Human Bridges

The Myth of Sacrificial Morality

2012-01-22T17:39:00.001-08:00

It is a commonly held notion within the philosophical context of our age that an intensely moral person is, in essence, a martyr. The prevailing image of an impeccably moral individual is one of suffering, i.e., a religious man living in self-imposed isolation whipping himself for merely thinking about an immoral act. This is a false image and a highly destructive cliché that is accepted by the majority.

The truth is in extreme opposition to this deranged fantasy.

Indeed, if one measures their morality in terms of an altruistic philosophy, there can be only one resulting image: that of a martyr sacrificing the enjoyment of his life in order to achieve “morality”. To take altruism (defined as: the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others) to its ultimate end is to, quite literally, DIE. If one considers it moral to sacrifice oneself for the greater good of others, then morality absolutely creates a state of perpetual suffering on two separate fronts. The first front is direct; by sacrificing yourself for others, you suffer the depravation of what is being sacrificed without the possibility of a return. The second front is more abstract. Because no one (except the psychotic) WANTS death, an individual devoted to an altruistic philosophy must decide how far to take their misguided brand of “morality”. This creates a sliding scale in which no moral absolutes are possible. It becomes a matter of individual choice in terms of how altruistic one must be in order to achieve sufficient morality. This contradiction creates immeasurable guilt and mental suffering. The altruistic individual cannot possibly achieve moral perfection without bringing about their own demise, and so they exist in a constant state of guilt regarding their perceived level of morality. The religious man whipping himself becomes a logical extension of such a barbaric view of morality.

The reality is: morality is a SELFISH act. A successful, joyous, and healthy individual must have a shining self-image in order to sustain their powerful sense of life. Only a moral person can possess a self-image strong enough to enable their continued success in all aspects of life. Morality breeds confidence. Morality grows strength within an individual in abundance, a strength that is immediately recognizable to all those who come in contact with it.

Consider the hypothetical cliché of a parent discovering their child with “their hand in the cookie jar”. A child caught trying to take a cookie when they know it is not allowed becomes visibly guilty. Their entire body language shifts. They understand that they have breached a trust and this generates guilt and self-doubt. In contrast, the child who never breaches that trust, who only reaches into the cookie jar when permissible, fosters trust between themselves and their guardian(s) and as a result, is free of conflict and guilt. Self-confidence is the direct result of successfully navigating moral challenges, even one as (seemingly) petty as deciding whether to take a cookie without permission. When, by contrast, a much larger moral decision is at stake in one’s adult life, the decision one makes will have a lifelong impact (positive or negative) on a considerable scale.

It becomes easy to conclude that achieving moral perfection is in fact a selfishly motivated endeavor. Once an individual comprehends that their success in life is reliant upon a glowing self-image and that morality plays a fundamental role in forming that self-image, it becomes selfishly imperative to the individual to achieve moral perfection in their lives.

The benefits of being consciously moral are countless. In business, while an individual may gain profit by being immoral in the short term, the long-term result is failure. This failure may not translate into a loss of profits, but it will certainly present itself in every other aspect of that individual’s life. An immoral businessman is incapable of trust because they themselves are not trustworthy, and thusly, they extend that inability to be trustworthy to every individual they encounter. No amount of wealth can appease the mental suffering of gaining wealth by immoral means. History is ripe with evidence in terms of the disastrous personal lives of those who have gained wealth in such a way. What possible benefit can there be to wealth if one’s self-image is so damaged as to make happiness an impossibility? In business, trust is also a considerable factor when it comes to partnerships. A businessman who has betrayed that trust will find it more and more difficult to form business relationships in the future, unless it is with other businessmen who lack morality, in which case both parties are at risk of being swindled and both expect nothing less than betrayal.

In the realm of personal relationships, there can be no greater factor than morality. Trust is the foundation of every relationship. Without it, even the most meager of friendships would be impossible, let alone a lifelong commitment that yields positive results. A moral individual is valued by all except those who view it as a threat due to their own unwillingness to lead moral lives. Nothing is more infuriating to the immoral than the impeccable morality they encounter in others. This creates a two-fold benefit for the moral individual. First, because the individual has proven their moral fortitude, their personal relationships will flourish and enjoy the full range of benefits generated by trust. Second, a moral individual will instantly be aware of the immorality inherent in others by their attack of that moral fortitude. This presents itself in any number of ways, sometimes subtle. It may be as “innocent” as someone insisting you take that shot of tequila with them despite the fact that you’ve made it clear you are not interested. Typically, some form of social pressure is applied under the guise of “playfulness”, but this type of behavior is nothing more than the immoral/weak individual’s attempt to bring you down to their level so they can better enjoy themselves free of guilt.

Morality is noble and it requires no faith. Moral absolutes are discernible by way of reason, by way of a scientific method of perception and introspection. Once an individual understands that moral absolutes exist, it is in their self-interest to apply those moral absolutes for the reasons specified above and countless more that are unnecessary to describe.

Morality is selfish. Only a selfish individual can achieve moral perfection because only a selfishly motivated individual can grasp the immeasurable personal benefits of achieving moral perfection. Across every aspect of one’s life, morality is of vital importance. To achieve universal success in life, from business to personal relationships, an individual’s moral choices are paramount.

It is important here to restate the importance of an individual’s means of defining morality. If a person adopts an altruistic philosophy, moral perfection is impossible. The more devoted an individual is to an altruistic approach to morality, the greater their suffering and ultimate failure. It is imperative that one define morality by way of reason. Whether it is a question of taking a cookie without permission or stabbing someone in the stomach, the correct moral decision can ALWAYS be determined by way of reason. The distinction between an individual living according to an altruistic philosophy and a philosophy of reason is fundamental. Only self-destruction can be the result of the former while immeasurable personal reward will be the result of the latter.

If humanity is to survive the challenges of our time, the barbaric notion of sacrificial morality must be abandoned and replaced with a morality defined by reason. The morality of reason increases human potential exponentially. An individual’s self-worth grows each time a moral action is taken. Self-worth is the most valuable commodity any individual can obtain. The greater a human being’s self-worth, the greater their contributions will be, both to the larger world and within their own personal realm of existence. Each of us is capable of moral perfection so long as the moral philosophy we adopt is defined purely by reason.

The next time you look at yourself in the mirror, take stock of your moral integrity and the impact it has on all aspects of your life. Let go of the image of morality as attainable only by way of sacrifice and depravation. Instead, embrace an achievable moral philosophy that will guide you toward your full potential.

Personal Note: I have only just begun this journey in my own life, yet the impact has already been dramatic. The simple decision of accepting that any immoral act, whether you “get away with it” or not, is self-destructive, has made the daily moral choices I face much more easy to navigate. Each time I make the wrong choice there can be no “guilty pleasure” in the act, only disappointment and the instant desire to correct it. There is nothing to get away with. The sacrifice I make each time I act immorally is the sacrifice of my own self-worth. As I apply this philosophy, it becomes more and more difficult to make anything but moral choices inspired by my own selfish desire to gain confidence, even in areas most would consider unimportant “gray zones” that I would not have given a thought to in the past. When it comes to morality, there are no gray choices. You either act in accordance with your moral reason or you do not. To compromise is to fail yourself and to weaken your own self-image.

Pragmatism on Trial

2012-01-06T11:25:00.001-08:00

It is impossible to lead a meaningful life without absolutes. The reason so many Americans find their days to be intolerable drudgery is not because they have been “enslaved by the capitalist system” as they are so desperate to believe (I was one of those not long ago). The cause of their insufferable boredom and overwhelming need for escape is the lack of absolute truths within their adopted philosophies. The pragmatic approach, the idea that reality is in constant flux and that any idea “could” be the right idea at any given time and place, has whitewashed our culture’s subconscious, blanking out all color and leaving us with nothing to strive for. There is no stunning light at the end of the tunnel, only an endless stretch of colorless corridor along which every destination is the same.

The appeal of pragmatism, of course, is that it is all inclusive. With a pragmatic approach, no one needs be left out. Each individual, no matter how false their logic or destructive their choices, can be included in the giant bear hug of “society”. After all, isn’t this a noble state of existence: the total acceptance and tolerance of all ideas? On the polished surface, this moderate approach to life certainly “feels” like a step toward world peace and happiness for all.

It would all be quite lovely except for one pesky thorn: reality.

Pragmatism may sell itself by claiming to increase tolerance and, thereby, good will toward others. In truth, pragmatism only serves to reject reality at every turn. Because we live in a world of absolutes, a world in which A = A and B = B, there can be no benefit to conceding that A=C or D or Z for any purpose. To do so is to condemn humanity to chaos. Just as there are absolutes in physics and mathematics, so too are there absolutes in ethics. These concrete truths can be arrived at objectively, via reason, by any individual willing to exercise that higher function. Once an individual has discovered a concrete truth, what purpose could it possibly serve them to concede to someone else’s version of the truth, which has no doubt been arrived at by mere emotional whim, because they “want” it to be true? If an individual betrays a truth they know to be concrete for any reason, it is a deep self-betrayal that causes psychological harm. If an individual proceeds to concede to false ideas year after year, their desire to leverage objective reason will be greatly diminished, and eventually decimated. Why? Because the despair of betraying those hard earned, concrete truths year after year will become too heavy a burden. How much easier to simply evade arriving at concrete truths altogether, and choose instead to “go with the flow” of whatever popular culture is currently dishing out.

The moment a human being relinquishes their right to objective reason, there is no place for their mind to go but toward depression. This is the drudgery most Americans feel permeating their everyday lives. It is the drudgery of a total mental shut down. It is the self-inflicted misery of caving in to pragmatism’s middle-of-the-road, anything goes attitude in regard to all things. If one abandons the reality of a world with absolutes, there can be no definable purpose behind any action. Without purpose, a human being devolves into a hapless raw nerve whose only concern is escapism, i.e., finding more and more powerful ways to elude the reality they know has been there all along but have chosen not to see. This usually takes the form of drugs and alcohol, but can be any self-destructive and obsessive behavior that allows the mind to evade reality.

In truth, a mind that is not kept perpetually “occupied” by something—anything-- will always begin analyzing reality. It is the natural and intended function of the human mind. This is why America is over ripe with all manner of entertainment, most of which is thoughtless drivel that pushes the same notion that there are no absolutes, reality is an illusion, sacrifice for the greater good and follow your “heart”, etc. etc. American minds need the distraction, and they need it in a constant stream in order to keep their mind’s from nosing about in reality and discovering some absolute that would cause them grief or—and this is the most terrifying prospect—actually inspire them to stand up for what they know to be a concrete truth. People in this country are well conditioned against standing up for absolutes. Nobody wants an “extremist” making waves within the “hip tolerance” soup of anything goes.

If America is to pull itself out of this depressive/escapist stupor, pragmatism must be brought to trial and executed outright. Not even a hint of its stain can remain on our minds. It is time that we recommit ourselves to the scientific approach of dissecting reality in order to apply concrete truths to the problems we now face. If America continues down this path of accepting any and all ideas depending on the current whim of the majority, there is only one eventuality: a dictatorship in which “reality” will be defined for us all at the end of a gun barrel.

The Misappropriation of Words 2.0

2012-01-05T12:08:00.001-08:00

The word of the day: Qua

Over the past months, I have been engaging in extensive philosophical study, primarily of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

The word “qua” is used quite often, and while I possessed a basic understanding of the word’s use, I felt I needed that understanding to be more concrete in my mind in order to fully grasp those concepts in which it was leveraged.

I was astonished to discover how the word is being applied on dictionary.com in a specific example.

First, the definition of qua as it appears on the website:

qua [kwey, kwah]

adverb

as; as being; in the character or capacity of: The work of art qua art can be judged by aesthetic criteria only.

Even within the above definition, the notion that “art qua art can be judged by aesthetic criteria only” is a concept that I wholly disagree with and resent, but this misappropriation pales in comparison to what the site presents further down the page.

Below is one of three usage examples appearing on the website:

“Pure objectivity not only is unattainable by humans qua humans but, also, countervails mankind's ultimate coping success.”

Pardon me?

This single sentence, in essence, states as an offhanded fact that human beings are incapable of being objective. Further, it states that even an attempt by human beings to be “purely objective” makes coping in the world impossible!

This is an arbitrary example sentence used for the purpose of giving people a deeper understanding of how the world “qua” might be used to articulate an idea. By what purpose does a website like dictionary.com offer up an example sentence that works to undercut an entire philosophy?!

At moments like these it becomes tragically clear just how far human beings have allowed themselves to be degraded. The purpose of dictionary.com is to provide definitions of words and offer an understanding of how those words can and should be used. It is not a philosophical website. By what justification can such a website make such broad philosophical statements that work to corrode human being’s view of their own capability?

The idea that a human being cannot live objectively is not only false, it is repugnant on every level. If not objectively, how then is a human to live? By mysticism? By emotional whim? By whatever means their surrounding culture or current leaders decree? Without objectivity, science would not exist. Without the ability to be objective, there could be no law written or upheld by any court in the world. Without pure objectivity, there can be no absolutes either in ethics or physics or any facet of man’s perception of reality.

It is this notion that humans are incapable of living objectively that has placed our world in its current economic, moral and political crisis. Apparently, it is a notion so accepted by the majority that a non-philosophical website like dictionary.com can post such an offensive example sentence without fear of repercussion from its users.

This is one user who will never be back to that website, and, no matter how futile the gesture may be, dictionary.com will be receiving a letter outlining my disgust at their casual attack on my own ability to use objective reason as my guiding philosophy.

The King of Absentee Fathers

2012-01-05T10:48:00.001-08:00

All mysticism survives by a demand of faith from the human mind. A mind conditioned toward reason cannot and will never accept anything on faith. To do so would undercut reason and make its continued function impossible. This must be stated up front as the immediate, impassable contradiction presented by Christianity to any individual of reason.

However, the contradictions within the philosophy itself, once you move beyond the absurdity of accepting its most crucial points on faith, are too numerous to mention without a book equally as long as the bible itself. It is only on one such contradiction that this essay will focus.

For Christians, god is referred to as the “father”. The term father is not used metaphorically. Followers are taught and accept the notion that their concept of god is, in fact, their father, and they are his children.

This “god/father” figure, by his own decree, cannot and will not offer any knowable or provable evidence of his existence in the physical and measurable world of reality. It follows, then, that one must take it on “faith” that this god/father exists at all. The bible is this phantom father’s instruction manual to his children, and while not given to them directly from his own hand, it is the only so called interaction the “children” will ever have with their “father”. It is the only available means by which the god/father figure’s desires and “love” can be understood by his children. According to the philosophy of Christianity, this god/father figure is the pure embodiment of love on earth.

I submit that the very concept of this god/father figure is in fact nothing more than the king of absentee fathers.

Any flesh and blood father choosing to emulate this model of “love” for his own children would not only fail to win the love of his children, he would earn himself their disdain and the disdain of all who know him. To be clear, let us imagine the scenario as a whole: A man impregnates a woman. Before their child is born, he proceeds to write a lengthy letter which he seals in an envelope and addresses to his unborn child. The man then abandons his role as father entirely, leaving no trace of his existence behind, nothing that might prove his existence to the child in any way. Once the child is born, this man does not contact the child or aide the child in any way, neither financially or emotionally. When the child is able, the mother gives them the sealed envelope containing the letter the man has written. Within the letter, the child discovers all manner of rules and stories that are meant to help guide the child through life. Regarding the matter of the father himself, the letter insists that the child must “take it on faith” that the father does, in fact, exist. The letter is very concise on this. At no time from that point until death will the child encounter any evidence of the father’s existence except for the contents of the letter.

If a flesh and blood man were to approach fatherhood in this manner, what would the reaction of the child be? How would society see this man? We already know the answer to that. Absentee fathers are seen as one of the most wretched on this earth. A man who abandons his children and the mother of his children and proceeds to offer zero aid to them for the entirety of their lives would be and is a person reviled by all who know him. Even the lowest mongrels of society who have devoted their lives to depravity have a firm grasp on the ugliness of being an absentee parent. In fact, many of the people who find themselves on the bottom rung of society’s ladder have, to a degree, abandoned a child at some point in their lives, and it is the guilt of this fact that has driven them toward total despair.

The truth is, any man except the most empty, the most lost, would be diabolically opposed to such behavior. The majority of men, once they experience the birth of their first child, cannot fathom the concept of abandoning them; they would more than likely die before being forced to do so.

How is it, then, that Christians come to accept this blatantly obvious idea of their god as the king of absentee fathers?

It is the very demand of faith by mysticism that denigrates the mind and makes such blatant contradiction of ideals possible. The moment a human mind accepts even the concept of believing something on faith, especially something so vastly crucial to their existence as their entire philosophical set of ideals, that mind’s ability to reason is crucified. Such a mind loses all ability to question even the most obvious contradictions within their “faith”. To ask questions would be to agitate and collapse the entire house of cards that any faith-based mysticism is constructed from.

I would ask how lowly the children of god must view themselves in order to accept this concept of an absentee father as the “embodiment of perfect love on earth”. How deep is the self-loathing of the human mind that can accept such a definition of love on faith?

The answer from the mystic’s mouth, of course, is that a mere human mind cannot possibly understand god’s motives or actions. The human mind is simply incapable of grasping the larger intention. They are quick to point out that this is a fallen world and man is a fallen creature (despite being created in the image of their god/father figure), and that suffering is a necessary trial by fire in order to earn one’s way through the pearly gates of eternity.

Again, I ask, what state does a human mind need to be in to accept these explanations as valid? Beyond being the ultimate absentee father, this god/father figure has decided that this would not be enough to ensure the purification of his little sinner children; they must also endure a lifetime of mental anguish in which their own evil natures are constantly “separating” them from a father they have never seen, heard, known, or touched in any way!

This is a vacuous and lousy sham perpetrated by the weakest minds and accepted by a sea of people who hate themselves to such a degree that they are willing to accept the need for such inexplicable suffering on “faith”.

Ironically, even if a mystical doctrine were offering a great and lovely life on earth, a strong mind reliant on reason would reject it outright without physical, knowable evidence. Incredibly, Christianity not only swindles its followers by demanding they apply faith to any contradictions they encounter within the philosophy, they do so with a promise of suffering on earth for all of their miserable days. Only upon death might they be rewarded with eternal communion with this god/father figure who loves them to such a degree that he is willing to abandon them and see them mentally tortured every day of their lives.

How can parents inflict this sadistic gibberish on their children, or themselves?

Enslaved By A Mean Spirited Trick of the Light

2012-01-04T10:59:00.001-08:00

Do you long to escape the “shackles of society”? Do you feel that you have been enslaved by the powers of money and greed? Is it your belief that Capitalism is the goliath and that you are, in comparison, a tiny “David” who must somehow defeat the monster to win your freedom?

If your answer to these questions, and many more very similar to them, is “yes”, I am sorry to inform you that you have been played like a fiddle by the mind manipulators of our age.

Before I began my studies in Objectivist philosophy, I too believed that money in and of itself was an “evil force” that loomed all around me, attempting to rob me of my individuality and freedoms. Now that I more understand the complex subconscious forces involved in such defeatist thinking, reality has begun to dissolve these destructive fantasies.

You must first be willing to see one all important and concrete truth: Capitalism in America is the FIRST time in history that human beings have lived in a FREE society. As someone who was born into this freedom, it is quite literally impossible to fathom what it would be NOT to possess such freedom. Americans can have no concept of the mental anguish produced by existing in a constant state of fear from a dictatorship’s oppression. It is in large part due to this that any American has the ludicrous gall to name Capitalism as their oppressor when the unwavering reality is that Capitalism is the only system capable of securing the individual rights which make any level of freedom possible.

The oppression you feel is not that of Capitalism; it is the oppression of a philosophy so destructive that it has seized control of your subconscious and propelled you into a state of perpetual fear, self-doubt, and confusion. I can speak of this with sincere accuracy because a mere twelve months ago, I would have been the one shouting the most loudly about the injustice of Capitalism and the evils of money, a confession that is incredibly embarrassing to me now.

The pragmatic tidal wave that has engulfed this country has been corroding each generation more and more aggressively. The modern youths of America today are utterly convinced that there are no absolute truths, that it is up to each individual to “define reality”, that even in science (thanks to theoretical voodoo that has no real ground to stand on) nothing can be relied upon to “exist” in any provable, knowable way. All of this serves to paralyze human beings. If there is no concrete reality, if there are no absolutes in science or in ethics, if each individual truly can “decide for themselves” what to believe and how to behave, then there can be no relevant point to any course of action. If one truly believes that A is not A and B is not B, the only result is an all consuming terror in which a person steps blindly in any direction and hopes it does not lead to their destruction.

Here is where you scream about the injustices of the corporate world, the suffering caused by greed and the thievery of Wall Street. It must be understood that these, too, are a symptom of the same vacuous philosophical ideas that lead an individual to condemn their own savior. The growing monster of interference by central government in economics and a business leadership rooted in the same process of thought that allows each individual to “create their own reality” and “decide their own morality” because there can be no absolutes has led to a corporate sewer. This is severely compounded by the simple fact that most Americans are not capable of (or even interested in) analyzing reality and acting accordingly. The end result is a population “chasing its own tail”, screaming about injustices they have no understanding of, neither their cause nor their solution.

The number one problem with America today is its insistence that it “does not believe in philosophy and has no need for it.” Only yesterday I watched a “lecture” on YouTube from a man named Daniel Pink about the science of what motivates people. His ideas were completely false and arrived at by a broken method of reasoning that is typical of Americans today. One of his very first statements was supposed to be a joke, “I’m an American, I don’t believe in philosophy.” The crowd laughed. My heart sank. I watched the rest of the presentation only to see how flawed it would be, and it did not disappoint. This tragic idea that philosophy is of no importance or relevance to our lives is actually at the core of every social problem we face today.

Whether you allow external forces to haphazardly form your personal philosophy subconsciously or you take control of that process and consciously adopt a philosophy that embraces reality, it must be understood that it IS philosophy that determines your values and, thereby, every decision you will ever make. Philosophy is the only means we have to understanding vast abstract concepts and dealing with reality. If you allow a self-destructive philosophy which insists that there are no absolutes—that reality is an illusion you invent along the way—you are condemning your mind and your body to a lifetime of suffering. It will be a life spent in constant fear of unknowable things, an entire lifetime spent running to the next available “cave” where you will cower and hope that you will be safe.

If, instead, you decide to take control of your philosophical future and demand of that philosophy to coincide with reality and the absolutes arrived at by reason, you will see a new world stretching out before you. It will be a world not ruled by fear, guilt and doubt. It will be a world in which your mind is capable of achieving any goal, and doing so with absolute ethical grace. The end result will be a fulfillment beyond your current comprehension. It will be a happiness born of truth, rooted in the absolutes of reality rather than a flimsy façade, and this will allow it to grow strong and spread branches throughout the entirety of your days.

The Tortured Minds of Pop-Culture Philosophy

2012-01-03T15:21:00.000-08:00

The human mind solves problems. Leveraging all available sensory information and a valid process of reason, the human mind can invent infinite solutions to any difficulty, each more elegant than the last.

Tragically, the majority of American minds (and those around the globe) have been enslaved by a pragmatic philosophy lacking absolutes and ripe with contradictions. This violently strips the mind of its ability to reason and leaves human beings in a constant state of fear, wholly reliant on their emotions to guide them through difficult circumstances for which only their now crippled reason could possibly offer triumph.

Allow me to offer some examples of the more blatant contradictions we see at work in the philosophy of popular culture:

1. Despite the insistent push by parents, teachers and peers for every American youth to obtain great success in terms of wealth and prestige, once a person does acquire them, they are immediately turned into greedy villains whose only aim is the destruction of “decent, hard working people”. Global superstars are simultaneously the most envied and revered in society, and yet entire publications are devoted to tearing them down piece by piece, typically with total fabrications or petty gossip irrelevant to their success. Wealthy businessmen are judged by how much they give to charity in any given year, despite the fact that their devotion and success have created countless jobs and opportunities for others by default. Society would be far better served by a successful businessman reinvesting their wealth into more ambitious ventures rather than giving away large sums of money to charitable institutions which, by their very nature, are incompetent with money.

This simultaneous worship and degradation of the successful is an iconic contradiction, and it is rampant in American culture.

2. Every publication in the country, from the mediocre to the robust, regurgitates articles about “going green” and the fear of a global calamity directly caused by mankind’s inability to limit CO2 emissions. First, the science presented by those like Al Gore in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been completely torn apart. It is understood that the rise in CO2 levels is the result of rising temperatures, not the cause. Our immensely powerful sun and other much more complex factors are the driving forces of global changes in climate. Second, it is an absolute impossibility for any American, unless they desire becoming a transient beggar, to “go green”. In order to succeed on any level as an American, you must have a permanent residence, transportation, a cell phone, professional clothes, access to technology and electricity. All of these contribute to CO2 emissions, and nobody is going to abandon them despite the false hysteria junk-science and the media have attempted to perpetrate. However, the end result of this diabolical contradiction is guilt. Americans are, once again, the victims of their own minds passing judgment on them for something they can neither change nor control. Survival in this culture demands a carbon footprint. Science has betrayed us viciously on this issue. Rather than seeking the true source of global climate change and working toward viable solutions to the possibility that our planet may dramatically change in the coming years, Science has instead dropped a guilt bomb on all of us and created a completely wasteful, dishonest billion dollar industry in the process.

These are only two of an infinite list of contradictions that play out in popular culture in America.

Ironically, most Americans would jokingly say that, “I don’t believe in philosophy, I have no need for it.” In truth, it is the contradictory pop-philosophy forced upon their subconscious that decides the values they admire and determines every choice they will ever make. Philosophy shapes our very essence, with or without our “belief” in it. You can either take control of your future consciously by adopting a philosophy in harmony with reality, or you can allow your subconscious to adopt the pop-philosophy rampant in American culture and condemn your mind to a lifetime of tortured guilt and helplessness. The choice is yours.

The Deceptive Beauty of Art’s Downward Spiral

2011-12-30T12:52:00.000-08:00

It is an intensely colorless morning. The entire sky is an icy pale grey and makes an afternoon promise of rain. Gusts of late December wind carry the first concrete notions of a new year as it shivers the sparse leaves still clinging to trees that line the neighborhood streets. Every so often, a dried orange-brown leaf gives up its hold on a branch and surrenders to the sporadic currents of the coming storm.

Have you ever taken time to watch a lone leaf descend from its birth place all the way to the ground? If the dried halves extending from the center stem are large enough and curved just right, it almost hangs in the air against the wind. It spirals and flutters, falls and skips a haphazard path all the way down. There is tremendous beauty in this descent, almost like a dance set to music only the leaf can hear.

Yes, I would say the downward spiral of a dead leaf on a particularly grey winter morning is quite a lovely sight to behold.

As I enjoyed this very event from my front stoop this morning, I was struck by an intriguing metaphor.

I am intensely drawn to the visual arts, both as an appreciator and creator. The dominant trend in art today is to glorify the most grotesque aspects of the human condition. For nearly all of my thirty-six years I have embraced this depiction whole heartedly, again, both as an appreciator and creator. I am saddened to admit that it never occurred to me to question the psychological impact of this horrific presentation of humanity as an ugly, writhing entity unable to transcend misery, rage and hopelessness.

In order to proceed, the proper function of art needs to be clarified. It must first be understood that visual art is a form of reducing vast, abstract concepts into a concentrated, single presentation. In the same way that 10¹⁰= 10,000,000,000, a single piece of art can work to represent massively complex philosophical ideas which are instantly tangible to the viewer. In essence, visual art is a phenomenal method of compressing the ever expanding knowledge of humanity, a kind of philosophical shorthand.

If all that we have accomplished and overcome—if our unlimited potential is sorrowfully absent from modern art—what possibilities can the future hold for us as a species? If the artists working today can find nothing in man but the grotesque, the suffering, the failures, the obliteration of hope, etc., what does that say about the state of the world’s predominant philosophy (or lack thereof)? Once art ceases to become an expression of our hard earned knowledge and successes of the past and future, it is reduced to nothing more than a temporary howl of hopelessness and no longer serves any interest except to defeat human intellect.

Art has devolved to a state in which any smear—even if it is literally excrement across a dirty piece of wood—can and is accepted as “art”. This is a fraud and an all out attack on human being’s ability to reason. The majority of people alive today have chosen to simply sidestep art, to ignore it in terms of any conscious, meaningful contemplation (much to the chagrin and bewilderment of the art world). This is because the human mind demands more from art than a pretentious mockery. An individual’s mind desires to look upon a piece of art and gain a deeper understanding of their own beauty, potential, and power. Because nearly all of the work presented as art today offers no such affirmation, because it is tragically devoid of any meaning at all, the majority simply ignores it and move on.

This is a violent attack on mankind’s only method of compressing vast philosophical awareness into accessible, immediate presentations. If an alien race were to appear in the sky and their only means of understanding human beings were via modern art, their view of us would be barbaric, irrational, helpless creatures with no sense of dignity or self-esteem. In truth, it is this very notion of man as a vile wretch that is being injected into the minds of our youth by modern art. This is why art continues to devolve with each passing generation, because each successive generation of artists is exposed to more and more depravity and emptiness in the art they grow up experiencing.

How does this relate to a leaf spiraling down from a tree branch?

While a leaf’s graceful, playful descent to the street below is most certainly beautiful, it can end only one way. The leaf is carried not by its own volition but by the whims of the wind. It comes to rest at the lowest point possible. Along with the other fallen leaves, it is gathered up and placed into a dumpster. It is hauled away and disposed of. In other words, the leaf is not capable of rising beyond the branch from which if fell. It must fall. And once it has fallen amidst the hordes of other leaves, it is thought of no more.

Similarly, while many pieces of modern art may be aesthetically beautiful (an image depicting the grotesque can be identified as a visually compelling work), they are nothing more than a leaf falling from a branch (modern art school), powerless against the currents of the wind (their own whims and emotion), powerless to rise rather than fall, powerless to become anything more than invisible in a sea of many, devoid of meaning and ultimately forgotten.

There is great talent on display in many modern works, and individual pieces can certainly be recognized as masterfully produced, but without the goal of concentrating the vast sum of human potential, what value can it possibly have to us? If art becomes nothing more than an excuse to shock the mind with its horrific message of human defeat, what right does it have to be called art? Art without meaning is not art. A novel consisting of incoherent gibberish cannot be defined as literature. A song consisting of nothing but a dial tone cannot be defined as music. A poop smear on a board cannot be defined as art, no matter how charismatic or insistent the perpetrator may be.

Human beings need art to affirm their great potential, now more than ever. Instead, we find ourselves buried beneath works created by minds capable only of honoring the grotesque emptiness of their own grotesque, empty philosophies.

The arts are dead. Long live the arts.

The Misappropriation of Words v1.0

2011-12-29T15:13:00.000-08:00

The word of the day: Selfish

The challenge of language is dominated by the human mind’s process of interpretation. A single word can have vastly different meaning depending on an individual’s life experiences, education, and circumstances. Most tension between two or more people escalates due to some form of miscommunication or varying perceptions of the same event(s) or statement(s). Further, much of the turmoil an individual experiences within themselves is caused by the adoption of an errant interpretation of a word, event, or situation.

The act of survival requires every living organism to be selfish. This certainly includes human beings.

When it comes to the concept of selfishness, spirituality has had the most impact in skewing the meaning of the word and creating a chasm of diverse interpretations. From a Christian* perspective, any and all forms of selfishness, despite the motivation, are considered a sin. Because Christianity has played such a major role in forming the hodgepodge morality of American culture, the idea of all selfishness being “evil” has more or less been adopted by all, whether they have chosen to implement Christianity as their dominant philosophy or not. This creates an immediate and highly destructive contradiction. Since the act of mere survival requires a human being to act selfishly to some measurable degree, needless guilt is an automatic burden carried by nearly all Americans, especially when you consider that the standard of living many “poor” Americans accept is far higher than much of the rest of humanity. While we concede without hesitation to an animal’s right to sustain its own life by means of acting selfishly, we tragically do not extend the same reason to our own existence.

If merely surviving were the ultimate concern of human beings, this would be the end of the discussion. However, in many parts of the world (developed countries), survival is only the foundation upon which we build our larger lives. In other words, to simply survive is not nearly good enough for most Americans, and rightfully so. The human drive to elevate existence beyond what was previously thought possible is a noble pursuit. Without that drive, much of the Earth would still be unexplored. Technology in all its forms would not exist. The sciences would have never developed. Our increased longevity, our heightened awareness of our planet and greater universe, our ability to traverse the globe at will, our vast networks of communication, thousands of years of art production and philosophy itself; none of these things would have come to fruition without the selfish act of mankind demanding more of its own potential.

The very activists who rail against human progress proceed to leverage every technology that very progress has delivered at their feet. There is a perverse notion today (most prevalent in the environmentalism “movement”) that if only human beings would cease being so selfish and return to the mud with the rest of Earth’s animals we could collectively achieve some undefined form of utopia despite all contrasting historical evidence.

I submit that without human beings’ ability to be selfish we would live in a perpetual state of stagnation; frozen in ignorance, trapped in fear and utterly helpless against the ebb and flow of our world.

Consider for a moment what your life would be if you truly acted on the popular morality of today regarding selfishness. Take every accomplishment you have ever been proud of, every self-improvement, every success that required long term commitment, every hour spent gaining knowledge, every instance in which you devoted time and energy to improving your mind, body, and circumstance; take the combined sum of these and erase them. What, possibly, could you be left with? In truth, there would be nothing left. You would be dead and buried. It is beyond debate that any human being who wholly embodied “selflessness” as defined by popular morality would not only perish, but also endure absolute disdain from every person they encountered before their premature demise. The contradiction is too obvious and vile to ignore. When we encounter a human being who has not, to at least some degree, devoted time to improving their own intelligence and/or abilities, we turn away in disgust.

Does this mean all forms of selfishness are moral? Of course not. There is an absolute method of determining the morality of any given act of selfishness. At the most basic level, any form of selfish behavior that causes unnecessary harm either to others or to oneself would be immoral. Armed with only this method of measurement, a human being can navigate most questions of morality concerning selfishness.

As a straight forward example: A husband who betrays his wife with another woman would commit harm to both himself and his wife. In contrast, a truly selfish man would comprehend that betraying the people one relies on daily creates monumental guilt and self-loathing, both of which severely harm that man’s ability to progress as a human being. A morally selfish man would also understand the incredible benefits of living with a partner who trusts, respects, and loves them. It is only the morally corrupt man who can possibly see any benefit to the betrayal in the first place.

The very concept of “being selfish” has been so skewed by pop-culture morality that the word no longer carries anything but a negative connotation. When was the last time someone referred to another person as selfish and intended it to be a compliment? The reality of being selfish is far removed from the accepted meaning by the majority. It is our ability to be selfish that has made possible all advancements throughout human history. Typically, it is one person’s obsession and total commitment to their individual achievement that leads to noteworthy breakthroughs in every field, from science to the arts.

The problem today is that there is no distinction between a morally selfish individual and an individual who acts selfishly without any concern about morality. In fact, it is the very notion that all acts of selfishness are “evil” by default that allows an individual to ignore the issue outright. Since being selfish is required to survive and, further, required to gain any kind of acceptance or recognition from one’s peers, each individual has no alternative but to accept their own “evil nature” and proceed to act selfishly. Unfortunately, they do so without any analysis regarding the morality of any particular selfishness. Without a method of measuring which acts of selfishness are moral and which are immoral, human beings are left to decide for themselves by way of their own whims in any given moment.

Next time someone tells you how selfish you are, ask yourself: Yes, but am I being morally selfish or immorally selfish? And you might try reminding them that being morally selfish is the right of every living organism, including human beings.

----------

This topic is monumental. Presented here is a bare bones framework of how the word “selfish” has been misappropriated by popular culture. Anyone desiring an in depth study of this topic is encouraged to read Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”.

----------

*For the life of this blog, I will most often be referencing Christianity in terms of American spirituality, predominately because it is the ideology I am most familiar with.

Formatting the Subconscious, Empowering Reason

2011-12-28T11:28:00.000-08:00

The philosophy we adopt as individuals shapes every decision we make every day of our lives. For most people, this all important guiding philosophy is a grab-bag of contradictory ideas about ethics and reality. Also, for many people, the philosophy that defines their values exists only subconsciously as an automatic response to reality rather than by way of conscious effort. The result of a contradictory philosophy placed on autopilot in a person’s subconscious is a life of tragic frustration, failure, and mental anguish that grows exponentially with age as an individual’s expectation or need for personal achievement becomes more dominant.

In other words, a person in their twenties who lives at the mercy of a destructive, subconscious, automatic philosophy might assume it is merely their youth at fault; a simple case of immaturity. After all, Americans live in a culture that expects little to nothing from its youth. Later in life, however, as one moves into their thirties, the expectations of family, friends, and peers rise dramatically. Unfortunately, when a human being has allowed their subconscious to deal with philosophical concerns rather than engaging ethics consciously and with full focus, their lives are dominated by fear and irrational whims accumulated by decades of automated, contradictory ethical responses to reality.

As all of us know, destructive habits die hard and only remain dead at the constant, conscious insistence of our mind’s full will. Kicking an addiction to nicotine is a struggle millions of Americans face daily. An entire industry of product, information, and resources has been devoted to assisting people in their desire to quit smoking cigarettes. With this in mind it is easy to grasp how difficult it is to cleanse the mind of a broken method of philosophy that has been at work in us since early childhood. If one is sincere about breaking the chains of an errant philosophy that cripples their forward progress rather than ensure it, than it is imperative to understand the process will require far more than the acceptance that your mind demands a philosophy in harmony with reality. It is not nearly enough for a smoker to voice their desire to quit smoking; the process of eliminating nicotine wholly from one’s existence is a process that requires total commitment over the long term.

Replacing a set of ideas that have been governing a person’s actions since childhood must be seen as infinitely more difficult than rejecting cigarettes. There is not an American alive today who can claim ignorance about the destructive nature of inhaling nicotine-laced smoke into the body’s lungs. The reasons to quit smoking are clear and beyond debate. Defining one’s personal philosophy in such black and white terms, especially if it has been subconsciously pieced together over a lifetime, is far more complex. Ironically, if a person succeeds in consciously integrating a philosophy that deals directly with reality and ethical absolutes rather than a sliding scale of abstractions, they will discover that conquering bad habits (like smoking) will pose little to no challenge.

Documenting the process of identifying, removing, and replacing my own errant philosophy with a philosophy capable of guiding me toward the values and achievements I know I am capable of is the purpose of this daily blog. It is imperative that I retrain my mind to consciously analyze reality and apply ethics to my life based on reason rather than emotion and pop-culture morality. My daily commitment to this blog ensures a daily commitment to intense mental focus regarding my reactions to reality and ability to achieve my goals within it. The end goal for me as an individual is to fully integrate a philosophy that is in total harmony with reality, and can therefore be leveraged to contend with every choice and challenge that arises in my life. Once I am able to make ethical decisions by way of reason rather than emotion, the dilemma of a tortured existence in which I am at the mercy of my own weaknesses will cease to dominate my awareness.

In short, it is my intention to transcend the ineffectual, cowering man-child I have become at age thirty-six and embody (by way of constant, conscious effort) the powerful, creatively competent, ethically perfect human being that is my birth right, a birth right shared by every human being alive today.