Reconciling Science and Human Existence, or The Cheerful Existentialist

I don't have a definite plan in mind for this post. What often happens though, is that as I write it forces me to think deeper and deeper about a subject until I end up somewhere i never planned to be.

I'll start by assuming a fundamental base of science and logic, in things like evolution, modern cosmology, etc. Recent work that I've seen by Stephen Hawking and other string theorists suggest that universes themselves have the capacity to spontaneously spring into being. I won't go into the details of how this work, mostly because I dont understand them myself (though i encourage you to google around for it yourself), but what I will focus on is how this affects human purpose. This base-principle immediately cancels out a need for god(s) as we commonly understand the term, although if you want to call the elusive theory of everything god, then go right ahead.

This essentially rules out objective purpose to human existence, leaving only subjective purpose or that which we give ourselves. On first glance, this seems to be very dark and sobering, and this is the wrap that existentialists have been dealing with since the philosophy's inception. I disagree. Liberated from the shackles of someone or something else giving purpose and meaning to us, we are free to choose our path for ourselves and make our lives what we want them to be. This freedom can be a burden for the indecisive and the submissive, but for others it is empowering to an extraordinary extent. It may be corny to quote Palahniuk, but it think it applies here: "It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything."

Ruling out objective purpose also has ramifications for human morality. The lack of something objective to give us morals again implies that they're inherently subjective. I basically covered this in "Why Every Moral Philosopher Ever to Philosophize Was Wrong", so I won't go into great detail here. This too has a bright side however, in that we are free to act with or against our societally agreed-upon morals because we choose to. Not because we face divine retribution if we don't. This is why people who use "atheist" with a negative connotation implying 'immoral' realllly piss me off. I have faith (somewhat ironically) in humanity in that we can act morally towards each other because we choose to, not because we face eternity in a pit of fire if we don't. Ghost stories like those keep immature minds in subjugation. Mature minds know better then to fear the boogeyman.

Life itself appears to be the product of the energy, matter, and fundamental dimensions of our universe. Meaning that given the prerequisite proteins and certain other conditions, life will inevitably be produced. Besides precluding the existence of a god, I think this impacts us in that it pierces the concepts of uniqueness, supremacy, and importance that we associate with ourselves and Earth. The probability of those proteins and energy and other matter mixing in a way to form life may be astronomical, but the size and timeline of the universe are even more astronomical still. A gambling man would bet heavily on the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but he would not bet on the chance we will ever meet in the vast cosmos.

I guess the last bit to explore involves the future of our universe (as it was explored in "The Last Three Minutes" by Paul Davies). Many of us, myself included, have entertained notions of some part of us living forever, whether it be in our biological descendants, our accomplishments, etc. but the possibility of this is inevitably tied up in the ultimate fate of the universe (which remains uncertain). Regardless of whether the universe is steady-state or dynamic, it seems ridiculous to suggest that any part of humanity can live forever. This fact may again appear dark and gloomy, but its really no different then confronting your own death. Maybe not the most cheerful of comparisons, but it is something that you can come to terms with and accept.

This is a very post-modern-style post in that it disenchants a lot of the Marxist superstructure we've constructed in our lives. I guess the lesson in this is that we may not have an inherent purpose in our existence, but that in of itself is no reason to despair. For instead of a world built by others for us, we build our world as we see fit. A burdensome freedom, but a freedom nonetheless.

Marx: The Powder Keg

This semester I'm taking a social theory class and an introductory political philosophy class, and in the social theory class we've started by examining the works of Karl Marx. Needless to say theres been a ton of crossover and tons of food for thought. I'd imagine that there'll be a few more political/societal posts in the near future.

For those who haven't studied him, Marx's mere name brings about feelings of horror and aversion because of the historical geopolitical things done in his name. Understand that the man himself is very much different from what his followers have done, and note further that his "followers' aren't actually enacting what Marx had advocated. Names like Che Guevara, Castro, Cienfuegos, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc. deserve negative connotations, Marx's name does not.

That being said, I've really enjoyed studying his works. I think of him as a brilliant analyst of capitalism and the society that it creates. I had one particular insight about the effects of his works that I thought i'd share here.

Marx saw that capitalism sharply divides society into two general classes: the have's and the have-not's aka those with capital and those without. He saw that over time capitalism deepens those class divisions to the point where the lower classes would be oppressed to the breaking point. They (the proletariat) would then revolt, over throw the capital-owners (the bourgeoise) thus ending capitalism. He was wrong however, and to further explore why i'll reference the work of Eric Hoffer.

Eric Hoffer is another brilliant mind, and I highly, highly recommend his book "the True Believer". Hoffer noticed that mass movements (like the kind that Marx envisioned) do not come about by the horribly oppressed finally rejecting their position in life. In fact, those born into abject poverty and who have never known anything else will not revolt. Those that are ripe for a mass movement are those that are both in abject conditions and have also seen that there is a possibility for a better life. The middle-class merchant who experiences a series of business failures and thus falls into poverty is more ripe to join a mass movement then the man held in life-long servitude.

Back to Marx. I agree with him that unfettered capitalism does lead to sharply divided classes, and that eventually the gap between the two would be huge. (Note that we in the US now do not have unfettered capitalism, but capitalism with government regulation and the gaps between classes are lessened [though i still think theyre huge]). Keeping in mind Hoffer's work however, those who had always been in abject poverty would not revolt. Their life-long servitude would essentially make them into a wet powder keg.

This begs the question, then why have so many revolutions occurred in history bearing Marx's name? The truth is that there are many people living in abject poverty throughout the world. Marx gave them the vision of a better future. His (though vague) picture of communism incited the abjectly poor into action by giving them hope. Although Marx's theories predict that the revolutions were inevitable, the truth is that they never would have happened if Marx himself hadn't written them down.

Anyways, I feel like i've been writing for long enough. Expect more Marx/political philosophy/sociology posts in the near future.