Internal Revolution - Part 1
I wrote this at least a year ago. I believe some of it today, some of it I don’t, but I wanted to publish content . I think it’s important to dialogue with our past to ensure we grow in the future, so over a couple of blog posts I’ll post this longer older writing, then I will respond to it. This will take a few posts.
I think I’m having an interpersonal political and moral revolution. Not in the sense that my worldview is flipping on its head, but in the sense that enough of my foundation needs to change for a stronger conviction of my purpose in life.
So, who am/was I? I placed absolute value in the individual, but my argument for doing so was due to a belief that intrinsically my business is mine unless it harms another, and I don’t care about others. I thought it wise to shut up because in my world only I matter.
I know this is false, I knew it as well, but the point wasn’t to have a wall that can’t be broken by the logic of others (except it was ironically), my logic was to prevent my personal failure by focusing only on myself and how others and my actions affect me.
The ultimate weakness of my argument was that I wasn’t considering how others affect me; not in the sense of the typical how others affect me from day to day, because I have arguments for not caring about that and I’ve argued them constantly. This is from the sense that I am not under attack by the selfish desire of other individuals, but that a form of collective is real (I knew that), but that it’s necessary (that I previously didn’t believe). For society to function properly. It’s hard to explain the difference between what I know to be true versus what has been explained to me that society believes to be true. The best I can do today is that every argument I heard before this revolution for a need of collective is still wrong, the answer is simple but profound, but I do not have the words for it that the general populous would like. Regardless, a collective is necessary to prevent the death of the individual as a concept. Not in some political means that a communist or socialist would argue, nor in a sense a capitalist or a social justice warrior would argue.
Not in a sense where we protect particular groups of people, but all people who are virtuous, logical, and worthwhile. No, I’m not following Hitler here, because the next qualifier is fundamental. The collective (or collectives) does NOT decide who is in it, the individual does. The individual must determine if that collective is good, that they follow some form of usable truth and then join said collective. If they determine they are part of a collective they disagree with they need to, with knowledge and evidence (something lost in today’s debates) found in empirical ways to prove the collective wrong.
What?! Exactly. It’s weird. The thesis to my individualism is strangely antithetical to itself.
Either you’re with me or I lost you, that’s beside the point, let’s attack my thinking here, and hopefully I clear things up.
How does the world work? I believe something either is, or it isn’t. At the root of all things is black or white, shades of grey are just concepts not quite determined to be black or white.
Is there an ultimate truth? Yes.
Do you know it? No.
How do you know it? Because I believe in utility, not absoluteness. I have my moral system, my convictions, and I’ll be damned to betray them.
What is your moral system? An oversimplification of it is to take religions like Christianity and boil off the bullshit. Be a good person.
Who determines what’s good? This is a bad question because the answer is either one of three answers. Remember I said the world is black and white, but I don’t know the ultimate truth. Either A. Goodness is a uniquely human idea and therefore doesn’t exist because there is no metric to measure it outside of our narrow-minded view of the world. B. There is an all-powerful force/Deity/vibe or whatever word you want to use that is the example of good. This poses multiple problems that are not answerable with our current understanding of the universe and it can be argued that we will never understand it because it is greater than we are. If we could understand it then it doesn’t exist because a system cannot be greater than the sum of its parts. C. I determine what’s good, and since different people have different values of what’s good, true goodness doesn’t exist.
A and C mean true goodness, and by extension truth in morality doesn’t exist due to a lack of metric to measure it against. B means we will never know it because that metric is fundamentally unattainable. By extension the best we can do is guess and hope we are right if B is the case.
Keep in mind this is an old writing and is not fully representative of what I believe. If it wasn’t for Cancel Culture, I wouldn’t have to state this obvious fact.
Let me know your thoughts.