The Meaning of Life? - It’s Right Here!

Welcome again, gentle reader! This post might take a little longer than I’d like, so please bear with me. Rest assured, this has nothing to do with my ability as a writer and everything to do with your ability as a reader. To this end, I’ll try not to use too many big words, as I appreciate this can be somewhat incommodious and cumbersome. If there’s any part of this article that you don’t agree with, feel free to email me evanescentisneverwrong@mac.com. Thanks.

There must be something worth living for.

There must be something worth trying for.

Even some things worth dying for.

So go the words of Beth from Jeff Wayne’s musical version of the War of the Worlds. Granted, some of our real life problems actually feel worse than being invaded by Martians, especially to those who live in Manchester. Big, ugly, slimy beasts with lipless slathering mouths and writhing tentacles, Mancunians do have hard lives – but that’s not the point.

I was in the pub the other night, drinking with friends. A pint of Guinness, thanks for asking. Yes, yes it was nice. Thick, dark, and with a rather large head, the bartender is known for serving a good pint. Towards the end of the evening one of my friends (after I’d paid them extra for staying a little longer) despondently mused “is this all there is to life?” His point was basically along the lines of: if I die, and I’ve contributed nothing, and left nothing, does it really make a difference whether I was alive or not? I should point out that although he might have held this opinion, I believe he was playing Devil’s Advocate somewhat, and saying that even if you or I are optimistic, some people would have every right to feel that way.

Is he right? Is life pointless since it is undoubtedly the end?

Before I answer that, let me give my reason for why many people can and do feel this way – as I was once one of them. I may be wrong, but I’m not. What I’m about to say will get a little philosophical, so if you’re under 12 / not very intelligent / a fan of reality TV, feel free to close this window and get back to watching Big Brother repeats or TabooSexStories.com (page 20 is a good one). Actually, that’s a bit harsh of me, since if you’re a fan of reality TV shows you’re automatically either one of the other two options anyway.

Morality. Morality is a branch of philosophy that attempts to deal with the questions: “how should I live my life? What is good for my life and what is harmful?” Unfortunately, philosophy in general today is in terrible hands, because the “intellectuals” who teach it are riddled with perverse anti-rational anti-human anti-moral contradictory notions. I’m not going to go further into this here, but as an example, how many times do you hear the experts tell us that we cannot know anything; that reality is subjective; that man can never achieve certainty?

Getting back to morality: society in general (as a result of famous philosophers and especially religion) holds one thing as its standard. What I mean is, the measure by which an action is considered virtuous and noble. That standard is: sacrifice. It is the belief that the more an action is directed towards others, and the less it is directly for personal selfish benefit, the more moral it is. The more you serve and live for others, the better a person you are – so says society in general. This is because the underlying philosophy on which this morality is based is the following: your life is NOT an end to itself. Your life has no purpose, and has no meaning, and cannot be given one by yourself. Therefore, the only reasonable worthwhile thing to do is live for others; give up what you have; sacrifice for the good of others; create a legacy, make the world a better place; disown yourself.

I’m not saying ignore others, and don’t better the world, and don’t help people, and don’t be kind and generous – the difference is this: one morality tells you to act with OTHERS as the primary beneficiaries of your life. The other tells you to act with YOURSELF as the primary beneficiary of your life, your actions, your choices.

Humans can die. We are mortal beings. In order to live, not just as animals do from one moment to the next, seizing whatever meal comes along and never planning ahead, you must realise that there are things that are of objective value to your life as a human being. It is precisely because you are mortal that things can make a difference in your life. It is your mortality that gives rise to values – and a value is that which one acts to keep or gain. It is only because the possibility of death is present, that you MUST constantly act in accordance with the antithesis – life. And whether you like it or not there is no alternative here. You are either moving toward life or moving toward death. Life is a constant process of self-generated action. Even if you stand still, you move toward death.

Inasmuch as you choose, implicitly or explicitly, to live – you must discover those values that your life as a human being, as a rational being, needs. But, this would require a morality that tells you to act in accordance with those values – to NOT sacrifice them. But whose values? YOURS!

Those who ask the question: “what does it matter what I do if I just die?” have already conceded the argument – they have already given up their morality. Those who say that your life is not an end to itself, that you have no right to live, that the best thing you can do is give your life to the service of others (like a man on a street returning a wallet that didn’t belong to him) – they have already won. They believe that life is pointless because their lives have no point. They believe life has no meaning because their lives have none. They teach that only having kids is the answer, only giving all your money to charity is the answer, only spending your life in the service of others is the answer, living like a priest and walking to work and never polluting the air is the answer, doing something that “makes a difference” is the answer. Notice the premise they have smuggled in? “Make a difference” – to whom? “What does it matter” – but to whom? “Mortal life is pointless” – to whom? The premise they have smuggled in below your radar is this: other people are the standard for right and wrong. Other people can judge your life as a success or not, even after you’re dead. And no matter how you live your life, you are forever striving after the ethereal recognition, the approval, of others.

This, is the “morality” that you need to reject. This is the subjective capricious code of “ethics” that takes other people as the standard – which also goes by the seemingly harmless and benevolent expression “altruism”. Which people? Doesn’t matter – just others, and the more the better. Until this backward evil premise is rejected, people who ask the questions we began with will never understand how life can have meaning, because they are looking for OTHER people to give it to them.

The moral person knows that their life is an end to itself. That the admiration and consent of other people does not equal morality. That giving away your values is not the key to happiness but the destruction of it. That your life is not the means to the end of others. That your life belongs to you and no one else. That we are not just the product of an evolutionary process that implies: be born, procreate, die. That the highest moral purpose you can pursue is not the happiness of others, but the happiness of yourself.

But it takes a break from convention and an objective rational philosophy to ground one’s morality on these foundations – the exact sort of “radical” unconventional thinking that society today denounces.

Rather than being the “me me me” attitude that this may appear, it is actually the only proper way to live your life. By acting with your life as the ultimate value, you will take care of all the other values that make it possible: your health, your money, your family, your friends, your lover, your music, your car, your holidays, your books, your hobbies, your pets. These values you must discover for yourself – and they are selfish. Selfish, and good. And don’t let anyone tell you differently.

That is why the question: “if we’re just going to die, what does it matter?” can be seen for how vacuous it is. For a start, “what does it matter?” – well, my life matters to me! And it matters to those people I value and those who value me. The rest, I’m not too bothered about!

There is only one way to live – to value your life and act accordingly, and that is how to achieve happiness. If you don’t choose to pursue happiness, you are not choosing to pursue your values. And since values have their ultimate goal in life – the rejection of values, of the pursuit of happiness, has only one other goal: death. If you can’t see the point in being happy, you might as well kill yourself now, otherwise you’re living a contradiction. If you live, pursue happiness. It’s your right. In fact, there is no other purpose in life.

Ben Elton Interview - Worth A Quick Look

A friend of mine showed me a 7 minute interview on YouTube of the author and satirist Ben Elton.  As an Objectivist I would have to totally agree with everything he says (apart from an incorrect use of the word “sacrifice”), and Elton manages to cram in such an intelligent and insightful critique of today’s fame-obsessed irrational faith-ridden feelings-motivated culture, into such a short time.

Although Elton is not an Objectivist, he basically identifies the dichotomy between reason and emotionalism.  Ultimately, there can be only one guide in our lives: either we use our faculty of reason (rationality) to integrate facts that we apprehend from reality using our percepts (sense experience), using a method of non-contradictory identity (logic), OR we let our feelings guide us.  Our feelings are the END result of a thought or action - they can be trained by our rational conscious mind, but our feelings are not a prescription of reality, because no act of will or emotion can ever change reality.  That is why Ayn Rand successful identified existence as always having primacy over consciousness, because our minds must conform to reality, not the other way around.  Those who live with emotionalism (of which faith is a variety) as their guide disregard this most fundamental metaphysical axiom and basically ask that reality change to meet their will.

Here is the video.  It’s only short so it’s worth a few minutes to have a watch:

Free Speech Versus Respect

“The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs” – Marie Okabe, spokeswoman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2038161020080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Two years ago the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan: “believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.”

So, what if my religion demands that I disrespect other religions? What if my faith necessitates a lack of respect for other faiths? If you respect my faith, doesn’t that mean I’m allowed to do whatever my faith expects of me, even if that means disrespecting others? This is, of course, a paradox.

Implicit in statements like these are several politically-correct assumptions:

1.     That everybody’s beliefs must be respected

2.     That offending somebody is virtually a crime in and of itself

3.     That freedom and responsibility can conflict

Dealing with the latter two first: freedom and responsibility do not conflict – ever. Rights are moral principles sanctioning your freedom of thought and action in a social context. All Rights are corollaries of your Right to Life. Human beings must be free to think and do anything they believe is in their self-interest – with one constraint: that they do not violate the rights of others. Freedom of speech, of expression, is a means of human flourishing. The Right to free speech never conflicts with anybody else’s Rights – because no one has the right to NOT be offended by the words of others – no such Right exists. Rights merely mean that no one can use force against you, because the use of force negates morality.

On a similar subject, Leitmotif says: “When one claims that rights come with responsibilities, one is implying that one’s practice of a right could potentially conflict with the practice of another man’s rights. This is patently false. The moment someone has stepped outside the boundaries of one’s rights and has violated another man’s rights, his actions have initiated force and have become illegitimate. Insofar as this has not occurred, every man is free–without limits–to exercise his rights.”

Speaking about the pathetic Teddy-bear row that erupted back in November last year, I said: “If I want to say that Islam is an evil plagiarisation of the ramblings of ignorant primitive Jews, and not worth the paper it was written, that’s my right.”

Just as nobody has the right to do whatever they want on your property, so you have no right to tell them what to do on theirs or anybody else’s.

Remember, the legitimate rights of human beings do not conflict. If there is a conflict, then one party must not be claiming legitimate rights. Since freedom of speech is an undeniable necessary individual right, those who claim that it must be exercised with restraint are contradicting themselves – and are claiming illegitimate rights. “Limited free speech” is a contradiction in terms.

Offending somebody is therefore not a crime. It may be immoral, if it’s irrational however. But the immoral is not the illegal.

Finally, not everyone’s beliefs should be respected. To say otherwise is an egregiously nonsensical claim, and blatant contradiction. To quote myself here: “Moral subjectivism is an offshoot of relativism in general, another symptom of which is the insipid multiculturalism. Relativism in general holds that all opinions or cultures are of equal value. This is flat wrong: if one holds the opinion X that “all opinions are of equal value or merit” then my opinion that X is rubbish is to be taken with equal merit as X itself! Therefore the truth of X would require that we reject it. Therefore X is either false or rubbish.”

Not all cultures are of equal merit. Some cultures are backward, ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid. Some are blatantly evil. And if you disagree with me and think I am being offensive, then YOU are evil. Why? Because you have no moral standard from which to draw conclusions. Being a moral person means being intellectually honest and never equivocating on matters of truth or ethics.

The exact opposites of this are such ridiculous notions like political-correctness, fear of offending beliefs, and multiculturalism. The above comments from the UN Secretary General embody this attitude perfectly. But this is to be expected: morality is an individual matter, yet multiculturalism is based on soul-destroying collectivism, which organisations like the United Nations (or any democratic arrangement) exemplify.

“The moral distinction is clear: you are either a criminal or you are not. You are either within your rights, in which case you act freely, or you have initiated force, in which case you should be reined in. You either practice your rights legitimately–in which case, no one has a business telling you that you should be responsible in the practice of your legitimate rights–or you have stepped outside the boundaries protected by your rights and you are now a criminal.” – Leitmotif.

The comments from Ban Ki-moon are immoral are irresponsible. Free speech is non-negotiable, because individual rights are non-negotiable, because humans have a Right to Life. To deny total freedom to human beings is to deny the Right to Life. It’s as simple and as clear-cut as that.

The Nihilism of Subjectivism

I’ve been involved in a discussion over at AtheistForums with several atheist posters. Despite being otherwise rational when it comes to obvious issues such as the existence of god, we see here evidence that just being an atheist says nothing about the accuracy of your worldview, or your rationality as a person. That is why is it important to choose your ideological allies carefully.

A recurring theme I have encountered is the position that morality is a relative / subjective matter – that it is a product of human social interaction; that it arises from evolution; that it changes over time, and is based on societal norms. I have never held this position myself, and not many atheists I know do – this is because a brief analysis of relativism will reveal its bankruptcy and contradictions. Despite the fact that many intelligent people are led by reason to disbelieve in god and call themselves atheists, all too often a warped philosophy is left untreated – and philosophy is the basis for any study of life.

What is most revealing is the fact that moral subjectivists tacitly subscribe to some form of moral objectivity in order to make moral statements. This contradiction will appear all the more egregious shortly. (The quotes that follow are from a relativist on the thread linked to above. It is the position of subjectivity that I wish to attack here, and not any particular person or poster.)

“Morality is not about facts, like the earth orbiting around the sun. It’s about principles that guides us in what course of action is acceptable by the community in which we live.”

The subjectivist denies that morality is a matter of fact; denies that morality has certain truths that we can discover. The subjectivist here asserts that whatever is “good” or “evil” is subject to the opinion of a community. This basically means that one community could consider slavery good, and another community could consider it evil – and both of them are right. The subjectivist who considers slavery evil has only to walk to the next village, and slavery will be good. Does any subjectivist really think like this? Without a means to decide between competing positions, both positions are equally unable to form a foundation from which to make moral judgments. So when the subjectivist says “rape is wrong” – he might change his mind next month or when he moves country, so his opinion is meaningless.

“People in the recent past, and even today, would litter the grounds with cigarette butts or paper tissues they had just used or anything that was inconvenient as they went about. It didn’t enter their minds that such insignificant things could pollute the earth, as they thought in those days the earth was so immense that polluting it didn’t even enter into their minds. Or people went fishing as if the oceans were infinite and the number of fish would never dwindle. Yet today, we have different perceptions because we know better — that we CAN pollute this planet or make certain species extinct, and that such actions are adversely affecting our health and the bio-equilibrium of the species with which we must share this planet.”

Notice the assertion that certain actions are wrong. The subjectivist claims that excess fishing is wrong; that polluting the planet is wrong; that living together in peace is good; that littering is wrong. But on what grounds can a relativist make such a claim? Is he saying that these things are always wrong?? But that would require an objective standard. Is he saying that these things are wrong at the moment? Well why would they be wrong today but not wrong a hundred years ago? Or does the subjectivist claim that whatever is right or wrong at any particular time is whatever that society decides to do? Well in that case, the assertion is a meaningless tautology – by this reasoning, any society at any point in time in human history was always moral – because they did whatever they thought was right. But if morality was “doing whatever you think is right” what would be the point of morality? Why would the word even exist?

The subjectivist would like to compare two societies at different times, as if to prove human morality has changed or improved. But comparison is impossible without a standard. Only objectivity provides that standard.

“We don’t discover moral truths. We invent them in order to solve certain problems which affect the social, political, environmental, and psychological fabric that surrounds us. That’s why morality is a work in progress, and in time will change.”

Notice the stolen concept of objectivity here? If morality is a work in progress, what is it progressing towards? If the increase of certain actions means an increase in morality, then it must mean that certain actions are moral and it is favourable to see an increase of them – then the objective standard would be “actions X Y Z are moral because…” – therefore there are objective moral truths.

Moral subjectivism is an offshoot of relativism in general, another symptom of which is the insipid multiculturalism. Relativism in general holds that all opinions or cultures are of equal value. This is flat wrong: if one holds the opinion X that “all opinions are of equal value or merit” then my opinion that X is rubbish is to be taken with equal merit as X itself! Therefore the truth of X would require that we reject it. Therefore X is either false or rubbish.

Relativism is nothing short but the disposal of objectivity in reaching a conclusion, and there is only one ultimate objective standard: reality. Relativism, especially in morality, is the rejection of reality as a guide for actions. But reality is our only standard by which we integrate our knowledge according to the rules of logic. The relativist in making any statement or holding any position loses the argument by default: unless his opinion is logical, rational, and consistent with reality, he cannot say anything – he might as well be talking about flying pink elephants who play poker in your backyard.

Objectivism identifies that morality is not based on subjective opinions or intrinsic values – it a code of rational values that guides our actions – these values are objective because they are necessary to the life of a rational being – they arise because of man’s relationship to reality. Whatever is beneficial and furthers the life of a rational being is good. Whatever diminishes or inhibits a rational being is the evil.

My Top 10 TV Shows Of All Time

Breaking away from the serious discussions of late, I thought I’d write something more light-hearted. Here is my top ten television shows of all time, based on what I’ve enjoyed through my life. (In other words, there may be shows here I don’t watch anymore).

10 Family Guy

Bizarre and abstract at times, and with no regard for political-correctness, Family Guy is one of the few shows that can make me laugh out loud time and again, even on repeats. The way nothing is safe from being parodied is hilarious and very clever too.

9 FRIENDS

I’m not a fan of FRIENDS anymore, but I had to put this in as I was for many years, and in its first 4 seasons the show really was genuinely funny, moving, and original. In its later seasons, it tries to copy itself, and episodes and jokes become formulaic and, the worst sin of a sitcom, simply not funny. But FRIENDS’ early seasons, especially the humour of and between the three men, will always make me laugh.

8 Spaced

With only 14 episodes, I can’t put Spaced any higher, but surely one of the best sitcoms ever. Hilarious, in the really clever sense of the word, and included in that is watchability. Because the show is so rich in pop-culture references and side-jokes, there is always something that you missed the last time around. I can’t think of another show with so few episodes having so much “quotability” and laughing points. How they also manage to fit in great story with some touching moments is pure genius.

7 SCRUBS

This could be higher up, if only for the length and quality of the shows to come. Scrubs is the best sitcom of all time, at least it was in a first 4 seasons. Consistently funny, very clever, abstract and diverse at times, touching, moving; with pure quality writing and acting. Very few sitcoms get the balance right between humour and solemnity – Scrubs definitely does. Without ruining it for those who haven’t seen, the episode “My Screw Up” is Scrubs at its absolute best, and probably one of the best episodes of any TV show, ever. I mean that.

6 Babylon 5

Not your typical episodic “reset-button” sci-fi bilge; Babylon 5 is a show replete with flawed and unlikely heroes, and deep villains. Politics, religion, intrigue, drama, humour, ideology, evil, good, tough decisions etc are all themes, and most importantly, they are very real human themes. Set against a background of ancient aliens, dramatic space battles, and a very realistic future vision of earth, B5 made a lasting impression with hundreds of millions, including me.

5 Angel

I really like this show, but it’s simply not as addictive as three of the shows above which is why I can’t place it any higher. Typical Joss Whedon, and by that I mean every episode is fantastically written, rich in dialogue, never short of humour be it obvious or subtle, full of action, and intriguing with its mix of villains, demons, creatures, and overriding cataclysmic themes. It’s a shame it didn’t get a full 7 seasons like its predecessor as I think it could have got even stronger.

4 Prison Break

I didn’t like the “idea” of Prison Break before I watched it, even though I don’t really know what I was expecting. But if you want a show with constant drama, and an addictiveness rating to leave heroin in the shadows, you need look no further. Prison Break is probably the equal-top most addictive show I’ve ever watched. I simply cannot express how good this programme is. I remember the first time I watched the first season, smiling with delight at having “discovered” the show, (although my arm was twisted into watching it). It keeps you going, every minute of every episode, and just clambering for more.

3 24

This is a show that I have called “the best TV show ever!!”, and for many it is. There is no more addictive show in the world. Minute to minute, episode to episode, season to season, no time is wasted. 24 is a quality show in every aspect: acting, writing, score, drama, suspense, and realism. 24 doesn’t cut corners, it doesn’t patronise you, and it will hook you from the first episode. Has there been a single greater hero than Jack Bauer?? I can’t think of one! The best thing I can say about 24 is that it could be interchangeable with my remaining two as the best ever.

2. Star Trek

So many versions over such a long time, it would be unfair to break them into individual incarnations. Star Trek is a TV show that did, without any exaggeration, change the world. Many of the themes of television about different cultures coming together, drawing strength from their mutual differences and advantages, to meet friends and battles enemies, all started with Star Trek. In the 1960s, consider a black female officer on the bridge of a ship, a Russian, an Asian, even an American southerner; and the first interracial kiss on TV. The first NASA shuttle was named Enterprise after the Federation Starship. The Next Generation (TNG) had its moments, and it is a good show, but it is too sterile, too episodic, and the characters too flat to grab me. DS9 was a great improvement when it finally got going: darker, dirtier, more macabre; proper full-length space battles and a realistic enemy with depth, DS9 isn’t classic Star Trek, but it’s great fantasy and science-fiction. Voyager is the most like the original Trek: one ship with a determined flamboyant captain, encountering new races every week, proper banter between characters, great enemies, great fight scenes, without the same level of inane techno-bullshit that TNG regurgitated every week, and an overriding story arc makes it one of the best. The less said about “Enterprise” the better.

1. Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

I recently finished re-watching this show all the way through, and it confirmed its status for me as best TV show ever. Buffy is a show that grows up as its audience does. From 15-16 years old, the problems of the characters in Buffy mature as they do, from high school and real life issues of friendship, first crush/love, unrequited affection, social skills, unpopularity, to adult ones of death, responsibility, sex, betrayal, and sacrifice. Monsters and demons are metaphors for personal demons; we don’t have to fight literal demons like Buffy does, but we do have to fight every day at times against our own fears and the troubles that life throws at us. There are very few real-life concerns that Buffy doesn’t deal with, and for that, I think there is something in it for everyone.

Buffy has consistently brilliant writing and acting. Every episode is packed with content; no line gets wasted. And it could win awards for its humour alone! The idea of a female superhero who rescues the boy and saves the day seems acceptable now, but it was revolutionary when Buffy first came out. Tru Calling, Dark Angel, and all the others that feature a strong woman with powers, were all inspired by Buffy.

No character on Buffy just “fills in”; each has episodes of their own to shine, but the truth is that most of the characters could have entire shows to themselves, (which Angel did end up getting). Buffy has watchability, duration, addictiveness, and diversity; it can be silly, outrageous, solemn, haunting, scary, dramatic, and genuinely touching. The reason I give Buffy top spot is simply because it has all the great things that other TV shows have between them, except all in the one place and in such quantity! Quite simply, television at its best.

 

I might do a similar top 10 in a year’s time and see what it looks like then!