The dilemma of humanity
"The modern mind is in complete disarray. Knowledge has stretched itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism. " -Camus
Sometimes, after post-toast, I get a bit into a pensive mood.
I began to think about Camusian Existentialism and Existentialism in general.
I realize that in fact there are 2 true philosophical questions/problems:
We are born and we die, how are we to bide our time between these 2 life-defining events?
The other problem is one that Camus states as: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide."
We have reach an era that has found out that god is only an illusion, something we made up, then what are we left with?
We must make our own reasons to live, since in fact (and we may be in denial about this) there's no "universal meaning" to life.
Camus' argument against suicide is actually a rather weak one that goes along the line that it's our duty to "face and struggle with the absurd" and that suicide is "surrender" to it. But the "absurd" is a human concept, a made up concept, based on human perception. Even if the absurd was a "real thing (it's possibly real in our reality, but in a physical sense no)" what drives us to be duty-bound to struggle with the absurd? Camus, as I recall, does not provide a reason why we are duty bound to struggle with the absurd.
Thus life becomes a question of whether to live or not to live. This is the question, this is the choice that we are thrust upon.
On to the first question, which only applies if we chose to live, essentially we must make up a reason, or reasons, to live. Essentially, we must form goal(s) for our lives. We are not bound to do so, but it's a choice. A reason to live or goals in life according to a/some philosophers' ("He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. " -Nietzsche) make life much more bearable. Although I would not be surprise if it's in fact the other way around, that having no goals in life may perhaps be a key to happiness. Perhaps it's different for each individual.
Another dilemma that faces humanity in this age is an ethical one.
If we look at ethics in a "universal" viewpoint there's really nothing that decides that something is bad or good. In this view all actions are ethically neutral. We have no ethical duties, we are not bound to do or not do something.
But this is not the only dimension of ethics. In reality, our ethics we work on come from society and culture. Social ethics are based on the norms based of a society and its culture. Arguably, there's a half-unwritten/half-written "social contract" that binds the members of society to certain rules, norms, etc.
Yet these social norms are in the backdrop of the "universal ethics" (which are none, everything is neutral); thus social norms can be quite fluid. Things that are considered now to be ethically wrong might not have been considered so in the past. In the future, things we have done that might be normal, good, or fine to us may cease to be so. Indeed, even things we find to be ethically wrong now may become permitted in the future. This is how murder may be considered wrong in society but killing in a war may become "justified."
Perhaps, out of the human condition, there are a basic set of ethics that is common to all of humanity. Even so, it's not uncommon for the social contract/social norms to break these still perhaps undefined rules.
Personally, I believe the current social contracts of virtually all societies are nothing more but "unequal treaties" that are, from a point of view, illegitimate. These contracts do not bring us any closer to the common human ethics (which may or may not exist, etc) as long as they are based on the benefit of the few against the many. Class society only leads to virtually an unsustainable societal madness that may lead us to the doom of civilization. In our society, where profit motive is king, we are destroying all that sustains life and stability, destroying the environment, etc, in order to make ephemeral wealth (or to provide power) for the benefit of an elite.
Are we bound ethically to strike against the current corrupt "social contracts" of our society? Not really (not in these realms of ethics I'm discussing), but we may be compelled to either fight against it or to defend it based on our class interests. A society based on class division will always have the potential for class warfare.
While this piece may focus, or ramble on, a lot of abstract concepts, radical political ideology need to instead base off in a more real concepts such as class interests to be effective. In a way, it's a choice (or pseudo-choice) to rebel but their are social and material forces that compels us, in varying degrees depending on the situation, to rebel (or to fight against rebellion, depending on which side you may find yourself on).
End
Sometimes, after post-toast, I get a bit into a pensive mood.
I began to think about Camusian Existentialism and Existentialism in general.
I realize that in fact there are 2 true philosophical questions/problems:
We are born and we die, how are we to bide our time between these 2 life-defining events?
The other problem is one that Camus states as: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide."
We have reach an era that has found out that god is only an illusion, something we made up, then what are we left with?
We must make our own reasons to live, since in fact (and we may be in denial about this) there's no "universal meaning" to life.
Camus' argument against suicide is actually a rather weak one that goes along the line that it's our duty to "face and struggle with the absurd" and that suicide is "surrender" to it. But the "absurd" is a human concept, a made up concept, based on human perception. Even if the absurd was a "real thing (it's possibly real in our reality, but in a physical sense no)" what drives us to be duty-bound to struggle with the absurd? Camus, as I recall, does not provide a reason why we are duty bound to struggle with the absurd.
Thus life becomes a question of whether to live or not to live. This is the question, this is the choice that we are thrust upon.
On to the first question, which only applies if we chose to live, essentially we must make up a reason, or reasons, to live. Essentially, we must form goal(s) for our lives. We are not bound to do so, but it's a choice. A reason to live or goals in life according to a/some philosophers' ("He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. " -Nietzsche) make life much more bearable. Although I would not be surprise if it's in fact the other way around, that having no goals in life may perhaps be a key to happiness. Perhaps it's different for each individual.
Another dilemma that faces humanity in this age is an ethical one.
If we look at ethics in a "universal" viewpoint there's really nothing that decides that something is bad or good. In this view all actions are ethically neutral. We have no ethical duties, we are not bound to do or not do something.
But this is not the only dimension of ethics. In reality, our ethics we work on come from society and culture. Social ethics are based on the norms based of a society and its culture. Arguably, there's a half-unwritten/half-written "social contract" that binds the members of society to certain rules, norms, etc.
Yet these social norms are in the backdrop of the "universal ethics" (which are none, everything is neutral); thus social norms can be quite fluid. Things that are considered now to be ethically wrong might not have been considered so in the past. In the future, things we have done that might be normal, good, or fine to us may cease to be so. Indeed, even things we find to be ethically wrong now may become permitted in the future. This is how murder may be considered wrong in society but killing in a war may become "justified."
Perhaps, out of the human condition, there are a basic set of ethics that is common to all of humanity. Even so, it's not uncommon for the social contract/social norms to break these still perhaps undefined rules.
Personally, I believe the current social contracts of virtually all societies are nothing more but "unequal treaties" that are, from a point of view, illegitimate. These contracts do not bring us any closer to the common human ethics (which may or may not exist, etc) as long as they are based on the benefit of the few against the many. Class society only leads to virtually an unsustainable societal madness that may lead us to the doom of civilization. In our society, where profit motive is king, we are destroying all that sustains life and stability, destroying the environment, etc, in order to make ephemeral wealth (or to provide power) for the benefit of an elite.
Are we bound ethically to strike against the current corrupt "social contracts" of our society? Not really (not in these realms of ethics I'm discussing), but we may be compelled to either fight against it or to defend it based on our class interests. A society based on class division will always have the potential for class warfare.
While this piece may focus, or ramble on, a lot of abstract concepts, radical political ideology need to instead base off in a more real concepts such as class interests to be effective. In a way, it's a choice (or pseudo-choice) to rebel but their are social and material forces that compels us, in varying degrees depending on the situation, to rebel (or to fight against rebellion, depending on which side you may find yourself on).
End