fallen camarade
27th April 2004, 16:01
I've come to a point in my life where I find most of human activities to be, well, somewhat useless. People can work, getting money for material items that they don't need that end up meaning nothing in the end, seeing as how no one is remembered for how nice their couch was. The forms of amusement that are reachable only with the use of currency are also somewhat monotonous and are only enjoyable for that day, and remembering them for a few days after that. It seems like meaningless repitition, so creating your own kind of amusement seems to be the most valid way of living. Live life to the fullest, don't work your life a way, etc., etc. It's an all to familiar philosophy.
The reason I mention it, is because I have always found that the natural world is the most......"honest". Many of our questions can be answered by looking into nature, or what some would call "natural law". For instance, I have had an ongoing debate with a friend of mine about the valildity of killing or murder. I gave the scenario, to be brief, of a homeless man in the city with no chance of getting a job, or any other means of keeping himself alive. If he were to see a modern man with a few bags of groceries, on philosophical terms, I see the homeless man killing the man with the groceries for the sake of getting food to be more than justifiable if he has the ability to do so, on the grounds that in nature, we call this survival of the fittest, and is ethically sound, while in our own civilization, we call it murder, and are even willing to kill the murderer to express our utter disguist of such a thing. If the homeless man is able to carefully plot out the attack, catch his victim off guard, avoid being caught, and is thus able to feed himself, is he not the fittest in this situation? Why do we call this cowardly in our civilization, when with any other species, it is considered to be skillful and a promise of a good life to have such an ability?
Well, the answer is simple....we are not those other species. We are human beings and thus act differently from other life forms on this planet, but the thing is, that in our minds, we still possess those primal elements. As Nietzche would ask, is not all actions of man simply in desire to rise to some sort of power? Power, in this day and age, can have it's meaning in the most obvious of context, of having power over others in authority and such, but can also be as simple as gaining the respect of a few peers you know of, to the point where if you requested a favor of them, they would do it. That is a will to power. Not trying to be forceful on them, but any sort of social position, even in a minor setting, is a position of a power of some sort.
With this in mind, it is obvious that there is a sort of dichotemy where this "natural law" and man's modern mind coexist, despite how opposite they are on many levels. The issue, is that I can not find the balance. For instance, the mind of man angle of warfare and politics says that all are created equal, and that each and every being has just as much right to live as any other. Being an American, this is an obvious issue, dealing with the "war on terrorism". I speak of how cowardly it is to do the things we do in the middle east, and how killing the innocent is ethically wrong, and how it is only for America's savage will to expand their power as far as they can all over this planet. On the other hand, is my natural law standpoint of, "is this really wrong?". Of course, I don't find it in my power to take someone's life, due to being conditioned to be the human of today, but philosophically, it is a will to power. America wants to extend their power and authority....well, if they can do it, and there is not an opposition enough to stop it, is America not the fittest nation?
I could elaborate more on this confusion to paint a better picture of it, but don't have the time, not to mention many will not want to read much more than what I have so far. I think the general idea has been presented clear enough. I find many of my opinions that were once very solid to be crumbling in the confusion as to what is really "just"; the man, or nature? I don't know. Which one is more justifiable to look to for answers? If there is not an answer to that, and there is a balance, where do I find the balance? Under what situations should I look to one or the other? When I really think hard about this, I find that I really have very few answers.
What do you all think about this matter, and does anyone have any suggestions?
The reason I mention it, is because I have always found that the natural world is the most......"honest". Many of our questions can be answered by looking into nature, or what some would call "natural law". For instance, I have had an ongoing debate with a friend of mine about the valildity of killing or murder. I gave the scenario, to be brief, of a homeless man in the city with no chance of getting a job, or any other means of keeping himself alive. If he were to see a modern man with a few bags of groceries, on philosophical terms, I see the homeless man killing the man with the groceries for the sake of getting food to be more than justifiable if he has the ability to do so, on the grounds that in nature, we call this survival of the fittest, and is ethically sound, while in our own civilization, we call it murder, and are even willing to kill the murderer to express our utter disguist of such a thing. If the homeless man is able to carefully plot out the attack, catch his victim off guard, avoid being caught, and is thus able to feed himself, is he not the fittest in this situation? Why do we call this cowardly in our civilization, when with any other species, it is considered to be skillful and a promise of a good life to have such an ability?
Well, the answer is simple....we are not those other species. We are human beings and thus act differently from other life forms on this planet, but the thing is, that in our minds, we still possess those primal elements. As Nietzche would ask, is not all actions of man simply in desire to rise to some sort of power? Power, in this day and age, can have it's meaning in the most obvious of context, of having power over others in authority and such, but can also be as simple as gaining the respect of a few peers you know of, to the point where if you requested a favor of them, they would do it. That is a will to power. Not trying to be forceful on them, but any sort of social position, even in a minor setting, is a position of a power of some sort.
With this in mind, it is obvious that there is a sort of dichotemy where this "natural law" and man's modern mind coexist, despite how opposite they are on many levels. The issue, is that I can not find the balance. For instance, the mind of man angle of warfare and politics says that all are created equal, and that each and every being has just as much right to live as any other. Being an American, this is an obvious issue, dealing with the "war on terrorism". I speak of how cowardly it is to do the things we do in the middle east, and how killing the innocent is ethically wrong, and how it is only for America's savage will to expand their power as far as they can all over this planet. On the other hand, is my natural law standpoint of, "is this really wrong?". Of course, I don't find it in my power to take someone's life, due to being conditioned to be the human of today, but philosophically, it is a will to power. America wants to extend their power and authority....well, if they can do it, and there is not an opposition enough to stop it, is America not the fittest nation?
I could elaborate more on this confusion to paint a better picture of it, but don't have the time, not to mention many will not want to read much more than what I have so far. I think the general idea has been presented clear enough. I find many of my opinions that were once very solid to be crumbling in the confusion as to what is really "just"; the man, or nature? I don't know. Which one is more justifiable to look to for answers? If there is not an answer to that, and there is a balance, where do I find the balance? Under what situations should I look to one or the other? When I really think hard about this, I find that I really have very few answers.
What do you all think about this matter, and does anyone have any suggestions?