Pink’s Politics Philosophizes: The Real Enquiry

This post does not address a particular issue but rather the bigger picture of what, philosophically, is going on in our world right now.  I do not have any extensive formal training in philosophy but do enjoy reading the philosophers, both ancient and modern, and considering their points of view and how they might be playing out in our world today.  This post expresses some of those thoughts and is not intended (nor is it) a thorough analysis of the philosophies and philosophers discussed. 

 

We may think that the division in this country is political, but that is only because we are looking at what is going on through the traditional political lens.  Similarly, this is not a moral war.  While that may be closer to the truth, it still does not hit the mark.

What we are in the middle of in this country and perhaps the whole world is a war about humanity itself and against the abolition of mankind.   What we are in the middle of involves the consequences that have resulted from denying value systems that have sustained us for centuries and a belief that mankind has the power to create itself into some more perfect entity.

The old solutions (compromise, reasoned thinking and rational argument, faith in facts rather than narrative) do not work because this conflict is about more than individual ideas and policies; it is truly about who and what mankind is and what it should be.  And ultimately it is about ultimate power.  Recognizing the truth of what is happening is the first and very necessary step in reaching any sort of solution.

What is a Man (mankind)

Mankind is defined as “the human race: the totality of human beings.”  Human beings are “a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.”

Mankind is also traditionally believed to be graced with a soul.   Soul can be defined as “the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life” as well as “the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.”  

It is the brain as well as the soul that has traditionally distinguished mankind from other organisms.  Mankind is made up of individuals who, because of their individual brains and their intangible “souls” are each unique.  Each has individual – and yes, unequal – strengths and weaknesses.  Those, combined with the varying and sometimes unfair circumstances of life, mean that individuals may experience feelings of jealousy and dissatisfaction about their life circumstances in relation to others.

The concept of moral values

Throughout history mankind has been guided by a set of moral principles.  These principles are often religion based; indeed, the moral values upon which this country is founded are based in the Judeo-Christian belief system. 

For a moral structure/code of ethics/set of rules to work, there must be a belief or understanding that there is something beyond or outside of mankind that guides and enforces these principles.  That belief system usually also includes some form of immortality or life beyond this one; that life beyond is the carrot/stick that encourages mankind to conform to the value system it has adopted. 

When Nietzsche declared that God is dead it provided a means to remove moral codes.  As Kant had already asserted, “morality cannot do without God, freedom, and immortality.”

Nihilism

Nietzsche saw nihilism as the end of Christianity.  Once mankind declared God to be dead, there would be no moral codes based on immortality or on something greater than mankind itself.  These higher values, said Nietzsche, devalue man.  In nihilism man reaches a truth that “nothing is true, all is permitted” and thus contemplates the abysmal emptiness at the core of that truth.

Nihilism is defined as “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.”  Nietzsche, however, saw this as only one step on the path toward perfection of the Übermensch which in Thus Spoke Zarathustra he portrayed as the new race of super humans – a new aristocracy that would become the future rulers of earth.

Following the realizations of nihilism, Nietzsche saw man as moving to a new source of values, a new and truer life force: “a will to power in which life sacrifices itself for power.”   Nietzsche saw an admission that God has been murdered as a necessary prelude to the consummation of human power.

Dissatisfaction, alienation, hopelessness

Nietzsche lived and wrote in the latter half of the 1800s, concurrent with the industrial revolution and the overwhelming effect it had on the way of life throughout the world.

As industry, science, technology grew man became more and more able to control his world and his life.  While this had many positive consequences, it also helped to further if not full-blown nihilism, a sense of alienation and the meaninglessness of life.  Man was often seen as more of a cog in some vast industrial machine rather than an individual with unique talents, hopes, and dreams. 

Mankind became alienated from itself.  As dissatisfaction festered, secular ideologies stepped in to assuage the pain.  Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and other authoritarian and totalitarian systems presented their visions of a more perfect world. 

These visions, of course, were proven to not be the reality of what was offered.   Rather, what they did was to drive man to more despair and unhappiness.   Thus, we have reached a point where, as David Walsh has put it, “The age that began with the glory of the Renaissance, the bright expectations of the Enlightenment, and the energies of the scientific, industrial, and political revolutions has devolved into the horror, vacuity, and mediocrity of the [21^st] century.”

The false promise of science and technology

Yet, mankind continued to strive for that better world.  Technology could seemingly do anything as it continues to ease the hardships of living.  And scientific advancements seemed to make real the vision of better, if not super, humans.

Man could control life:  organisms were altered and created in labs; cures and treatments for previously deadly diseases prolonged life; clones of previously living entities were brought to life; infertile women were implanted with children to whom they could give birth; invitro surgeries could alter and preserve life.  It seemed that man did not need God.

Man believed he could and should have it all.  Every selfish desire could and should be satisfied.  Mankind began to believe it had a right to always be happy.  Indeed, man began to believe that he had a right to have and be whatever he desired.  If he was not happy it could and should be fixed.  A lack of happiness and satisfaction in one’s life became a source of anger at outside forces.  No longer did mankind see a need to search its own soul, no longer did man accept a reality that included despair.  Rules and moral codes that interfered with that belief were seen as old-fashioned and archaic. 

The problem is, that perfection is not a reality in this world.  It can be an aspirational goal, but one must realize it cannot be attained.  To believe otherwise is to deny the humanity of man.

The incredible nature of technological and scientific advances has given mankind a belief that it can indeed create its own reality.  With such a belief there is no need to look to some source outside of mankind for guidance and morality.  If one is unhappy they can just create a different self and a different narrative for that self.

And so, as we move forward with this approach, we begin to even throw out the truths of science.  If one is not happy with their sex, they can simply claim to be another one even though science contradicts this belief just as science denies the now common assertion that men can be pregnant and give birth.  Pre-born individuals whom science asserts are living humans can be disposed of at will.  We can create the reality we choose because without anything but ourselves we can create any world, any narrative, and any moral system that we choose.

Except that we can’t.

Of Science and the Soul

When mankind becomes nothing more than an object of experimentation, just another organism in the vast scientific universe, it loses its humanity.  Humanity is made up of unique individuals, individuals with unique souls as well as the biological organs and systems that keep them alive.  Humanity was not created by mankind and it is not a toy for mankind’s use and experimentation.

When man does not need God, man does not need God’s rules.  When man can create himself then he does not need a creator.  And when man can create, then man can create his own truth.  When man believes that this is true, then he does not need, or no longer has a soul because he no longer believes in something beyond the worldly manifestation of the mankind that he creates.

And without the soul that makes him man, mankind has effectively destroyed that which made mankind unique and human.  Mankind, in altering itself in pursuit of an idealized perfection, indeed destroys its own humanity.

The real problem

Our problem is two distinct philosophies that support two very different world existences, two different views of what mankind is or what it can and should be.  There are those who want to retain or return to “traditional values” and those who assert that humanity must move beyond those for the sake of things like equity (which is a code word for human beings with all individuality, freedom, and their very humanity removed). 

We treat these as a political divide.  But they are actually a philosophical chasm that reaches the existence or lack thereof of a human soul.  On one side of this gap are those who, for lack of a better word, believe in the soul.  That is, they believe that there is something outside of and beyond mankind and that gives mankind both a reason and a a basis for a code of morality

On the other side are those who believe that man is or can be fully in control of both what mankind is and of its own destiny.  To them the thoughts of man as a spiritual being, as beyond simply a living organism, is somehow archaic and a hurdle that must be removed from mankind’s progress toward some brave new world where mankind alone creates man.

It is this abyss between two very different views of mankind that is the underlying cause of our discord.  These views are not really reconcilable, but recognition of their existence may help us to find a way forward. 

It’s about power

We like to think that everyone is trying to better humanity.  But the truth is that those who turn away from mankind as it really is and instead embrace a concept of its hypothetical perfection are not seeking to better humanity’s actual existence in the real world.  Rather, they are seeking to enhance their own power.

When there is nothing outside of or beyond to exercise a moral authority over the desires of mankind, then there is no moral code beyond an unlimited belief in and desire for one’s own power.  That very belief is itself anti-human as it leaves to those with the most power the ability to determine what kind of humanity to create, what is to be considered good or true.  It leaves those with most power the ability to destroy the actual humanity, individuality, and uniqueness of mankind.

The questions that need to be resolved

The questions that must be answered are not about the immediate policies of Left and Right.  The questions that must be addressed and discussed are about the soul:  What is the soul?;  does man have a soul or is he just an organism more complex than but not really different from an amoeba?; and, most importantly, if mankind is its own creator, then who shall make decisions about what we will create and what, if any, moral code will be followed, and why?

If the power is to be fully granted to man rather than something beyond, then we must recognize that power is often selfish and includes the power to do evil.  We may be able to alter biological and superficial aspects of man, but we cannot alter the often selfish desires that drive any biological organism, including man.

This is neither a moral nor a political war.  It is a war about the very nature of mankind and whether we will acknowledge our limitations or, in refusing to do so abolish mankind itself.  This is the question that must be addressed if we are to resolve the current dystopia that envelops the world.