, I don't automatically assume new information is valid or invalid without a rather convincing argument. I spend a lot of time on the fench, you see.

The Squirrel in this opinion article is a codeword for God. New territory entirely, and not quite the same as the realm of science since, obviously, one is verifiable/falsifiable and the other is not, but how many theists would you say have not experienced His Holiness, the Squirrel, and despite this, still believe?

How many would admit it?

( Posted by: die_daily [Member] On: June 15, 2004 )

I'm special!
Thanks for all your opinions.

( Posted by: Icymatt [Member] On: June 23, 2004 )

hamster theory
Question authority! Too many believe what they are told.

Why do they call them hamsters anyway? There's not much meat on them and it doesn't taste anything like ham. Can we believe anything?


( Posted by: drsoos [Member] On: March 10, 2005 )

I think your theory is a tad simple and odd, yet compelling in an almost tragic way, like documentaries about penguins.

( Posted by: Gallus [Member] On: October 10, 2005 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.