In my HORT 2000 class today (just an elective, mind you), we had another professor fill in for Dr. Berle, the official professor of the class. I don’t remember his name, and don’t care to, but he began his lecture talking about water conservation and legislature. My focus isn’t on his lecture, but something specific he had said: “As many of you know, life is full of contradictions.” It didn’t surprise me that someone would recycle that bromide, but it did bother me. I wanted to raise my hand and say, “No, actually, I don’t.”
By making such a statement, the professor was confessing his metaphysical notion that reality and the way things ought to be are irreconcilable. Like many other people I’ve heard use this statement or a variation of it, this professor indicated a reality based in subjectivism and mysticism. In other words, the universe is unknowable, and for each universal law, whether physical or abstract, there is another one that negates it. The universe cannot be in contradiction of itself because it doesn’t satisfy the axiom of identity. A=A, A≠B. The professor’s ideas of what “ought to be” may be in contradiction of each other, but objective reality and the laws that govern it cannot. Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged, “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” Logic may follow any sequence of reasoning, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is consistent with reality.
The professor’s subjectivism in practice is especially ominous in ethical terms. It entails that any individual must necessarily live in contradiction to either reality itself, or his/ her beliefs. Living in contradiction to reality leads to death, unless the individual has a parasitic relationship with other individuals or institutions. Living in contradiction to one’s beliefs eventually leads to a near-nihilistic moral relativity, which ultimately sacrifices oneself and/or others to whatever vague, gray moral-at-the-moment whim oneself may conjure. Politically, traces of this philosophy can be observed world-wide, and the results are disastrous. I give as an example any socialist, fascist or mixed-economy government.
It is for these reasons that I do not practice altruism. I once heard a Christian pastor say, “Jesus was a great guy, but in reality it doesn’t always work.” It didn’t surprise me when he said it. Altruism is the subordination of the individual to others. Whether “others” means society and/or an ethereal being depends on the ideology or religion. Either way, “others” is only a vaguely defined group of individuals. To subordinate any individual or group to another individual or group is to involve the expense or sacrifice of one to the other. There is no way of evaluating who should be subordinated to whom, but whatever the case, altruism remains a slave morality.
Most people are familiar with this saying, which accurately captures the essence of altruism: “It is better to give than to receive.” Inherent in this statement is a slippery slope. It’s not saying explicitly that it is wrong to receive, but it implies that as you receive more favors or gifts you become less virtuous. To be a good person you must increase your degree of self-neglect and increase serving or giving to others. But if this is true, then doesn’t it follow that those you have served become less virtuous as they receive your gift or service? It is a lose-lose situation: the benefactor loses that which improves or sustains the quality of his/her life and the beneficiary becomes less virtuous. But let me clarify, I am not condemning helping others as evil, but it should be done out of rational self-interest, and the interaction between the benefactor and the beneficiary should be voluntary for each party. I personally find it much more endearing when someone does me a favor because they want to, not because of an arbitrary duty or obligation. It’s much more sincere that way, and that is what I seek when I do a favor for someone.
I’m going to shift gears to the subjective element of altruistic ideologies. It’s my understanding that most world religions, such as Islam or Christianity, value altruism as their moral code. And it’s noticeable how the negation of the individual reflects in adherents. In fact, Christianity explicitly teaches that no one’s actions, no matter how good, will ever be good enough; it is only through Jesus Christ’s grace that people may be admitted into Heaven. I have seen some self-proclaimed Muslims and Christians defy their doctrines without actual intent to improve their spiritual character. For example, these doctrines, and correct me if I’m wrong, explicitly prohibit inebriation induced by mind-altering substances such as alcohol or drugs. From my experience, even when you acknowledge this for the sake of curiosity, the typical reactions in subscribing individuals are: “No one is perfect, you know” or “You’re being judgmental” or “God will forgive me”. Notice that it is not the validity of the claim that is being challenged, but rather that the acknowledgment was made at all. It is a confession that such doctrines are impossible to practice because they deny value to the individual. Because they are so existentially helpless, it seems that these people resort to other subjective realities as provided by alcohol or drugs. For them, reality is just a series of contradictions, so it’s okay to them to slip in hedonistic behavior and enjoy it for a little. Secular altruist ideologies share common ground. However, they replace God with “society”. Again, this is the same type of subjectivism that the professor implied in his statement – reality and the way things ought to be are irreconcilable.
Ultimately, the mind, or the consciousness, is the victim. Subjectivism seeks to eliminate objective reality and replace it with whatever the mind chooses it to be, or to vanish it entirely. However, simply closing your eyes won’t make the sun go away; you will still get sun burnt. Reality is independent of the mind and cannot be wished, slept, drunk or smoked away. To try and impair your mind in such ways can only result in the destruction of yourself physically and/or psychologically. Sometimes it is destructive to others as well. In my own life, I have experienced people hurting themselves and others in such ways. While wanting to wish away reality on a bad day or get balls-to-the-wall drunk having fun seem convenient or pleasurable, they are merely facades hiding a greater problem. On the other hand, I have known plenty of individuals, including myself, who enjoy life and have fun without the necessity of false realities, liquid courage, gorilla biscuits, etc. In other words, you do not need a personality-steroid to improve your ability to better your day or to have fun. It can only lead to short-term gratification and personality “shrinkage”. I myself don’t mind having a drink with friends as long as I do it within moderation. Although, I’ve noticed that because I’m laughing and sweaty while I’m dancing or goofing off, folks will think that I must be drunk, but it is not the case. It’s as if they believe the beer tap is the Fountain of Youth, and to have fun I must have slurped a lot right out of that tasty spout. Notice how they're blind to the value of the individual mind?
I know this is a lot drawn off of a single statement, but in my opinion it’s more important than it seems for the reasons I mentioned above. I believe the only way to have a life-long, benevolent relationship with oneself and others is to refuse the subjectivist and altruist philosophies. It’s not my intention to condescend or point fingers. I don’t get off on things like that which will only waste my time, as well as the time of any of you who read this. I only want to convey what I believe to be the objective truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment