Month: February 2019

Universal Existentialism, Its Manifestations, Absurdism, Solipsism

On By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment
Originally Written: February 22nd 2019

All humans follow a philosophical existentialist doctrine, whether or not they recognizing or fully become conscious of it. It isn’t a necessary precondition to meaning seeking to recognize the absurdity, or meaninglessness of existence. One doesn’t have to be interested in formal philosophy, to follow a philosophically analyzable lifestyle, and the same applies to our pursuit of meaning. I think humans are hardwired to seek meaning, and to follow it, whether it is the will to survive and preserve the organism, or protect one’s family, or pursue success, everyone unknowingly follows a meaningful path that exists in an un-meaningful world. Thus, anyone who hasn’t killed themselves, has essentially followed some source of meaning and purpose whether they consciously know or accept that fact. Even the staunchest nihilist is a hypocrite in this regard, they are still breathing, they find some meaning in being alive, even in the worst case if it solely is the biological imperative, their being, the totality of the individual, has found some meaning in this existence. Solely stating that life has no meaning, and that meaning is un-findable, doesn’t make it true. Ones actions say otherwise. From an objective perspective, life has no meaning, in its particulars or in its totality, but all life has convinced itself, at least at the lowest level, evolved, so that it believes, or acts out the belief, that there is some reason to live. Life keeps on living, regardless of its meaningless place in the continuity of the world. Thus, all life, that is, somehow, miraculously, still alive, has a meaning in reference to itself that is sustaining its life. Whether this is consciously conceptualized, or not, it exists in all life that is not attempting to annihilate itself.

A rock thrown across the yard has no objective purpose to continue moving in that direction it was thrown, and will keep moving till it reaches its destination, it is simply the laws of physics at work, and if the rock was conscious of its own existence, and became aware of the physics moving it across the yard, and the inability for things to be otherwise, whether his thought mattered objectively or not, he could consciously believe that following that path he is on inevitably matters, revolt against the nihilistic tendency of reality, be happy with his situation and find a transitory purpose in moving to that determined location. This understanding, acceptance, consciousness, and transitory meaning I believe to be truer to reality as well as more psychologically beneficial than holding the belief that one has the “power” to move out of the laws of physics governing the situation inevitably. This revolt against meaningless, and the acceptance of a transitory meaning within this world where death is a given, is the solution of absurdism given by Camus.

We are the rock thrown. We can realize that the universe is at work, that we are part of it all, we are just an aspect of the physics of all nature, becoming conscious of ourselves, and while we can see that from an objective, external source, our lives have no meaning, as they are positioned in a meaningless world, we can accept our condition, smile at the absurdity, accept it, and revolt against the meaninglessness by creating or following values we ultimately know to be valueless, outside of ourselves and other life. Life is the criteria for meaning.

Some conclusionary states that a human may find themselves in, in regards to meaning are: 1) consciously finding the meaning inherit in the physics which created our biology which makes up the fundamental levels of our psyche which pushes us to survive, or 2) unconsciously following that meaning, or a meaning, without realizing it, one way or another staying alive or 3) while following that biological, psychologically inherit deterministic meaning, also become conscious of the absurdity, that meaning itself, and then create a further abstract ideology, morality, or system of meaning in addition to that which is naturally within all life, additionally in all human life, etc., 4) be unaware of our place in the universe, unaware of absurdity, yet consciously create a structure of meaning to be fulfilled in the world, or have a psychologically more pleasant experience through various sources such as the adoption of responsibility or pursuing something your psyche/culture/influences has deemed important or meaningful. 

Proposition 1) It is possible to believe that every moment in your subjective experience has meaning, every thought you experience, word you say, action you take has meaning. It’s possible to do this because these things all become prior causes with future effects. Thus you are impacting the future. The problem comes when objectively stating that this impact matters at all, is good or bad. This in turn, depends on the perspective, or lack of perspective, taken. When examined from a life-form, proposition 1 matters in its ability to affect the subjective experience of the being, for better or worse, in the present or in the future. Thus, where there is life, there is an importance to one’s action, from the perspective of that life which can be affected. But from the perspective of the universe, or from the inanimate, the nonliving, from reality as a whole, or as a collective of all its constituents, there is no meaning, as there is no reference, no individual, no experience, no consciousness, no suffering and pleasure, no better or worse state, thus no importance, no good or bad in proposition 1 “Answer to the Absurdist Conundrum”. Thus, being that we are life, and being that we want a beneficial experience, and recognizing there is other life, and other people are able to have better or worse experiences, better or worse conscious states, we are able to 1) act out unconsciously a (biologically/socially/culturally reinforced) system of ethics, 2) consciously adopt someone else’s or some organizations, system of thought or ethics, etc. or 3) consciously reason out a reasoned philosophical system of ethics, and develop morality, with a spectrum of integrity and thoroughness, and a range of influences and factors, yet consciously compiled.

Once consciously considered, one may ask how do I most honestly articulate where this morality comes from? I propose, through phenomenological means, or introspection, and the primacy of subjective data given through our experience, including; meditation, mindfulness, contemplation, philosophizing in general, studying other philosophers work, talking to others, wisdom gained from experience, etc. Maybe one asks, what are the basic constituents that must come into being to create morality? I propose that this is best articulated as morality comes into place once we take into account our own situation, of being alive, and our own conscious states (self-interest – in either its rational or irrational forms), and the existence of other life forms in a similar situation. It’s absurd to consider that a nonliving object would take on a moral code or act morally. As for itself, and for everything outside itself, from its perspective, the possibility of better or worse situations is nil. Life itself implies meaning, and the existence of life outside oneself logically produces morality, that is, at least from my perspective, as I believe other life has consciousness and an experience similar to mine, therefore better and worse states, therefore my actions truly matter in that they affect other life form’s experience.

If you reject the claim that any other being has consciousness, an experience, or that that experience can be better or worse in some way or another (solipsism), then you reject morality and our ability of effecting others. A question arose to me in considering this, could morality exist in this type of universe? You cannot deny that your own conscious has better or worse states, “Basic Moral Realism”, and perhaps morality, stripped of external meaning, stripped of belief in other beings’ consciousness, can at its base find morality, good and bad, in how thoughts/speech/actions are proceeding effects that are produced within itself, producing better or worse states. In this way it’s possible to produce a morality only concerned with oneself, placing good and bad value on what is better or worse for yourself, in terms of suffering and wellbeing. This value judgment exists upon the spectrum of what one considers is better for oneself, in one’s hierarchical value structure, it could be; hedonistic pleasure, usefulness, growing towards truth, etc. As philosophical positions and focuses can vary, their ethical systems naturally express the ideas behind each respectively. This says nothing about different philosophies and their overall ranking in a hierarchy which we ourselves create, or, to confuse the subject one last time, says nothing about the meaningless of every philosophy as it relates to a non-living phenomenon, including the universe or reality or time, themselves.

On Duty

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: February 13th 2019

Duties were originally conceived through evolutionary means, as modes of encouraging action which serve to benefit the individual, family, group, or species survival and propagation. As groups and civilizations formed the duties of its individuals became expected as they contributed to the success of the group, and the survival of the family. It is easy to imagine how incentive played a role in forming duties. Both punishment and reward could have been reinforcing of the earliest duties, both socially and naturally. With the advent of language these duties became conceptualized and thus put into the social context, reinforced further through culture, formed as taboos by not conforming, and at the advent of a formal governing system, laws were instantiated to support these norms. Communities in their whole, and in their individuals, either benefited or suffered by the instantiated norms or laws, in relation to the product of which, they became modified in an evolutionary manner. Where it became a net benefit to the society through the adoption of responsibility and the carrying out of one’s duties to family, community and state, the expectation and its action became reinforced. In today’s age many duties have become almost universal as they are found across the globe with a surprising amount of consistency. We have political systems that enforce social contracts, holding the individual responsible for promises, and we have developed cultural and social expectations which judge the individual based on the duties he does or does not responsibly carry out.

As a caveat, deviations do exist as progressive viewpoints have been experimented with in pointed directions, and those areas which are still catching up in the use of reason in advancing primitive, mainly religious, morals. As a generalization, the consistency of the majority and the perennial re-occurrence of specific duties, in the form of laws and consistently valued responsibilities, shows there is a good reason to believe these duties, as well as morals, developed from a common evolutionary rooting, and progressed in a similar direction due to the factors which are common amongst humans. This leads one to believe in the universality of duties and morals as their progression has good reasoning backing it in contrast with the difficult to defend and dishonest appearance of relativism, as expounded upon in “Basic Moral Realism”. We are currently in a place where the duties of the individual are culturally outlined, well known, and carried out by the majority, detailed to correspond to every phase of life, all springing through this collective empowering of the duties of the individual. This isn’t to say that these culturally supported duties aren’t fallible, corruptible, and able to head in directions that are unagreed on by society.

Many are liable to rebel against culturally accepted duties as civilization changes, in a variety of ways and situations. Those duties that have stood the test of time and are still respected today we take for granted, but they all were developed in this manner, that is, stemming from biologically beneficial purposes, to familial benefitting purposes, expanded to the tribal and later the state levels. Culture tweaks as times change, and we are left with our current duties, which reflect in their abstract articulations the same duties in which the human species valued thousands of years ago that led to our survival. Things such as the care for young by the mother through feeding, the gathering and hunting for food and physical protection by the men, now has become things such as providing the financial support of children through education, providing for their survival (food and shelter) through stable employment. The same abstract duties still are unquestionably expected by parents, the differences obviously are the means and forms at which they are manifested.

The autonomy of the single individual, and his (including in progressive countries – her) responsibility to be dependent, relying on themselves to provide for their own care in adulthood has also stood the test of time. In any epoch of human history, a codependent human, or someone who takes and relies on others more than gives or contributes, is a liability, and is never high in the hierarchy. Certain virtues and strength of character have been valued, although all morality must be brought to situational accounts dictated by prudence and wisdom, as outlined in “Precursor to Wisdom Ethics”. Certain individual virtues have been praised for thousands of years such as honesty, reliability, equanimity, compassion, hard work, perseverance, dedication, loyalty, justice, as well as vices rejected, such as deception, rashness, foolishness, laziness, or injustice. The duty of the “good” man to follow the former and the detriment to the “bad” man in not, has been explained and accepted as far back as Aristotle, duties themselves being explicitly expanded upon by Cicero. There’s good reasons for how and why our current duties developed, and good reasons as to why we should follow most of them.

If we are to cope with existing in a meaningless world in a beneficial way, while still acknowledging the experience of our own subjectivity, that is, if we wish to live in a psychologically healthy state (not consumed by unwholesome, unpleasant emotions) as well as a physically healthy state (not suffering in pain, hunger, etc.), we must not forget our duties to the community, each other, the state, of which we are a part of no matter if we desire to be or not. This isn’t saying to be a slave to the masses or the government overlords, rather that there is something crucial being said just in the abstract articulation of common duties, there are lessons to learn and ways to improve, they have become unconscious, and unrecognized as time has habituated us to their normalcy. There is much to be gained in the understanding and exploring of these duties we feel to by implied by our culture, they have been forged by our ancestors, forged by evolution, by millions of years, by the universe itself.

It’s A Wild World, The Answer to the Absurd Conundrum

On By Chris Shuttleworth2 Comments
Originally Written: Feb 11th 2019

Since I was young I have been saying “it’s a crazy world” in that the unexpected, the irrational, the unknown, always seems find a way of manifesting itself when we least expect it. A couple years ago I re(discovered) the song “wild world” by Cat Steven’s, which deeply resonated with me, and expressed a similar sentiment to that phrase which I had repeated over the course of my life. It seems like in times when reality appears to contradict itself, when what I never thought to be true, suddenly appears to actually be true, in times of revelation, and understanding, in rational conceptualization, insight of the nature of the world, in discoveries such as determinism, the lack of a soul, the lack of inherit meaning in the world, with insight into the vastness of the universe, and the minuteness of finite human life, of the unimportance within us, yet the ability to change so much; I state that it’s a crazy world, expressing my amazement with the irrational, seemingly contradictory, aspects of the true nature of things. I realized just now this was an intimation of the philosophical term, the absurd, and the feeling, and thought, that accompanied such circumstances that merit the utterance or thought of, “it’s a crazy world”, is what Camus called the feeling of the absurd.

The Absurd is a description of the situation that arises between a human and the universe, it requires both, it is, in its essence, reality, yet it is in recognizing realities strange dualistic nature, its absurd qualities, the conflict between characteristics of the world, and characteristics which humans possess, that constitutes “the absurd”. For example, the universe is meaningless, purposeless, just a determinate web of cause and effect, with no intrinsic objective morality, nor any meaning or purpose. Yet humans run around their whole lives searching for meaning, or believing in a meaning which doesn’t exist outside of their belief in it. This is the absurd. The search for meaning where it doesn’t exist is absurd. It is contradictory, irrational, yet, it really exists, and we all are engulfed in it. If you were to learn of a man who is spending his entire life counting the grains on the beach, and he is content doing so and finds profound beauty in the act, and feels it is meaningful, your response would be that it is absurd. This is, in effect, what all of us do every day. We feel as if our actions first are produced by us (freewill), second as if they are meaningful and matter, yet, in the grand scheme of things, both these conceptions are starkly not true. Even when someone has this insight, they continue doing the same things, living in the same manner, due to the habitual and various other factors involved. This is truly the absurd.

When faced with the absurd, philosophers such as Camus and Kierkegaard both devised strategies, to how one should deal with the absurd, once it is realized, and contemplated. One is suicide, an attempt to negate the absurd reality, to end what doesn’t matter anyway. To escape the pointless suffering of human existence. Of course, this solution isn’t any way in which to live, it’s clearly a way only to die, yet it is a way to react to the realization, but from the perspective of the universe, it merely is another effect, with a cause. It is neither good or bad, just an event. Camus points out it actually makes the whole situation more absurd.

The second solution purported is the general existentialist point of view, which Kierkegaard urged us towards, to create your own meaning, or to act on faith in following an arbitrarily man made meaning, believe in an idea, a moral, a transcendental reality, supernatural phenomena, god, religion, etc. Create your own morality, philosophical structure, in something which is outside, above, or more encompassing than the absurd, thus creating meaning, and a path to follow. Once you have found or created the meaning, you no longer believe the universe is meaningless, you have past that, you have taken a leap of faith, a leap beyond the originally noted fact of the unimportance of our actions from the universal standpoint. This is what Camus calls philosophical suicide, as opposed to the first option, physical suicide. In essence, by supposing something that transcends the absurd you are removing your awareness of the absurd, as if what is rational and true to this reality isn’t important if there is a higher reality. This view replaces a recognition of the absurd, with the belief that what one has created (the meaning) is the true reality, which it can be, for you, subjectively, but never objectively, and that is the aspect which most existentialists fail to realize. This option is only valid if you wish to sacrifice reason, logic, and a valid, untheoretical, un faith based, understanding of reality, for something which makes you feel better, solving existential dread, solving the problem of the finitude of human life, solving death, solving the search for meaning we all experience. It is the easy way out.  It is the belief in God at the sacrifice of reason. It is, in a way, a rational leap of faith, in that the leaping will make you better, whether the landing place is real or imaginary, your life will be happier, and the suffering of the realization of the absurd is suppressed by the higher ideal.

The third solution is Camus’ choice, the acceptance of the absurd, yet the continued searching for truth and meaning within its structure. It is the rational understanding of the absurdity of existence, coupled with the human ability and perseverance to discover meaning and truth, to continue on without laying yourself sacrifice to what you “wish to be true”, accepting what you know to be true, and moving onward.  People say this means rejecting morality, but it is possible to strive onwards while upholding a temporary morality which best fits reality as to your current understanding dictates, without believing it to be infallible, permanent, or all pervading.

I think there is room for expansion in this final solution, in that we can discovery that there is a meaningful, best way to live, science can help show us this, the road that leads to the best human life, this is what objective moralist regard as the movement away from the worst possible misery for everyone, i.e. moral realism. (Basic Moral Realism) Any step away from that would be morally correct, if we accept the axiom that the worst suffering for everyone is itself something that is true in the context of morality. From the absurd perspective, this axiom is valid only within the individuals, human conception of morality, which itself doesn’t hold ground on a universal scale. Since we’re recognizing reality, and the absurdity of it, the coupling of these ideas necessarily entails the conceptual understanding, and for success, acceptance, of the fact the universe is purposeless through and through. But, since we are human, and are alive, we must recognize morality, since we fall under its sway in our actual experience, yet we cannot escape the broader domain of the universes “point of view”. So it is possible to recognize absurdity, the absence of morality, and meaning in the universe from a perspective that is anything but life itself.

Since we are human, we are life, not philosophical abstraction, we must operate under the purview of some morality whether known or unknown. Something within us forms a conscience whether we like it or not, this is actually, part of the absurd itself. Our conscience dictates our conceptions of right and wrong and is alterable due to influence. Even if we conceptually fall into the sway of a philosophical doctrine such as nihilism, within the absurd framework, this holds only as a conceptual framework. It is a word game that never represents a human life, as one can think there is no right and wrong, good and bad, you can’t escape determinism, and each moment will prove to any observer what you (as a living organism) believes to be right or wrong, based on your action. There is an inbuilt biological value system within any life system, whether known or unknown to the organism, we know this because we choose to focus and pursue certain things, and not others. We contain, as part of our being, a perceptual filtration system, which is strained through the developed (both genetically and learned) value system, which, produces our conscious experience “Universal Existentialism“. We pay attention to certain things, spend time with certain people, participate in certain activities. This is a product of evolution, culture, genetics, environment, an amalgam of all life experiences leading up to the present moment, including consciousness itself. The conscious awareness of suicidal tendencies is somewhat of an issue philosophically in how it fits into this picture, but it does have a rational deterministic path towards its fruition, no matter how irrational and contradictory to inert value systems it appears to be. This is obviously quite absurd.

All things considered, where life is, morality is always there, as morality contains human action, and humans always act, every moment, where humans are acting, there is an experience, this experience can be better or worse, subjectively. If there can be better or worse subjective experiences, better or worse methods of navigating life to produce an optimal mode of Being to the individual, than there necessarily are better or worse methods towards that aim. Within this bracketing of human life, in this way, we can determine meaningful solutions. Outside of the bracket, these meaningful actions, pursuits, and their accomplishment or not, merely are null in meaning. This is the absurd contradiction we must face and work within. In this way we all have a philosophy, including a morality, including a world view, including beliefs, this is all real, and unavoidable in any life, while outside of subjective experience, from an objective point of view, there is no meaning or purpose to this process, it merely is. I think recognizing the absurd necessarily requires a divorce from this type of subjective purpose perspective and the acceptance of the consequences of an objective answer to purpose, but it is absurd to think it’s possible for a conscious entity to lose that subjective perspective entirely. It truly is absurd that it exists at all. The solution, from my perspective, which, obviously isn’t universal, is in rebelling against the contradiction we find ourselves in, and in pursuing meaning in our bracketed universe regardless of the overarching evaluation. For a critique of Camus’ perspective see – “Critique of Absurdism“.

Whether the universe cares or not, (which it doesn’t!), we care, our Being is defined by the care in which we use to navigate our experience. We like positive states of consciousness, produced by what we value, or find meaningful, this doesn’t mean it actually has meaning, or that we’re fooling ourselves, but in pursuing these things, with a recognition of the absurd, we are rebelling against nature, rebelling against reality and choosing our own way, despite it, yet, within it. This is the option I believe we ought to choose, because any other pathway, would either result in a terrible experience, psychological suffering, or in some form of deception, rather its deceiving ourselves into thinking something is true that isn’t, existentialism, or in believing that nothing, not even from our own perspective, has any meaningful significance, nihilism (it does, to us). While this method appears as the only option left for the truth valuing and life affirming individual, it still must be recognized in its ultimate fallibility, it is the best option which currently makes sense; my morality, understanding, intelligence, reason, beliefs, knowledge, wisdom, are all subject to change, it is my mission, my arbitrary meaning, in a meaningless universe, to improve them, because, I will not sacrifice the greatest aspects of which make me human; reason, mindfulness, the present moment, under another human’s supernatural ideas. I won’t sacrifice the highest form of life currently known, human life, the human brain, in believing in an imaginary reality outside or after the one I’m embedded in. I won’t sacrifice my search for truth for an untruth and a pleasant life, I’ll push the capabilities of this brain to develop in a way which I deem to be good, which is itself arbitrary, and knowingly so, but it is personally the only road I see left after the others have burned away. It is the only path standing, the path to truth, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, virtue, within a meaningless universe. The whole endeavor of my life may be meaningless, but it means something to me, and it means something to my family and those who know me. For them, for all humans, we make this endeavor, to aim for the stars while staying grounded.