Softly In Our Arms, We Embrace The Disease Called Humanity.

It is a wonder that the modern mind does not look upon on the cosmos and not feel the weight of their irrelevance. What drives the human desire for petty evils such as power, reputation, and dominance, when faced with the scope of reality? No; this does not even come close to expressing the hilariously egocentric attitudes that we hold. Forget the fact that our bodies locate in an endless universe. We exist in but one of an infinite possible worlds; one of all configurations of the multiverse, of persons, of contingent facts, of dynamic events, and so on. In this world, time runs to an infinite extent. In this world, all causal events actualize among a split of hypothetical alternatives. In this world, we subsist in but one miniverse amongst an infinite run of universes that persist within an infinite hyperspace. So when you feel any sense of accomplishment for but one event, please take note that you simply shifted some atomic matter--perhaps influenced inept minds in response your change in events--located in a pixel-sized dot in objective quality space; 'flattened' and blurred in the running's of hyperspace. In essence you have done nothing; nothing for the long run anyway. And though that is not to say that anything transient is inherently meaningless, we do need to gain some perspective here.

Even our individualized intrinsic properties only hold in relation to objective universals that substantiate their meaning and relevance to the world. Mental content is an intrinsic reflection of the subject's state of mind -- i.e., to think of wealth is for something about your character to be that object. This may seem absurd on a prima facie basis, but it is the only solution to the dire prospects that cast a shadow over contemporary philosophy of mind literature. So when I see some mental object yearning for something evil or petty, then that is not necessarily a person with good character who is gone astray - it is, in some sense, a reflection of your character itself. In essence, your thoughts and attitudes are manifestations of your intrinsic character; your will. You persist only in relation to universals that precede you and that will persist after you.

And then there are the swine who defy the moral law despite the intrinsic irrationality to do so; the erroneous violation of truth and reason that is felt as strongly, if not more strongly, as when a subject contradicts themselves or believes a paradox. For an action to be immoral is for that action to have a wrong-making property about that substantiates an epistemological error insofar as it is relevant to actions (as opposed to thoughts). To commit a moral crime is not just some psychologically 'dirty' or 'unclean' thing, nor is it merely to earn the ire of society or the primitive deities you might believe in. It is the utmost violation of all that is and ever will be; a negation of fact, of absolute virtue - carrying it's infinite weight upon the soul. In the words of an 18th century idiot, Immanuel Kant: better that the world burn than to spare a single second of injustice.

Now we turn our attention to the metaphilosophical naturalists. The pigs who fundamentally misunderstand reason, experience, and identity. I will address the issues one-by-one:

(i) For the naturalist, mental content is reducible to a physiological pattern that is emergent from the contingent arrangement of matter that makes up a uniform brain with dynamic states. This includes any and all propositional content of your will and your beliefs. In other words, there is no autonomous reasoning going on (ever!) in this picture of the world. Any believed axioms, inferential derivatives, and so on, are the manifestations of electrochemical patterns that, individualized, are not about anything. There is no sense that one can 'believe' in naturalism because the very worldview strips mental events of all content. And similarly, there is no sense that one can make an epistemic case for naturalism: for this calls into suspect our justification for holding any and all beliefs, if their propositional contents are completely subject to the whims of a dead reality.

(ii) For the naturalist, qualia are some objective manifest insofar as they can be produced by brain states. So for me to experience pain is nothing more than c-fiber receptors to be firing off. It is important to realize that the questions here are ontological, not causal. Any dualist will accept that c-fiber receptors firing off are a sufficient causal explanation for my experiencing of pain, but it doesn't reveal anything about the underlying nature of pain. A problem facing physicalism is that of phenomenal transparency: it is intuitive to believe that when we experience a state of mind, or conceive of it, we thereby grasp their underlying nature; their underlying nature is not revealed to us as physical, so it is not. This is a naive line of argument that I actually think works: the burden on the physicalist is to countervail the prima facie basis of this belief. Onto thicker lines of argument, the physicalist cannot explain why causal and functional roles are equal to the experiences they correlate with. That is, knowing all the physical facts contained in the brain only detail you further with these correlative roles. They do not give you anything about the nature of the related experiences - indeed, we must rely on other conscious beings and their descriptions of what they are feeling for us to make such connections to these physical states. If we imagine that some phenomenologically void automaton was calculating and perfectly measuring everything in the natural world, then it would be impossible for it to predict conscious experience. Sure, the automaton could predict the social and linguistic roles that seem to persist in conscious minds - but consciousness itself would be strangely absent from it's predictions, precisely from the fact that the automaton itself is not conscious. In addition, mental properties cannot be the realization of some physical property because the paradigm that any individual mental property falls under can be realized by different physical states. So that pain felt by animals and humans are all pain, yet come as a result from different physical properties. An advanced version of physicalism, named Functionalism, is popular these days and avoids problems with multiple-realizability. However, it still struggles with the traditional problems of qualia, identity, and intentionality.

(iii) For the naturalist, persons are either persistent physiological patterns reducible to the stuff of physics or a unified biological organism. This view of identity is counter-intuitive and insufficient in the face of certain thought experiments. If we were to slit a person’s brain into two halfs and transplant them to other bodies, then the answer from the substance dualist is that the soul dies and two new ones emerge. Any other alternative to the substance dualist, further-fact view of identity carries erroneous consequences. However, this is more of an analytic problem with physicalism. What is at the heart of the problem is existential: physicalism denies autonomy and is fundamentally dehumanizing. To exist is to make choices; our every action and reaction are manifestations of the content of our will and are under the guise under the form of our will - even subconscious physiological reactions are phenomena that are a result of our choices. We bear the ultimate responsibility for everything that we do and ever will do - under any state. To be human in the phenomenal sense of the word is to recognize your autonomy, to take responsibility, and to exercise your will to purposes that are conducive to weighted reason. Materialism denies this autonomy; it is committed to some cosmic and sometimes biological determinism - that our ‘choices’ are necessitated by the causal chain and nothing more.

It is remarkable that even existential nihilists and materialists who cannot hold that they are doing anything with (literal; linguistic) meaning can still be egocentric automatons who's only purpose is to facilitate any means to self-validation and external conquest. The concern for one’s ego is but a misguided lie: the real reflection of your identity is already substantiated and atemporal - the form of your will is not transient in the way that it’s content is. Achievements are meaningless both on a cosmic level and a relative one unless they are aligned with objective virtue. In that, very little is needed in terms of scope and magnitude - but such measures can help if done for the right reasons and in the right conditions. So what society thinks or what your peers approve of is not what is irrelevant, it is the virtue you caricature through your actions and thoughts.

And now, at last, we turn to the skeptic. The lazy psuedointellectual who questioned some previously held belief once in his life and down with it went the house of cards. There are two meaningful forms of skepticism: a priori and a posteriori skepticism. The a priori skeptic believes that we cannot rationally justify and and all of our beliefs on the basis that any axioms or epistemological justification systems are arbitrary, or viciously regressive or circular. The a posteriori skeptic thinks that our belief in the external world is unjustified. Interestingly, both forms of skepticism rest on fallacies: a priori skepticism is self-refuting in that they undermine the inferential basis for their belief and their reasoning that led them to doubt our knowledge; similarly the a posteriori skeptic is begging the question because their skepticism requires representationalism (that we have an indirect perceptual ‘access’ to reality; that what we see are not the rough caricature of external objects, but merely mental images) or otherwise it must collapse into a priori skepticism, or establish that representationalism is true. For if a direct realist theory of perception is true, then our belief in the external world is justified on a foundational basis. In detail, the a priori skeptic fails to recognize the phenomenological basis of judgement; that all beliefs are held on the basis of certain propositional attributes, how things seem true to us. To deny the knowledge is to deny that any state of “it seems to me that P” is inherently justifying is a move refutes itself because what lead to the denial of this principle is in the process of it’s facilitation: to reject it is to base some set of inferential beliefs that assumes it.

In our immediate vicinity is the most ghastly of pigs: the politician; the liar. They exploit the flawed democratic process to elect themselves into positions of power, to flaunt their reputation and ability over others and make themselves feel accomplished. When an individual has made it as far as the senate, they are inherently untrustworthy - for corruption is but a necessity to reach this level of politics. So presidential/minister elections are dirty from the start, no candidate is truly worthy of your vote. And what ties closely in with politics, decreasingly so in the past centuries, are the institutions of classical religion. For this I indict the clergyman. They live to facilitate delusion, to keep you blind and docile - either so that you give the money, power, or representation. They do not uphold the so-called virtues that they preach, to them they are mere combinations of sonic waves that they have noticed affect their audience. Any proposition uttered by this type of filth can be assumed false on an axiomatic basis.

Not limited to ‘specialized’ individuals and groups are the everyday man; “the peasant”; the average, confused mind that is wandering aimlessly among city streets. They remain complacent and subsist in mediocrity by their own volition. Yes, flaky education resources and social upbringing do have their effects, but a subject is only reflexive to their environment insofar as their intrinsic properties allow it. We sustain our nature voluntary and shape its currents with our every action, so to try to relinquish your responsibility in the matter because “that is just who we are” is a laughable attempt to escape the moral burden we all carry on our backs. The everyman consumes poorly researched media who facilitate the political representations of their sponsors. He believes what he is told with little thought or analysis. He lives to consume, reproduce, and produce just barely enough to replenish what he takes. The everyman refuses to grasp their own underlying nature; choosing instead to externalize their identity into the mundane things of modern life. He is but one among the zombies that walk the streets; 9-5; barely alive.

And last, but not least, is the statist. The propaganda machine that perpetuates the interest of public institutions who exist to extend the consequence of their nature, for institutions perpetuate a collective’ will’ that is neither free nor autonomous. They exist to extend the reach of their own power, and will inevitably do so unless they are stopped or ignored. We are smart enough to understand the defects in human nature, but we then decide that it is a good idea to elect humans to govern other humans to constrain the consequential results of human nature. This is nonsensical; power lust and abuse are results of human nature that carry over across individuals when they enter public government structures. They do not magically become paragons of virtue. A common trend among statists is their blatant lack of imagination: if government currently provides X, then X could not possibly exist or be facilitated in some form without government. I swear to God that if the state had a monopoly on apples, people would think that apple production and sales would be impossible without the government monopoly. A special something, kept locked and safe in reserves, is what the statist absolutely loves to polish and brandish: their cherished consequentialism card. That is, some public law has a proper normative basis if it can be shown to obtain some desirable or effective outcome. And while it can be generally shown that all goods and services are more effectively delivered under free markets, I do not believe in speaking under their paradigm. Typical in political discussion is the entirely question-begging notion that your average form of society-focused consequentialism is a ‘moderate’ stance and that anyone attesting to the contrary is but a wingnut. What this problem comes from is the confusion people have between the socially desirable and the moral - that is, they separate “moral claims” into something more metaphysically focused or religious; failing to recognize that the proper function of social institutions is inherently a normative claim.

I thus conclude that despite our maximal potential we choose to sell our souls and live as collectivized meatbags running scared until we die. And how do we utilize the brief moments in time we are allotted? We procrastinate but cut corners to extend our personal power, we seek self-validation through meaningless social constructs and through irrelevant contests for dominance, we deceive ourselves with false information and suspect beliefs - making sure that we leave our tainted mark to persist intergenerationally. And even when we have the self-awareness and honesty to admit all of this, we maintain the status quo and outright refuse to do anything about it. I hate you all.
Madej Madej
22-25, F
2 Responses Nov 4, 2012

To say your last words – I hate you all


Then the outer world is a reflection of your inner world
How you see the outside is your inner dialogue you are having with you.

You do have the choice how you end your days
You do have a choice to make a huge difference

Do you see the world through the eyes of depression?

Is that why you said “I hate you all”

wow you obviously walk around in a web of lies about yourself and what you see. either that or you have very little life experience or choose to ignore human history.

when you see a supposed deep christian dying and so afraid of death and begging for every treatment option there is to stay alive... puking, reeking and ugly...what is there to like?

when humans are immortal this would be the only thing that would change things for me. instead humans try to achieve this psychologically by having more babies.

I am now starting to think that humans are so nasty because they can talk. Over 90% of the human brain is used for physiological processes. You don't believe me? Try slamming your head on a brick wall and see if you can still see or walk straight or if you can hold your pee. Wait there is Stephen Hawking hmm...anyhow, do you know what your innards look like? no you can't because you cannot see them.

Have you seen roadkill before such as a dead deer. Does another deer say "that deer was so bad he deserved it" or another say " that deer was so stupid" or another say "that deer was so beautiful and good, only the good die young". No because it's just a deer with no life!

Intellectually thinking, I think you are wrong that people are responsible for their actions. Are you having the urge to molest a child or to make love to a cadaver but you are able to resist? If not, why do some have those urges and not others? However, you see I do believe in capital punishment.

Maybe you are living off someone else's hard earned money or have PMS so if you have that much time on your hands why not learn a little empathy? I mean where does the food you eat come from? Who built your shelter? You're not self-sufficient are you? You need people no? Who are you going to turn to for help. I guess you're computer.