Taking a break from emotional outpouring and the like. Writing (typing?) about such things can be very exhausting, so I feel a brief sabbatical from my feelings is required tonight...
What I am choosing to go on one of my delusional rants about tonight is a topic that has been hotly debated and reviled in pretty much every circle in history: Faith and religious belief... Or in my specific case, my lack thereof. Now, before I continue, let it be said that these are my personal beliefs, and as such should be taken with a grain of salt. People are entitled to whatever ideas they want to have, and whatever faith they choose to hold. So, because of all this, I'm going to attempt to not single out any particular faith structure here, except where it's significant as an example. If nothing else, my opinions here are pretty much worthless anyways... That's not self-deprecation, that's sincerity. I'll explain soon...
I think the first question asked here is how do I define myself, religiously? Well, to be honest, I do not identify myself as anything religiously. What do I believe in? Nothing. While this technically put's me in the same category as Atheists, I don't feel that entirely sums up my belief on the world and everything in it. While I share the belief that the idea of an externalized divine entity is far-fetched, and the concepts behind intelligent design have far too many logic holes than to be feasible; I also find that Atheism, too, fails to adequately explain everything... But then again, I also find myself asking what does any of this really matter.
Let's not beat around the bush here, not dance around the labels. I'm not so concerned with identifying with anything religiously, so much as I'm concerned with identifying philisophically. So, I'm going to be straight up here. I am a Nihilist.
I feel that Nihilism is something that is very much misunderstood. Many assume that it is a belief in nothing. Others see it as a villainizing of societal mores and the status quo. While it encompasses both of those concepts, it is both more simplistic and significantly more complex than that. To put it in plain terms, Nihilism is the belief that nothing has any form of existential value, that no state/condition is any more desirable than another, and that no state/condition is in any way permanent or enduring. At a very basic level, Nihilism is about embracing and excepting the eventuality of decay, and the inherent meaninglessness of existence...
Now, I know alot of you are going to read that, and say "Jeez, dude, that's really fucking bleak.". Well, yeah it is, but ya know what, the world is a pretty fucking bleak place to begin with. Regardless of that fact, alot of the negativity associated with Nihilism comes from out own biased perceptions. Anything can look really fucking bad when viewed in the right (wrong?) light. On the flip side, a lot of things can look insanely good in the right light. It's something that's not to hard to find examples of... How many of us have gone out to the local drinking hole on any given evening and ended up spending an evening (in the very filthy, very dirty carnal sense) with a member of the opposite sex, only to find out the next morning that they weren't anywhere nearly as attractive as you remembered them? Beer goggles are a bitch. Happens to the best of us. But, for points of argument, that kind nicely illustrates the importance of perception as it pertains to Nihilism... When speaking about values, or the idea thereof, a distinction should be made. There is the idea of inherent or existential values, and then there are personal or perceived values. I believe it's the ambiguity of this distinction in values in which Nihilism get's it bad reputation. When speaking of values from the stand point of the Nihilist, it is inherent values that are being discussed.
So let's draw this distinction, first by discussing inherent values. Inherent values are, in theory, some baseline indicator of what something is worth, and the difference in it's worth in comparison to any other perceiveable thing. The issue arises with inherent value in trying to figure out from where such a value template is drawn. In simpler terms, how do we determine value in the first place? I think an example needs be drawn here...
Take a book. What exactly is this book, really? On it's essential, existential level, it is simply a series of sheets of pulped and dried vegetable matter bound together and marked with black ink. The actualy experience of reading the book boils down to little more than the firing of a handful of neurons in your brain; and expereience that can be duplicated by literally any other experience to be had. Or, for a better example, take a diamond. A diamond is nothing more than carbon molecules, the very same found in nearly all organic matter, arranged in a specific pattern so as to be exceedinly dense and an excellent refractor of light. Normally, they are naturally occuring; however, as science has advanced, we have found ways to artificially create diamonds; including a process in which the ashes of the deceased and cremated can be used. So, on a very basic level, a book, a diamond, and a fistful of cremation ashes are effectively the same. Really, when you actually take the time to look at things impersonally, the same can be said of everything in existence. Now, when everything has the exact same inherent value, a logic paradox is created in which we realize that in truth, the concept of inherent value is an illusion, and that everything is truly worth nothing.
The same here can easily be said for things less physical, such a ideas, concepts, and most importantly, morality. I would say that even more of a case can be made here, as none of these things have any true physical composition, and exist solely as intellectual conjecture. What, exactly, is an idea worth, and more importantly, what is the difference in worth when held against another idea? Impossible questions to answer on a baseline level. Morality is probably best used as an example here, as morality is something everyone identifies with. The truth of the matter, is that no action/idea/belief is preferable to any other, as all actions are conceivably justifiable given circumstances. Is Murder really bad when it is used to save lives? Is Love really all it's cracked up to be if it can leave one insane and destitute? Good and Evil are entirely relative and subjective concepts; one is required to define the other. This creates circle logic, which is at it's core, flawed. Therefore, the very fundamental ideas of Good and Evil are rendered flawed and immaterial, and by proxy, Morality; which is fundamentally composed by both concepts... Now, again, the understanding needs to be made here between inherent and perceived values. In the above examples, we are simply speaking of the inherent, not the perceived. Perceived values are just that, the personal value we grant any given thing. I find nothing wrong with this. Using some of the above examples, a great many people enjoy the experience of reading a good book; and anyone that has ever bought jewelery knows how fucking expensive diamonds are. If Murder were suddenly legalized, we would collapse as a society in short order. And hey, who doesn't fucking love being in Love? These type of values exists because we, as both an individual and a species, are able to quantify value by means of experience and comparison. We can easily decide if we like one thing over another. That is basic human nature, and in many cases, a hardwired survival tool....
The problem comes into play, however, when an organization or civilization as a whole mistakes perceived values for inherent values. This is why I have such a strong dislike for organized religion and most political hierarchy. This is how horrible shit happens. What happens when anyone is given arbitrary authorithy to declare perceived values to be inherent? Well, let's look to history for example... A certain mad despot by the name of Hitler got it into his head that it would be an excellent idea to commit acts of genocide. At least a dozen innocent men, women, and children were drowned or burned at the steak in Salem. A large arm of the Catholic Church decided it was a great idea to torture, interrogate, and murder nonbelievers en masse... and that happened TWICE in history, by means of both The Crusades and The Inquisition. And let's not forget pretty much EVERYTHING Scientology has ever done... Clearly, declaring anything to be arbitrarily right leads to a lot of stupid, hideous shit to happen...
So there you have it. My "religious" views, and why I think organized religion and political extremism is a fucking herpes outbreak on the crotch of the world...
Then again, the argument can be made that my views and beliefs are just as equally worthless, so perhaps it's best to take this with a big grain of salt...
No comments:
Post a Comment