If we navigate this discussion along the steady road of practical, rational thinking alone, we will eventually find the fertile ground between nihilism and liberalism, where an easy answer to this problem is available. Morality is indeed something that is constructed. Good boys and bad girls are thus called by of their level of compliance with the social rules that they find themselves in. This varies so much between cultures that it seems natural to concede that morality is completely subjective. Maybe the only true universal law is the law of nature, and, as is well said, Mother Nature can be a real bitch. Out in the jungle there is no such thing as the Geneva Conventions. White flags are nonsensical. It is a brutal vista, but it is one that has lead to us. We constructed this social device, morality. We are nature and we created it.

Man, the Creator

Human beings create things. That is as natural a phenomenon as photosynthesis. Roads and space stations, science and art, they all spring from this central nervous system that we have, furnished and honed from millennia of evolutionary engineering. So, why can’t morality be the same? We can –and do- create our morality (sometimes adding fanciful stories about talking snakes and divinely burning bushes in the process). It is a structure that is designed to allow us to flourish.

Maybe, ultimately, everything is anarchy. The survival-of-the-fittest law of nature might be the only real morality. But the irony of an anarchistic world is that it is the non-anarchists who do the best. The pure idea of morality may vary in its implementations, but ultimately its core objective is to promote surviving and flourishing, through cooperation. It is a prerequisite foundation for society and human progress. Surely we do not have to surrender our rational sensibilities to theistic leaps of faith in order to value morality or to deny its value completely because we have developed a modern science that tells us that we are no more than mammals with tools.   

Maybe the way that we are wired gives us this drive to seek out some superseding power beyond us to give our existence affirmation. Or maybe it is just the central Judeo-Christian idea that has been too deeply ingrained in our sub consciousness. Perhaps that’s why we have people incessantly reducing this type of discussion to a dichotomy. Our meaning of existence has become attached to superstition, and so when we wake up from the superstition, we find that we have to turn to nihilistic depravity or some New Age comfort to make internal ends meet. Ultimately, at the risk of flirting with a diluted nihilism, and I believe I speak on Mother Nature’s behalf, the Universe does not give a monkey’s Big Bang about us. And that is all the more reason for us to help each other out, I submit.

To this you respond: “But surely there is something worthwhile!”

And then the angel said: “So, is there nothing I can do about your demise of death? How daresay you! You mock yourself of pulling the trigger and yet you had the strength to say that there is something worthwhile out there!”

To this you respond: “I’m so sorry, father. I couldn’t scream for help, I couldn’t control my thoughts and movements, and I couldn’t stop the insanity from happening! Let me go, I demand you!”

“So be it,” angel said and the sound of bullet pulsed through the air. “Farewell, Mr. Nothing!” 

2011 © Jiri H. Stefanovich

This poststructuralism in literature has confused a lot of students in colleges and universities. The fear and bitter mystery, and enigmatic complexity of poststructuralism perplexes their minds to a great extent.

We all know that structuralism was based on the main premise that the structure of human world can be well understood by the structure of language. But during 1960s, the post structural authors and philosophers raised doubts about the validity of the language itself to unravel the mysteries and obstinate questionings about our universe. Foucalt aptly remarked that god was crumbling under our feet.

The poststructural authors are attracted by themes like Marxism, feminism, nihilism and anarchism.  De Saussure’s structuralist reflections and Derrida’s deconstruction theories make it evident that we can never fully understand or know anything, as the  interpretation of words differ from one individual to another.

The author’s writing is not so important as its interpretation by the reader. The truth is that the reader of a poem is the real author of the poem as he brings new interpretation quite different from the original intention of the poet. The reader writes and creates the poem; the actual writer doesn’t exist. We can never know the original intention of the author. What matters is the interpretation of the reader in his or her mind.

“If you donate to the aid of cows being tortured and being confined into smaller living quarters with poor conditions, then you will yourself get better quality meat for your table. By supporting the rights of animals, you can potentially make the food you eat far better than it is. Besides, would you want to be imprisoned in horrible conditions your whole life before being eaten?”

However, with that logic, the other side of the token could be used.

“There is no need to help these cows. All you’ll do is decrease the amount of meat we can produce annually, causing humanity to either lose space for farmland or to starve itself to death as meat prices rise. By not supporting organizations for animal rights, you could potentially help save the world from starvation.”

Now that both arguments have been seen, you can hopefully see that both arguments rely heavily on logic. You should also be able to see that logic you can use logic to provide a counterargument for logic. The only thing that really matters now is public opinion.

Well, enough with the introductions, logic is pointless because of the fact (you can’t really say this is an opinion, as I have just provided evidence) that one could argue one point with logic but could find retaliation with logic of the same potency.

Basically, logic is like a pendulum, when one thing is said about something, you’ll have to expect that the argument will come back to hit you in the face. However, the thing about pendulums is that, eventually, they’ll slow down. Much like this, with an argument based on logic, each time the same piece of logic is used, the argument will weaken, usually due to repetition.

The one reason logic is still heavily used in arguments is that most people are not very capable of countering logic with logic, as the average human intelligence is declining (in fact, I believe I myself have lost 30 IQ listening to crude humor), so is the capabilities of the human mind to comprehend certain things, logic being one of these things. With that, it gives people a false sense of security that their argument is flawless (provided it is a persuasive piece of literature that is based on Logos, rather than any other style of rhetoric).

Well, time for our brief summarization, logic is pointless.

Nihilism is the belief that everything in this world is pointless. Now, I’ll start by telling you how I see things as pointless. Let’s start with the simplest and most random thing I could think of, birthdays.

Birthdays are pointless for one main reason. They’re highly debateable. A pessimist could say that you are celebrating a year closer to your death, whereas an optimist would say you’re celebrating the passing of a year of life.

This might not seem to say that birthdays are pointless, however, it shows that, as you can prove neither the pessimist’s nor the optimist’s view, it is impossible to say which is correct. In such a manner, it is impossible to say whether anything has a point to it or not at all.

Now, let us get into further detail as to why everything is pointless by looking at the Christian point of view.

“On the first day, God said,’Let there be light,’ and the world came out of the void.”

Now, this void, which everything supposedly came out of, was comprised of nothing. In this same sense, if we apply this to chemistry, you’ll see that you can not create energy from nothing. Now then, if everything somehow came from nothing, then it is easily arguable that a point has come from it too. However, it is quite easy to see that the only things that came out of the void is that which is corporeal. In this sense, you can see that emotions, thoughts, and opinions, which are all parts of the mind, are incorporeal. With this incorporeality, it is simple to see that, as the point to things is incorporeal (seeing it is a state of mind), you could say that the points of things carry no value. In fact, corporeal objects hold no true value, and a way to show people this is through a common maxim.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, will it make a sound?

Now, if you’re scientific, you’d say yes, and if not, then your answer is questionable, but, let’s get to the main and pointless point of this part of the article. We’ll be talking about everyone’s favorite subject, money. Everyone wants money, right? Well, if no one was around to fight over money or spend money, it would mean that money was of no value, as the only reason we believe money is the greatest thing in the world is because we can’t do otherwise. It is much like gold, you can do all sorts of things with gold, but gold itself does nothing for us except look shiny and cause people to go to war due to rarity. However, if humanity never decided to create an economic system, then gold would be just another element out there with no specific purpose, such as the 105+ elements found on the Periodic Table.

Now, another way to see the world as pointless is through the view of if we all disappeared. Now, if humanity became extinct, then the rest of the animals in the world would more or less live the same way. The only difference is that we wouldn’t be there as a looming shadow to harm the other organisms on the planet. Aside from that, the bird that sings every morning would continue to sing and nest on the trees. The bees would still be going crazy inside their hive, and the cashier in the liquor store you go to every week will still be waiting for you (implying they’re not human.).

This article may seem confusing, so, I’ll try to summarize it a bit.

Everything is pointless. (Hopefully, that is an adequate summarization.)

KEY IDEAS:

·        Existentialism

o   Humans are totally responsible for their actions

o   You determine who you are because you are free to choose

·        Postmodernism

o   A view that social and cultural reality, as well as social science itself, is a human construction

·        Death of God/Nihilism/Perspectivism

o   God’s eye view on the world leading to perspectivism), eternal recurrence, and will to power

o   Modern science and the increasing secularization of European society had effectively “killed” the Christian God

o   Death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth… then we would retain only our perspectives … or the Death of God may lead to nihilism (nothing has any inherent importance and life lacks purpose)

·        Will to Power

o   Adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive, less important than the desire to expand one’s power.

o   Applies to humans, animals and inorganic nature

·        Morality

o   “become what you are”

HUMANS BY NATURE:

·        We are deceptive

·        We are simply animals = insignificant

·        Strive, survive, thrive = meaning of being alive

·        We are conflicting (act one way one day, act another way the next day)

·        Every organism is a perspective

·        Our brain is our adaptive weapon (intellect is our means of survival – it gives us the ability to hide and deceive)

·        Ability to survive – hiding in a group of people is “safer” than being singled-out (deception)

WORDS/LANGUAGE:

·        Words mean whatever we want them to mean (set by definitions and experiences)

·        Arbitrary notion of labels (object remains the same if you change its label)

GOD IS DEAD:

·        Truth is man-made (believe what you want, no grounds to say what is indeed true)

·        Nothing objectively right or wrong (you decide)

·        We destroyed our cultural construction of God (the idea got worn-out of “creator, objective truth”)

·        We invented God in the first place

·        Removing God means thinking of yourself

·        Religious people are conflicting (how can you be with God, but also here in natural reality?)

·        Be happy now, don’t worry about a happy afterlife

BEING vs BECOMING:

·        Becoming is what Nietzsche is concerned with (our earthly existence)

·        He does not believe in Plato’s view of “being”

·        Postmodernist – doesn’t believe in meta-narratives, therefore there is no God

·        Truths – only our own perspectives

·        Pragmatist – realist; concentrates on facts, practicalities, etc.

·        We can’t break out of our human condition and view life objectively (we only have our own experiences, and are stuck with what we get)

·        Views himself as an “unmasker” of the illusions that have been pulled over our eyes

·        We are clever, (not intelligent) meaning we are ‘street smart’/sneaky

·        Does not believe in Truth, but only local perspectives

·        Nothing beyond this life, therefore we should enjoy it to the fullest

REASON:

·        Life is change. People have a hard time dealing with it.

·        Movement/motion, change does not exist. Everything just IS.

·        *The two above lines are conflicting between our notes … not sure which is right

·        Believes that our reason has evolved, and we are now in a higher world

·        When people make a distinction between this world and another untouchable one (heaven), they must be unhappy with their lives (third proposition)

DIVIDED CIRCLE OF HUMAN MOTIVATION:

·        Includes all negative and positive traits we possess naturally as humans

·        This divide separates the good and the bad traits

·        The dividing line represents religion (church is hostile to life); Nietzsche says that we are all of these things, so we should accept them

PASSION “The church fights passion”

RELIGION:

·        Zarathustra – prophet of religion (concerned with separating good and evil); represents destruction

·        Nietzsche says accept human nature in its totality

·        Jesus was a simple teacher who lived and died for what he believed in (Jesus was the only true Christian and all others are distortions)

·        Spirit: means to be energetic and happy, not the “soul” in a religious context

o   On the 3 Metamorphoses: (story)

§  Spirit becomes a camel (best of burden), lion (freedom, rebellion), child (self-propelled wheel with own will)

PRIDE:

·        Deadliest sin; egoism is bad

·        We can’t abstract ourselves from our earthly existence, but we can stretch the boundaries of our human condition

SUICIDE:

·        We wish to leave this inferior reality (because we’re unhappy), but suicide is a sin

·        Body (full of desires) and soul (undegradable and special) – they can’t be split

·        We are complex beings; soul is simply a word to make sense of things

WILL TO POWER:

·        Will to power: everything is a matter of power relations; hierarchies

·        No greater power on earth than good and evil; we create good and evil

·        Humanity has no goals; we huddle together as if we have similar values; Nietzsche asks if we are strong enough to survive on our own

·        You develop your own practices and values

·        The nature of existence is to attain power (this applies to anything, any type of power)

·        Only a few can attain a greater place in hierarchy

STUCK IN HUMAN CONDITION:

·        (1) Sex – concerned with ‘repressive’ views (as evil or questionable) … we come into this life through it, so why not enjoy it

·        (2)) Lust to rule – desire to impose order on herself/himself… deep sense in which you must dominate yourself to regulate how you thrive and grow

·        (3)Selfishness – nothing is more natural than this; the ‘nos’ of religions are typically unproductive; reason should control desire or passion of the “self enjoying soul”

HUMAN VALUES:

·        Conventional and traditional values keep us from doing things

·        Whose words and values do you live by – your own or someone else’s?

·        You will have an existential emptiness if you live by the words of others

·        You are an individual, so you are responsible for your own existence

·        What is your good and evil? One size fits all does not work.

o   If there’s no god, you must encrypt the meaning

o   If there is a god, you must choose to follow it

o   If you refuse to choose, you’ve already made a choice

·        Good and Evil – are not firm, fixed and unchanging

INDIVIDUALISM:

·        Nietzsche hopes everyone is not equal

·        The unique individual – must have a tolerance for uncertainty because it’s hope for the future

HAPPINESS:

·        We should maximize happiness in the world

·        He is nauseated because he can’t the prospect of accepting all the unfortunate instances of humanity

ETERNAL RE-OCCURRENCE:

·        Scientifically, everything has occurred and will occur over and over again

·        Maybe the re-occurrence is true – would you accept it?

o   Your response says how you are doing in life and if you are happy or not

*From “God is Dead” to the “Eternal Re-Occurrence” … completes Nietzsche’s “circle of philosophy”.

I do not think this universe developed with a rhyme or reason at all. I do not think there is some mysterious pattern in which the universe behaves, or that it can be simplified into a simple equation. I do not believe some intellectual being created this universe, or breathed life into it, delicately leaving its marks on the faintest of attributes, leaving us to speculate its existence. I do not believe that when we die, we go to a heaven, or go to hell. I do not believe when we die, we simply rot in the Earth and lose all consciousness and being. I do not believe in karma. I do not believe in superstition. I do not believe everything happens for  reason, but that we give ourselves reasons for things happening. I do not believe we will be punished for anything we do. I do not believe the universe is a being, capable of balancing circumstances or bending its existence to reprimand a single being for its wrong-doing.

I believe our consciousness is beautiful. I believe it is our job to find beauty within the universe, and not for the universe to expose it to us. I believe that we should do what is right not because of a juvenile fear we will be punished, but because no one else is going to do it for us. I believe that when we die, our consciousness is reborn into another body with keener senses, capable of unearthing alternative aspects of the universe which we were incapable of observing in this one. I believe there is nothing greater than us holding us accountable for our actions, but that it is our duty to do it ourselves. I believe humans do not hold themselves to a high enough standard, that we simply do what we want because we have no fear of being penalized, when it is the fact we have no punishment should be the reason we limit ourselves. I believe the universe is amazing, all because it is behaving in an untraceable course, and is capable of astonishing the selfish beings we are.

I believe we should be thankful for our own consciousness, the only thing separating us from the rest of the universe, even if there is no one there to thank.

Race has been a problem since the beginning of America. Discussion about the plight of African Americans is divided into two camps, the liberal structuralists and conservative behaviorists. Those in the liberal structuralist camp necessitate full employment, health, education, and childcare programs. Their concern is to change the political and economic structures which prevent blacks from success. Those in the second camp, the conservative behaviorists, promote self-help programs, black business expansion, and non-preferential job practices. Their project rests upon a cultural revival of the Protestant ethic in black America. Their goal is to revive the work ethic, gratification, frugality and responsibility in blacks; bluntly, to change their behavior. Both of these camps push for change, but end up drowning out the crucial debate about the prospects for black America. Social activists, Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates, have concluded that if Americans want to properly address race, we must acknowledge that political and economic structures are inseparable from behavior, that the way people live and act are determined by the larger circumstances of their lives. This idea of interconnected structures and behavior is reinforced by Richard’s journey through the novel Black Boy, written by R. Wright. Richard illustrates this claim in the novel because the majority of his actions and behaviors were responses to the severe structures weighing down on him.

One example appears in chapter 10, when Richard is tempted with the idea of stealing and reselling tickets at the movie theater where he works. At first, he is skeptical about the idea but changes his mind when he realizes that white bosses would rather have a dishonest, uneducated black worker than an honest, educated one. Richard also recognizes how easily and quickly he could acquire money to escape the South. Despite going against his morals, Richard acts upon the chance and soon finds himself in a coach headed north. In this example, the connection between structures and behavior is very clear. The racism and stereotyping the white bosses have is the political structure, and Richard’s lack of money is the economic structure. Richard’s illegal action, although unwelcomed, was the resulting behavior. On the train as recalled, “Slowly the burden I had carried for many months lifted somewhat. My cheeks itched and when I scratched them I found tears. In that moment I understood the pain that accompanied crime and I hoped that I would never have to feel it again. I never did feel it again, for I never stole again…” Richard is much like Lynell Newman, from “Beyond the Colorline”, in this example.  Both characters experimented with illegal crimes for economic satisfaction, but both stopped doing so because of their ethical beliefs. Richard and Lynell could have continued bootlegging movie tickets or selling drugs to make easy money, but instead decide that they would never commit those crimes again. Although indirectly, the crimes Richard and Lynell committed eventually lead to their well-being. By making themselves earn their money, they are limited to the options of education or legal jobs, which can only lead to accomplishment.

            A second, less significant example occurs in chapter 5 when Richard enters the schoolyard at Jim Hill public school. The children begin mocking Richard yelling, “Straw katy,” and “Mama bought me a straw hat!” Richard is immediately deemed an outsider, and cast to the bottom of the political structure, much like blacks in white America. Correspondingly, Richard is at an economic low, “his clothes in despair wearing a cheap straw hat.” As a result of the two structures Richard acts out in fury, fighting and beating two boys. By analyzing this example, it is shown that harsh structures lead to harsh behavior. From this incident, Richard learns to fight mockery and discrimination, causing him to have problems with white employers in the future. It is not until much later in the book that Richard learns how to mask these emotions. This mask would eventually give him problems in developing healthy relationships with other people.

            In conclusion, structures and behavior are associated subjects. This is a common belief of prestigious social activists, and an underlying theme in Black Boy. Richard further illustrates this interconnectedness through his engagements and dogmas in the novel. Structures do indeed shape behaviors, but in no way dictate or determine them. It can be instituted that political and economic structures establish margins for behavior, and that personality determines th

This is a reality of everyday life, experienced by all people. What’s different between the weak and the resilient is the ability to rise above the simple fact that there will always be people “better” than you. In reality, no one is better than anyone else. The term “better” is a word created in society to make us think some are more deserving than others.  Resilience consists of being capable of not giving in to this foolish idea. Resilience lies in the mindset of a janitor who has the aptitude to become the president of the United States of America but is perfectly happy doing his job because the “better” people who could afford college have already been competing for the position. Meanwhile, he reads the news every day and offers commentaries to his children on the decisions of the current President. Resilience lies in the skill of finding satisfaction with your current position in the world, and accordingly, being able to build on your goals regardless of how much of an applause you will receive.
We often put too much importance in the success or failure of our goals. In reality, success and failure has nothing to do with goals, even when they are tangible. Say you want to lose 20 pounds to get into some group with weight requirements. Maybe at the end of a year you have not lost the 20 pounds, but you lost 10. Are you going to beat yourself up over it? Maybe you didn’t lose the weight because you slacked off, or maybe you worked so hard to lose it but didn’t. Either way, some one else got to take your place, and that person is grateful for the opportunity. What really matters is your own true desire. If you think it was unfair that you were not accepted, you should fight for your right, and that would be a new goal. 

We often forget about our goals or discard them only because they are not genuine goals. Goals can only be effective if we have an interest in them beyond our desire to be better than others or better than ourselves. Remember, simple values lie at the heart of our greatest feats.