How Dare I Try to Define Me

nothing about me is certain

This document introduces readers of my works to my beliefs, prejudices, and biases. Since establishing my Web site during the autumn of 1996, thousands of visitors have e-mailed me with questions on these topics. (Rather amazing, how much mail a small site receives — imagine what a typical media site must receive.) It seems logical to refer the curious to this document rather than answer the same questions each day.

• Human Nature: An exploration of how people act within society.
• Ethics: What is “right” and how does one know?
• Politics: My views on the current political structures and future social structures.
• Religion: That which cannot be proved.
• Philosophy: How I merge my opinions into a unified world-view.

I caution readers against trying to fit my opinions within an artificial context; by nature human thoughts are contradictory. We live with contradictions and “grey areas” because we must do so in order to survive without going insane. I attempt to adhere to logical constructs based upon information I obtain, while recognizing what I read and view might not be true. Even those things I sense might not be accurate. I realize that being unsure of “truth” and always questioning “the answers” is not a bad trait.

We each have biases and prejudices. How, when, and where we were raised are responsible for most of our limitations. These are factors we cannot control, but must struggle to challenge. Most people raised in a system, be it a religion or a political structure, tend to favor what they know. Can you see the views of others? Can you appreciate that some issues are not clear? People born into a political party or faith tend to remain in that organization as adults. Why is that?

Logic is not “truth” but rather a form of rhetoric. It is the use of consistent guidelines to analyze information, nothing more. What is logical within one social experience might be foolish in another.

Question science, politics, philosophy, and religion. Ponder what you think you know to be true and be prepared to be wrong. If you find that you are wrong, it isn’t something upon which to dwell. Test whatever new “truth” replaces your erroneous one and move onward. Maybe, just maybe, you will find a universal truth. (I doubt it, but I keep trying.) Recognize there are “wrong” answers, however. Some things might be true, while others are wrong.

Do not bother to debate me with rude e-mail messages; I am not likely to change your mind and no one is likely to change mine. I share these thoughts to encourage others to explore their own views. Find your own path and explore it.

More Quotes I Like

Human Nature

In general, most people are egocentric; what we do we do because we believe it benefits ourselves or our “immortal” selves, including the success of our families. Every action has the self at its core. There are no self-less people, only people who engage in acts of kindness because doing so gives them pleasure. There is nothing self-delusional about wanting to do good, and at worst some of those who do charitable work do so because there is something in it for them — a “good” feeling. (Hard to condemn feeling good as a result of kindness.) For others, doing good is only a method by which they earn passage into an after-life. I can think of nothing more self-centered than wanting to live forever.

We like to imagine humans are beyond animals. We care for the sick, we defend the weak. Somehow, we cannot imagine these acts are selfish, or at best they are luxuries of modern life. Because we have time to ponder questions of morality, we are able to develop complex systems. Without that time, we might be more like other creatures.

In my opinion, the instinctual desire for social contact — something I think is a biological imperative in humans — is the great balancing force in life. Because we desire, even need, society and its benefits, we make “sacrifices” of the self for the many. There is a reason the Greeks wrote of duty to the city-state: they recognized humanity needed strong social structures to acheive greatness.

Free time leads to philosophy and the arts. I cannot defend how civilizations of the past created free time, but I can suggest that is why we now seem intent on automation of repetitive tasks. Higher pursuits allow us to create and analyze “world views” of the natural world. A world view includes values, beliefs, prejudices, and biases.

Moving Beyond Nature

An ability to move beyond nature makes humanity unique. We are “condemned” by our humanity to recognize this — we know that for society to function, we cannot remain children forever. Whereas we might want things given to us and imagine ourselves entitled to pleasure, reason leads us to understand social responsibility and consequences.

I believe evidence exists for genetic “predispositions” including medical and psychological challenges. I admit, people frequently surrender to challenges — the easy option, relying upon others for care and offering excuses for events. Others rise to challenges, seeking enough assistance to then move ahead or finding inner-strength to rise above what confronts them.

Human selfishness, pride, desire, ego, et cetera… whatever your belief system might call the basic makeup of human nature, these are challenges we can confront. It begins by admitting that human nature will win sometimes; we are not and never will be stronger than our natures at all times. Most religions recognize this, as do philosophers, psychologists, and artists.

We never cease being like children. We never cease wanting “more” or seeking pleasure. What adults must do is focus their energies and understand that humanity is greater than one person, and sometimes greater than one family or one group.

Socialization includes learning to admire those willing to sacrifice the “self” for others and for ideas. I admire honesty. I admire admitting truth, even when it is unpleasant. I admire questioning “why…” even if there are no easy answers. People willing to work toward a better society, knowing perfection is impossible, are admirable.

Values and Beliefs

Values and beliefs are fluid, changing with situations and throughout your lifetime. We tend to be more aware of our values and beliefs than of our prejudices. Based upon my view that humans are selfish and survival-driven, we begin “rating” items almost as soon as we can reach for things we desire.

Value System

A value is the rank or order of importance you assign to a set of things or concepts.

Dictionary definition: A judgment of the relative importance a person, thing, or concept has in relation to one’s life.

We value ourselves, our individual survival, highly. If we believe in an afterlife, the value of survival takes on a different meaning: the eternal life become more important than the “real” life on earth.

Rightly or not, humans tend to place a higher value on things with which they have a personal bond. As evidence, many people will save pictures and pets from a fire before they remember to wake their neighbors. Situations alter our values.

Subjective Beliefs (Faith)

A belief is an opinion that cannot be supported by facts, a matter of faith or preference.

Dictionary definition: A conviction that something is real or superior with or without certainty; a supposition.

We might like to think that our beliefs are “strongly held,” but in truth they are quite fluid. As extreme examples, some people experience religious conversions, while others drift from their faiths. Most beliefs are not religious in nature; they are of a less cosmic nature.

Prejudices and Biases

Prejudices and biases are strong, usually reinforcing each other via a “feedback loop.” We tend to read and watch materials supporting our prejudices.

Learned Prejudices

A prejudice is a judgment based upon information, correct or not. To act in a prejudice manner is to pre-judge using past knowledge or experiences.

Dictionary definition: A judgment, usually unfavorable, formed beforehand, due to a fixed idea, especially without complete data.

A prejudice can be reasonable, such as distrusting a former cat burglar who now offers herself as a security expert. Most prejudices are more difficult to defend.

Input Biases

Your bias is what or whom you trust as an accurate source of information; sometimes called an input bias.

Dictionary definition: A strong leaning or propensity against or in favor of someone or something; to distrust or trust.

We surround ourselves with media and people supporting our prejudices. The words and images presented to us reinforce our views.

Ethics

At the core of my ethical system is one ideal: No one has the right to limit another’s freedom of thought. We can limit actions, but we should never limit thoughts and expressions of thought, so long as they do not directly cause physical harm to others. Since I believe people are egocentric, I also believe in the “social contract” theory — I agree to leave you alone only because I want to be left alone.

If I do not respect your freedom, how can I ask you to respect mine? All choices affect others, physically and emotionally. Social responsibility results from the interdependencies of individuals. Since any living person is engaged in the process of defining self and others, ethics develop accordingly.

Recent scientific research does lead me to wonder how strong my ethical system is when compared to any emotional reactions I might have to an event. For those interested, I offer a summary of a report on the brain and how it processes decisions. Reading the full-length article has presented new questions for me. Researchers believe we make decisions emotionally, then apply an ethical framework after actions are taken. Scans of the brain illustrated this process in test subjects.

Four Concepts

To understand my views, it helps to understand my use of language. These definitions were drawn from several sources, then condensed. I believe people use these terms, without realizing how problematic the words are.

Ethics

(1) The study and philosophy of human conduct with emphasis on the determination of right and wrong. (2) A system of morals.

Moral

(1) Based on probability; generalized human behavior. (2) Conforming to group standards of conduct.

Justice

(1) The rendering of what is due or merited. (2) Being impartial. (3) Honest or equitable.

Truth

(1) Conformity to requirements. (2) Faith in a statement’s logic. (3) Conforming to a system of rules.

I do not wish to adopt “group standards” as my own; groups often ignore the rights of minorities. Who can determine what is ethical for me or anyone else? I believe there are “right” and “wrong” actions, but I also believe in situational ethics.

Truth and justice present particular problems for me. Looking up “true” in a dictionary results in further confusion. All four of the terms listed are too abstract to mean anything — except what they imply at a given moment.

It’s About Me

I do what I choose, even if I dislike the choice. The preceding statement explains how I make “moral” decisions. Many would argue some decisions are not choices at all. Sartre pointed out at we always have free will, even if one of the choices is to cease existing. Having free will and the ability to make choices at all times does not imply we always have “good” choices available. In fact, very seldom does a choice exist without some negative consequences to either our own freedom or the freedom of another. What one must judge is the long-term benefits to the self. It is not logical to seek short-term benefits that might have negative long-term results.

Choices balance my desire to survive with my desire to preserve free will for others. Seeking a balance, which requires conscious effort, separates mankind’s sentient existence from that of other animals.

Every choice is measured for the long-term benefits provided. Individuals who seek short-term comfort are likely to suffer more in the end than those who plan carefully. A rather extreme example is a robbery. If I am confronted by someone with a gun demanding my money, I have several choices. I can fight, run, or present my wallet to the robber. I must make a choice based upon the long-term benefits to my existence.

‘Ethical’ Living Among Others

All individuals are potentially important to my existence. Because others might possess skills or knowledge beneficial to my existence, I do not wish to unreasonably limit their freedoms. In return for the benefits others can provide to me, I agree to participate in a community and provide what skills and knowledge I posses to the greater group.

I do not surrender myself to the community, nor do I ask others to surrender to the greater collective. I am willing to surrender some freedom, such as the freedom to light fires just to watch them burn, because I recognize the short-term enjoyment might threaten my longer-term survival within the community. Also, if I need the assistance of others for any reason, it is best not to have endangered those individuals.

While attempting to minimize the emotional impact my existence might have upon others, I will not alter my morality to please the greater community. Coexistence does not require that I share common beliefs with the community, it only demands that I cause no physical harm or unnecessary emotional stress. It is not my responsibility to affirm the community standards beyond a respect for freedom.

I have the right to express any idea, concept, or belief I possess so long as I cause no physical harm to any other individual. Thought is the highest form of freedom and must be protected at all costs. I would sacrifice my life before I would allow the limitation of my thoughts.

Coexisting

I believe in my right to defend my existence, both as an individual and as a part of a community. I would defend myself and those I consider beneficial to my existence. As a free individual, I also have the right to defend my freedoms. In my case, this includes supporting organizations dedicated to protecting individual rights. One person cannot always defend freedoms, so working with others is a reasonable approach.

The environment of the earth, with all its life, is important to my long-term existence. I do not believe humans are superior to or have any rights beyond those of other creatures. It is not a human privilege to unreasonably threaten the existence of any life. However, when forced to choose between my existence and that of another creature, I am inclined to protect myself.

As an adult, I am free to enter into any form of consensual, adult relationship I view as beneficial to myself physically and emotionally. While there are relationships I would not form, I have no right to limit the relationship structures entered into by other adults so long as those relationships cause no physical harm to individuals outside of the relationship.

I am free to do as I want to my own person so long as my actions pose no physical threat to other individuals. As an adult, I can research and obtain information pertaining to various ill effects acts and items might cause. It is an ultimate freedom to ignore the long-term benefits of acting or not acting in a given manner. While I would generally select the logical, long-term benefits, I am not under any obligation to avoid fatty foods, alcohol, or anything else I enjoy with full awareness of potential dangers to my existence.

Politics

I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. If anything, I usually manage to offend the zealots of both parties with my mix of beliefs. Because I think freedom of choice is how we can best define ourselves, I am offended when anyone tries to limit my choices — and yet both major American parties seem intent upon limiting choices, even when those choices affect no one else in a dramatic way.

It is accurate to describe my politics as Libertarian, in as much as anyone can be labeled via a political theory. I dislike the need for a government, yet I realize the necessity for a minimal national structure. A national government should offer few services; regional and local governments should be the providers of most needed services.

As a libertarian, what might set me apart is my dedication to employee ownership of businesses. I am a capitalist and think people perform best when their good works produce rewards. Absentee owners, even via stock holdings, do not always understand a business. Balancing external investors with internal stakeholders might be a good approach, since if everyone is boss no one is boss.

The national government’s roles are limited, in my opinion. The very name of the “United States of America” implies each state is a unique and independent organ within the limits of the Constitution. If the United States had developed in accordance with its Constitution, the federal government would be more of a “union” or “confederation” — even though people dislike the terms. The federal system would defend the states, ensure contracts are respected, promote open trade, and defend civil liberties. Amendments to the Constitution, a process wisely made difficult, have rightly recognized the civil liberties of women and minorities.

I think business owners, club members, and others have a right to be ignorant racists. But I do not believe the government or any enterprise receiving government support has a right to discriminate. When politicians blocked equal access to schools or when funding was (and is) disproportionate, then the federal government acted.

I respect the right of every individual to do as he or she desires so long as the resulting actions do not impinge upon my own freedom. If you want to hate me, fine. Avoid me and I will not seek out your services. The government does not need to protect me from your hatred unless you attempt to attack me without provocation.

Social Sacrifice

We must sacrifice some freedoms to coexist, but I am not willing to tell other individuals what they should or should not do with their lives. As a member of a greater community, I agree to observe laws not because I want to sacrifice my free will, but because such laws exist to benefit my long-term existence.

I drive within the marked traffic lanes not because I am not free to drive anywhere (as long as I accept the consequences), but because I want others to do the same. If we can agree to stay within marked lanes and observe traffic laws, we all might exist a bit longer. I am willing to sacrifice the “freedom” to drive as I want in exchange for the greater freedom to live a longer life. I consider sacrificing a minor act of free will a reasonable trade.

Societies exist only via a series of compromises. In a democracy, the majority of adults are allowed to formulate these compromises. If I disagree with one of the compromises, I am free to express my thoughts and attempt to persuade others of the error. However, purely democratic forms of government can degrade into a “mobocracy” without protections of personal freedoms.

For this reason, I prefer a Constitutional Republic, as we have in the United States of America. You should not confuse my support for a form of government as support for its actual implementation. The U.S. government has a great many flaws, as do all real-world implementations of political theory.

A republican form of government appeals to me because it offers protection to the minority. The Bill of Rights, those precious first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, mean a great deal to me and other Libertarians. Unfortunately, the courts have allowed the erosion many of these rights.

The Separation of powers is a great thing, as is civilian control of the armed forces. In fact, the Founding Fathers, with all their flaws, created a system that requires careful debate to alter. Sometimes we might prefer faster change, but stability in government remains essential.

What is wrong with the American system is that it lacks representation for minority opinions in the legislature. Consider the results if one party were to win 51% of the votes in every Congressional district. The other parties would have no members in Congress. None. In a parliamentary system, that would be an unlikely event, and proportional elections are the norm.

Spending for Votes

I will not claim that the government has never aided anyone. In point of fact, the government aided me with secured loans for my college education. The government also paves my local roads, provides emergency services, and meets other needs. I even prefer the United States Postal Service to other carriers for most purposes.

Still, much government spending is largess meant to attract voters like bees to honey. Federal politicians seek projects for their districts, shoring up political support from those employed by the projects. When projects to create infrastructure are unavailable, politicians create federal programs and corresponding jobs. It is little wonder that the fastest growing unions are government employees.

Welfare and tax breaks are the worst forms of “spending” for votes. Without a corresponding reduction in spending, any money saved from one source must be collected from another. Corporations receive tax breaks, individuals receive “targeted” deductions, and society becomes us-versus-them in a competition for money (or the keeping of money).

If government left social engineering out of the tax laws, Americans might be less cynical about taxation. Also, if the federal government allowed states to assume more responsibility for both services and corresponding taxation, people might feel as if they had more of a voice. Now, funds go to Washington, rules are attached, then the money returns.

Public Funds Needed

Public education is one role of government I defend without hesitation, though I do not support having a federal Department of Education. Federal funding serves only to allow national regulators a means of control over local schools and their communities.

For a mere four percent of the funds, the federal Department of Education exercises too much control. Education is funded primarily at the local level, though states are increasingly involved and correctly so. Everyone, as a part of the greater society, has an interest in being a part of an educated community. Education is key to improving the human condition.

The unions do have too much power. The best teachers are allowed, through seniority, to leave the schools that need them most. The schools with the worst social conditions are left in the hands of the least-experienced teachers. Often, the worst administrators in a district are assigned to these same schools. The results are a disaster… no hope for improvement. By the time students are applying for colleges, “affirmative action” is required due to inaction earlier. Sadly, many fail to complete college.

I support “Robin Hood” funding: equalized per-student distribution of funds assisting areas with lower average incomes and weak tax foundations. Property taxes are used in most states as the funding source for schools. Expensive homes mean more taxes, and therefore better schools. This tax system means the best schools are in the best neighborhoods. Since people often move based upon schools, this structure creates a cycle. “Robin Hood” funding enhances the likelihood that disadvantaged areas might improve their schools.

I dislike using property taxes and bonds for school funding. Ideally, states would make education a top priority and local governments could concentrate monies on infrastructure maintenance and improvement.

Finally, I do not think states should be involved in lotteries or other schemes as a basis for educational funding. What lesson does this teach? In a democracy we should be instilling the idea that each have an opportunity to earn a better future. A lottery does not teach the value of earning anything… and it makes a mockery of the value of an education.

Free Speech

For me as a writer, there is nothing more sacred than free speech and the expression of ideas. Even other Western democracies do not offer the protections provided to writers in the United States. While these freedoms mean some offensive ideas must be tolerated, I would rather know what people think than be protected from their idiocy.

I do not support government funding of the arts, in general. Research has shown most such funding benefits the wealthiest Americans. It seems the middle-class and poor do not listen to National Public Radio or attend local symphonies. As for Public Broadcasting, Sesame Street and Barney should be paying PBS for the great advertising. Where I do strongly support arts funding is in public education, of course.

Academia’s Intolerance

During the years I have hosted these pages on the web, I have received a number of hateful e-mails from academics. Most lament my lack of social compassion. How can I not support a socially active government? How can I not defend the beliefs of Sartre when Marxism seems so logical?

I believe in the freedom to risk what I want, even with the risk of failure. Socialism and Marxism are based upon a freedom from risk. Tightly controlled systems do not have the crime, unemployment, or other problems of America. At least they would have one believe this myth. 

The American Republic is not perfect. People fail. There is crime. Politicians can be and are purchased. And yet, for all its flaws, it is a model most countries envy. The academics questioning my values are almost always Americans, offering European countries as models of excellence. Yes, there are many excellent governments in Europe. There are also problems with most. We have a lot to learn from each other. Parliaments offer more representation for smaller political parties, while our system provides a great deal of stability — or inertia.

The United States is flawed. Each state is a unique government, so some have more effective systems than others. Some are more socially activist than others, with citizens trading higher taxes for more services. Other states have legislatures that do not meet often and prefer few services and lower taxes. We are 50 different experiments in democracy. Some are better than others.

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.
— John Hay, 1872

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
— James Bovard, 1994

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
— Edward R. Murrow

It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.
— Justice Casey Percell

Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?
— Harlon Carter

Religion

When asked, I admit that I reject the notion of a specific and identifiable Creator. I am not an atheist. I do not believe a sentient Creator exists as we might understand the concept of a deity. Some might prefer the term “agnostic” because I accept the possibility a Creative Force might exist, though not as a traditionally understood deity.

To attempt a better explanation: I do not accept there is an intelligent life form or supernatural force that acted willfully to create mankind.

This rejection does not imply that I do not want to believe in a Creator. I think most people want to imagine a “higher power” for some comfort. Nor does it mean I live my life trying to convince others their faiths are meaningless. My nature is not comfortable with the notion of a supernatural Creator, but anything is possible. There might be a semantic argument over the terms “logic” and “faith.”

Logic has too many definitions to use the term without referencing the logical model being utilized. Purists argue that logic is simply the reduction of relationships into a unambiguous symbolic system. I favor what has been called phenomenological, mathematical, or scientific logic. This is “deductive” logic, and works only within brackets.

Consider that what we consider a “stationary” object through scientific observation is only “stationary” in relation to the earth. A scientist assumes certain data to represent only a small portion of existence. I can claim something moves at a specific speed, but that speed in in relation to the earth, the solar system, and the universe. Science works within larger relationships — which would otherwise overwhelm us.

Philosophical “logic” is actually a rhetorical device. There is little “logic” because philosophy attempts to prove opinions. Modern philosophers go so far as to reduce the possibility of any “truth” or certainties. What you experience personally is the only truth, and that truth is also suspect. Modern philosophical “logic” conflicts with what one might call “true logic” due to philosophy’s reliance upon individual proofs — the proofs human beings can understand. In other words, what I cannot prove to myself, I cannot accept on a logical basis — but I can accept on faith.

Faith is important to me and most other humans. Faith and logic are, at least using the definitions utilized in modern philosophy, at odds but not exclusive: eventually I might prove those concepts in which I have faith. Faith is “accepting as fact that which cannot be mathematically or scientifically proven beyond all doubt.” Notice the phrase "all doubt" and its importance.

Blaise Pascal applied mathematical logic to support his faith, not to define it. Pascal suggested that since there is a statistical possibility a Creator exists, no matter how miniscule the likelihood, the associated risks of rejecting faith were too great. Hence, Pascal suggested faith was logical in that it offered security if there was a Creator. If no Creator exists, nothing was lost by having faith. Risk assessment depends upon how one measures the risk.

Paradox of Immortality

For many individuals, immortality promises to give life some greater meaning. I do not understand how this is, since I can see no greater meaning to my life if I live one day or a million days. Still, human beings have alternately searched for and constructed reasons to fear immortality. In searching for immortality, humans developed religious beliefs promising an afterlife or a continuing existence in this reality. Either as an afterlife or as reincarnation, the idea of perpetual existence offers comfort to many.

Others, notably those attracted to science fiction, place some faith in the ability of mankind to overcome what is currently known about physics. This faith in another universe, an enduring existence, gives some people a reason to live. These people consider the continuation of the human species a form of immortality. This need for continuity can be traced to the idea of heirs and lineage. People have children so those children can “carry on” the family genes — a form of immortality. Unfortunately, few people are actually remembered by future generations, so this continuity is a brief illusion.

If it were proven beyond question that there was nothing more to life, no promise of an ongoing human existence, would these people then cease to care about life? Others find other theories to grasp, dreaming that our species will overcome the limits of known space. I believe mankind will remain in this solar system, then vanish. Still, I do like the fantasy mankind will leave the universe and life will exist forever.

Once a person recognizes immortality is not possible, then the individual begins to search for reasons to affirm death as a desired end. As evidence of this, society has developed a series of myths depicting immortality as a curse, a form of eternal punishment. The most notable of these myths is that of the vampire, though many others exist. We look to convince ourselves that it is not desirable to live beyond a certain time. By choosing to reinforce the idea life was meant to be brief, we are better equipped to cope with death. After all, who would want to be alive during the end of the solar system?

I do enjoy life, and hope to experience a rather long life. I see no reason to end my own existence. No matter how meaningless existence is, it is still quite interesting. There are many things I hope to do during my life, for my own enjoyment. Because I do not expect to have an afterlife and do no care if future generations remember me, I am free to act now as I want.

My Faith

Despite my agnosticism, I am religious. My religion is not logical, as Kierkegaard noted, because faith cannot be logical. I do not believe in a Creator, or in a universal force, but rather in the special nature of life. Life might not have any universal meaning, but it is an amazing gift, to be cherished and protected. I can develop no logical argument for the preservation of life beyond self-interest. As you will read in the next section of this document, I believe all morality is a matter of self-interest, not a higher power.

In effect, my religion is a respect for all life; and this respect for life is self-serving. If I respect the lives around me, I expect others to respect my existence. Do not think that I oppose the concept of a Creator; I sometimes find myself wanting to believe in something more — but desire alone is not enough. 

As some have noted, I do respect the traditions of my family (though recent generations are secular). I have a great deal of respect for the historical beliefs of my family, while those beliefs are not necessarily my own. I do not actively observe the holidays of Christianity or Judaism, but I appreciate their historical and social importance. I cannot disprove articles of faith, so I do not and would not try to alter the beliefs of my family or friends. After all, my “faith” is in science, which is theoretical — and often proven incorrect. Science at least tries to adhere to facts and reality, which matters to me.

Philosophy

I am not an existentialist, nor do I stake any claim upon the philosophy. I do find some writings associated with existentialism match my own experiences of human nature, but that does not make me an existentialist. The core beliefs of my philosophy include:

• My actions define me to myself and others,
• Others define me, to the community and to myself,
• I am responsible for my actions,
• I possess a strong free will, and
• What I was and am does not control what I will be.

I must exist within society, since I enjoy the benefits of the modern world. I am unlikely to permanently surrender electricity, computers, or even television… even if I do take breaks from those luxuries. Wanting to exist within current society, I conform at some level. I carefully choose when my beliefs justify violating a social or legal norm.

I might, depending upon my personality at the moment, decide a red light is a minor inconvenience and not worth the potential expense or danger of running. If I am driving to a charity event for a school, I know that I would take no risks that might delay my arrival. I consider circumstances — yes, ethics are situational.

There are two views within “existentialism” regarding self-definition. Sartre observed that other people define us. What we do in private does shape us, but it does not define us because we are known to others by what is observed. Nietzsche suggested self-definition is possible, though one is then alienated from humanity.

I can try to claim that what others think of me does not matter, but in fact I define myself with the help of others. Other people are necessary for self-evaluation. Without others, we have no inherent meaning. Even rejecting other people is an act of self-definition. Try as we might, we use others as measures with which to compare our own lives.

Neither Existentialist nor Nihilist

Some readers of my works have asked if I am a nihilist or an existentialist. I am neither, as “serious” students of philosophy would agree. I am not searching for a school of thought, only my own path, which occasionally intersects with others.

As defined by some scholars, I contend these two schools of thought are not exclusionary, but rather complement each other. Few existentialists were (or are?) nihilists, and not every nihilist an existentialist. Existentialism is a “large tent” philosophy, accommodating a variety of political and religious beliefs. Nihilism, however, is quite specific in its rejection of the “truth” of social structures.

Nihilism

(1) The belief there is no meaning or purpose in existence. (2) The general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, and social norms.

Existentialism

A philosophy that the individual is free and responsible for his or her acts. This responsibility is the source of dread, anguish, and anxiety.

I admit to embracing fragments of both philosophies. I find no cosmic meaning in existence. I also reject society as the source of my morality, though I recognize the need to work within society much of the time. My existential tendencies translate into an acceptance of responsibility, especially when I willingly challenge societal norms. I recognize my beliefs are not universal and accept the consequences of not feigning agreement with the communities in which I exist.

Absurd Existence

My philosophy begins with the recognition that in the end all existence is without greater meaning and is therefore absurd. The universe will either expand until all energy is dissipated or everything will collapse into a single point of energy. In either case, long before the universe dies, our solar system will cease to exist. The existence of mankind, the earth, the solar system, and even the universe is for nothing. There is no greater meaning.

Once it is possible to accept there is no greater meaning to existence, it is possible to confront the anxiety of being without meaning. I exist — that is the only fact of which I am certain. 

I know some philosophy students fall prey to the notion existence cannot be proven, but that is nonsense. I can measure my mass, there is anecdotal evidence of my interactions with others, and I react to my environment. The rhetoric of denying existence is a game in which I do not indulge. If you doubt you exist, that is your problem, not mine. I have no such doubts. Even if I am a spot on petri dish gel or an electrical impulse in another creature’s mind, I exist. I hold the nihilistic position that nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, so I accept I exist as a matter of faith.

Yet after proclaiming my existence, I am not able to endow this existence with universal meaning. I live. I will die. Eventually, all life will vanish. In the end, it was pointless to even try to prove I existed, since that existence was without enduring consequence.

Continental, Analytical
and other meaningless debates

I have been trying to understand the differences between Continental Philosophies and English/Analytical Philosophies. I admit to confusion. As best I can tell the English schools worry more about words and meanings than philosophy.

With no intention to offend Chomsky admirers and others focused upon linguistic philosophies, I honestly differ with attempts to read too much into words and their meanings. There are too many lexicons in philosophy for any of them to hold perfect meaning. Worse, translation obscures many philosophical works. Words have meanings on too many levels for them to be the ideal communication tools.

Words mean things only within a greater context. Deconstructed, human communications lose meaning.

I develop opinions based upon those of others, as we all do. The number and complexity of ideas to which I am exposed is controlled by others and, to a lesser extent, me. The media are a primary input, but they do not supersede parents, educators, and peers. No one person has individual opinions unless isolated from human interactions or devices, which is not possible. Notice that I dare not say “unique” opinions, but even a one with a new idea seeks reinforcement.

Flawed Input

I can evaluate nature and opinions based solely upon the inputs I receive. These inputs are imperfect, especially when filtered through another person or the instruments of others. Animals possess better senses, so even basic textures, sights, and sounds are to be questioned.

What I know is what I experience, which is flawed, and what I am told… which is also flawed. Human decisions are therefore calculated risks based upon faith in the reliability of these flawed inputs.

Too often philosophers seek “truth” when the only truth about human existence is uncertainty.I belive in facts, even as those might relate to human neurology, and in a definite reality. I simply know that these Truths are beyond what people can understand. I like facts; facts are my security. Unfortunately, I also know facts do not help me understand people.

Random Aphorisms

Aphorisms, those short sayings within which we are supposed to find greater meaning, have always appealed to me. While I might not find myself in complete agreement with the aphorisms I have selected for this page, they do give a general impression of my world-view. In fact, I carry a sheet of these with me.

Richard Bach

Yes, he is the author of pulp bubble-gum for the brain, but I like Richard Bach’s philosophy. When I read his books in high school, and reread them in college, I found a bit of inner-peace. It was a bit disturbing to learn that he actually left a wife and family at one point, but good ideas can come from anyone — even an absent father.

1. You are never given a wish without also being given the power to make it true. You may have to work for it, however.
2. The only thing that shatters dreams is compromise.
3. Your only obligation in any lifetime is to yourself. Being true to anyone or anything else is not only impossible but the mark of a fake.
4. Every person, all the events in your life are there because you have drawn them there.
5. I allow the world to live as it chooses, and I allow me to live as I choose.
6. The Golden Rule doesn’t work. How would you like to meet a masochist who did unto others as he would have others do unto him?
7. The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy.

More I Like…

1. You owe nothing to anyone else until you borrow from them.
2. Justice exists, but not within the written laws.
3. Some people are more important than others; all men are not equal.
4. All people are propelled by a form of greed, even if that greed is spiritual.
5. You must accept the consequences of your actions, including the reactions of others.
6. If you believe strongly enough in your self, some will believe in you… and you will believe in those few.
7. If you commit a sin against another, then you should make penance.

I have been asked how I can like a saying that suggests men are not equal. Is that not the “American ideal” about justice and equality? Actually, it is not the ideal. The United States’ concept was equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law. That does not imply all men are equal as they age. Created equal and being of equal value as adults is not the same.

There is a “negative” component to this. Importance may be good or bad, depending on your point of view. Hitler was more important than many Germans of his time. I would certainly not consider his inequality a good thing. Always consider the meaning of words beyond an initial emotional reaction. Sometimes, recognizing who is important and why can lead to new perspectives.