The Fading Out Of Objective Truth / Part II

Even a creature that is weak, ugly, cowardly, smelly, and in no way justifiable still wants to stay alive and be happy after its own passion.
— George Orwell, “Such, Such Were the Joys”, p. 284 of “Facing Unpleasant Facts”, a collection of Orwell’s essays compiled by George Packer. Mariner Books: N.Y., N.Y. (2008).

John Rawls is one of the gods of 20th Century moralism and political liberalism. Having supposedly lost his Christian faith during World War II, he preceded to spend his whole life after the War recreating the Christian God in an image in which he could have faith through political liberalism. Born a Patrician, he worked his whole life after the War as a professor at Harvard. Rawls’ arguments for principles of “social justice as fairness” use a thought experiment consisting of a hypothetical veil of ignorance. Citizens making choices about what the attributes of a society are supposed to be ought to do so from an “original position” of a “veil of ignorance” in which they will not know such things as what gender, race, abilities, tastes, wealth, position, and so forth they will have in that society. Rawls claims this will cause them to choose “fair” policies. Nice idea, problem is he did not go far enough nor did he see that for this hypothetical to work it must actually consist of two veils: one veil for the society we create and one veil for the reality that created us. He did not continue this veil of ignorance into ignorance of who if anyone would be altruistically willing to engage in such reasoning or who if anyone would even care about fairness for anyone but themselves. He did not continue it into ignorance of truth overall or of knowledge of anything except our ignorance, including ignorance of such things as fairness, the nature of language, justice, supposed natural rights for all, and most definitely ignorance of whether there even are such things as equal rights for all and much else that moralists assume as the Good despite claiming subjectivity of values as the Good. He did not continue it into now knowing the meaning of life. If he had done so, he might have been on to something. Instead of just being a hypothetical game, this veil or more accurately these two veils of ignorance would be a really rational means for normative especially for nihilist normative decision making: decision making by which the individual person seeks power over reality, over society, and over the Other in order viably to give life meaning.

Rawls did not go further to assume a veil of complete ignorance and thus nihilism because though he pretended and doubtless meant to be talking to all participants in society regardless of their particular characteristics such as ethnicity, social status, gender, race, physical and mental abilities, conception of the Good, and so forth so as to enforce a universal standard of normative values, he was not really talking to all. In reality, such talk is meant for and has meaning only for the few in a given society who have the power to control its normative values as I have been arguing in all my writings. Most of humanity, regardless of poverty or wealth, is just trying to survive in their personal struggle against reality both existentially and socially created. Requiring or assuming that any significant portion or even a small portion of humanity will go through their daily lives making decisions by forcing themselves to think they are what they are not or to assume they might never be what they are is a serious delusion blind to our Heart of Darkness. Rawls was preaching to the few Powers with the time and power in life to concentrate on creating a world in their image hoping they will ignore their Heart of Darkness to create a Christian world without the Christ. Nice try but just as delusional. In the end, as with all delusional moralists varying from Aquinas to Nietzsche, he created simply another wordgame of techniques for social engineering to keep the Powers in power creating a world in their image.

Going further with Rawls’ hypothetical as required by Acceptance of Nihilism, the veil of ignorance must actually be two veils of ignorance: one over the reality that created us and one over the reality society creates. Further, for our nihilism, this technique cannot be said to deal with good, evil, fairness, justice, the Good, nor the other usual aesthetic dogmatic language of morality and ethics but with the only attribute and state of affairs that matters: power — how to achieve it and how to control it.

We have no idea why there is something instead of nothing. Life has no meaning other than existence and it exists for no particular or general purpose other than existence. The “No Miracles” argument for scientific realism is unsound and fallacious. It only works because the advocates and worshipers of science as religion use words such as “approximately”, “essentially”, “closely”, “most accurately”, and so forth to argue it. In practice, there are multiple contradictory assumptions and conclusions among scientific theories in those few sciences that are still trying to derive holistic explanations for reality. Contradictory assumptions can prove any argument true; contradictory conclusions disprove all arguments. Further, saying that scientific reality must be true because miracles cannot be true is begging the question. It is accurate to say that scientific realism offers the simplest explanation of why the laws of physics are the same in Tokyo as in London or on Mars and as to why certain theories “approximately”, “essentially”, “closely”, or “most accurately” align with certain experiments, but as to the life of an individual which is all that matters to individual life, no science can prove to the individual that we will see tomorrow, see the sun rise tomorrow, give life, or take life.  The undisputed universal fact is that for those that will die during the night, the sun will not rise tomorrow. Seeing the sun tomorrow is as much a miracle for any individual waking in Technological Society as it was in the Stone Age regardless of whether we are the product of evolutionary genetic physical forces or by the design of an omniscient and omnipotent being. A miracle explanation of why science works is just as sound and valid as a “No Miracles” explanation. Regardless of the actual existence of the universe, we are ignorant as to whether this existence is necessary or contingent. We also most definitely know that my, our, and any individual’s existence are contingent — other than maybe taxes, death is the one certainty in reality. The individual life is a miracle to the individual and no one including science, science as religion, or religion has any rational basis to deny this existential miracle.

Thanks to science, we have probabilistic and statistical methodology that allows us to create predictive value out of some of our theories about reality but that is it. And, that is enough. We want power over reality: power to live and to give life meaning. Looking through our veil of ignorance to this reality, regardless of whether we are “weak, ugly, cowardly, smelly, and in no way justifiable” or the most distinguished of academic elites creating wordgames that bind even God, we are entitled to choose and ought to choose that which gives us the most power over the reality from which we came and to which it is trying to get us to return: be it the Big Bang, evolution, physical matter, dirt, God, or whatever. The veil of ignorance by which we see this reality allows us and if we have made the leap to wanting to live even requires us to force or at least to try to force upon the reality that created us choices that give us the most power to control this reality so as to live and prosper in it. This is the first “original position” by which the nihilist makes normative decisions of ultimate evaluation and perspective value.

However, the veil of ignorance by which most of us view the reality created by society — most notably by its language — does not allow us to know the power by which we can control social reality; the opposite is the case, at any given time except for a small minority in society, we are at its control and under its power. For that small minority of Powers-that-be, during the time they are Powers, they create the normative wordgame that controls social reality and thus by definition they are not in an original position of ignorance but one of knowledge because they are the ones that define both and thus are irrelevant to this contemplation. Unless we become one of these few, our only control of social reality is by struggling against it. Thus, if we make a leap to life as a nihilist, the “original position” of our veil of ignorance rationally requires beliefs that would give us social power but then acts or doing the opposite required by those beliefs: the veil of ignorance by which we see social reality, again if we have made the leap to wanting to live, requires us to act upon this social reality, upon the Other, and upon ourselves not on the belief that gives us power to control it but less power so as to live and prosper in it. It is only by believing in what will achieve power and by then taking the opposite action can we control the few that seek and have power as an end-in-itself endangering my individual meaning and power for life.

Let me exemplify this technique using examples from my prior essay. Assume James Watson — a Nobel laureate who in 1953 co-created the double-helix structure of DNA thus giving us a lot of power over the reality of birth, physical health, forensic investigation, and much more — has offered to give you a seminar regarding molecular biology. Also, assume he is a fanatic racist advocating segregation of a supposed Aryan race from other races. Regardless of whether DNA may simply be an instrumental “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology”, from our original position of ignorance of natural reality, the nihilist choice is to accept his offer and actually to allow the seminar to try to gain some power over natural reality. Now, assume you are a fanatic racist nihilist yourself. In which case, to empower your racism you need to act upon and to empower his racism so all of you can act upon it. However, as a nihilist, you know that in the end regardless of racism or no racism, the end result will be the same with the Powers using your normative choices and acts to empower themselves over your individual life; so, despite your belief in the language of racism, you oppose giving yourself, Watson, or anyone any power affirmatively to act upon the language of racism. Assume you are not a racist; in which case, you will believe in the power to act against racism. However, again, as a nihilist, you know that in the end racism or no racism, the end result will be the same with the Powers using your normative choices and acts upon them to empower themselves over your individual life; so, despite your belief in language against racism, you oppose giving yourself or any others who are against racism any power affirmatively to act upon your language against racism. In the choices available, the end result is the same: Watson gives the seminar but is not allowed to act upon any racism (he can only speak about his beliefs) just as those against his racism cannot act upon it.

Another example is my CAT problem of the previous essay. At a certain point in our original position of ignorance of natural reality, CATs were the most powerful solution over the natural reality of smog and the nihilist rational choice through this veil of ignorance would be empower CATs and thus to empower our individual life over nature. However, through the veil of ignorance covering social reality, regardless of whether the nihilist supports CATs to thus believe in empowering them or opposed them so as not to believe in empowering, the required nihilist action is not to give anyone a monopoly on violence to enforce CATs.

Obviously, this “two veil” nihilist reasoning is at a very basic level and needs the details to be worked out. Rawls’ two books A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism working out his one veil of ignorance total about 1500 pages depending on the editions. I have to start somewhere. One more exemplification that may help to jump-start the working out is a contemplation of how these two veils may work out in a democracy.

 

Why does God hate the Poor: Does the Answer matter?

Does it really matter why God hates the poor? No one else seems to care. The vast majority of people have and always will spend their lives trying to survive and gain as much power as they can during their life — as they should do. So, why does the answer as to why God hates the poor matter to me and to some others?

In deciding whether God or I should do anything about this hatred of the poor by God, the answer to the first part of the question is easy. Because God gave me this life I never asked for, does God owe me any duty to do anything about how messed up this life is? Given our contemplation so far, the answer should be obvious: No. He is God and does whatever He wants to do consisting of acting by necessity. According to Christians, God did do something. He became human through His Son Jesus Christ. I will leave that response between you and Søren Kierkegaard and go on to the question of what my response or duty ought to be regarding God’s hate for the poor.

Why does the answer bother me so much? What, if anything should I do about this ontological truth that there were, are, and always will be the poor in life who will be the object of God’s hate? The answer does not matter to those God loves nor should it. Unfortunately, it does not matter to most of the poor. As worker’s rebellions varying from Spartacus to the French, Haitian, Russian, and many other revolutions have shown and as most of history in general has established, poor people given the chance are just as greedy, homicidal, hateful, power-hungry, and generally what we call evil as any rich and powerful person can be or are.

As Camus said: “The slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown.” The undisputed fact of reality is that the poor, if given the chance, will seek the same power over me as the few powers-that-be already have over me. Christian saints claim to love others as an end in itself but that is bullshit. Take away the promise of the power of the Resurrection and they would be no different than anyone else.

So, why should I care about these poor as I defined them previously physically, materially, or spiritually? “F__k them,” should be my answer. I should just worry about myself and my own search for power so that I become a power-that-be; so that I become among the few beloved by God. This is the reality ignored by even the existentialist writers, from Camus to Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Herman Melville, and so on. They see the reality of what is but ignore the potential for much worse when reaching their conclusions of absurdity and hopelessness. They go to the edge of the abyss, look over, and then step back. That is why, in the end, despite their claims of despair, hopelessness, and absurdity, they always end with hope and avoid nihilism.

They start with phrases such as by Camus, “Everything is permitted. It is not an outburst of relief or of joy, but rather a bitter acknowledgement of a fact.” Or by Dostoevsky, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” But after saying this, they back off. All of a sudden, they start writing about good and evil as if those terms have meaning outside of whatever random meaning an individual or the powers-that-be arbitrarily give to them. Why do they back off of it? Are they cowards? Is this all part of God’s playing with His hatred of the poor, to create false hope to hide His hatred of many of us?

The dead are dead. There is nothing that I can do to help them. Even if they were alive, they should really not mean much to me. Based on my life experience and reading of history, at any given time, considering both the reality and potential of human nature, 90% to 95% of humanity is divided into four kinds of humans: 1) those who would walk into gas chambers to die when ordered; 2) those who would do the ordering; 3) those who would do the killing; and 4) those who would clean up afterwards. The remaining 5% to 10% of humanity, at any given time might refuse all four.

Are those remaining the ones that are troubling me? Am I in that 5% to 10%? The problem with this percentile division or categorizing of humanity is that those who make up any of these categories at any given time are completely random. It varies from time to time, depending on the circumstances. So, today’s gas chamber victim may be tomorrow’s executioner. Today’s hero may be tomorrow’s coward. The same is true for me. This is all part of God’s hatred for the poor. Any one of us, depending on the circumstances, could fall into any one of these categories.

In some ways, being poor is a great excuse for going through life, once you reach maturity. Many advocates for the materially poor complain about the loss of opportunity. Among the poor, there may be a wasted Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, or whoever might exist, and we are wasting their potential. Well, also among the poor might exist a future Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or whoever. If these two, for example, had stayed poor and in poverty and died young, it might have been the best thing that ever happened to them and to the world. At least if you died as a victim of the gas chambers, you will be remembered with pity and kindness. That might not have been true if you had actually had a chance to live.

One’s status in life as hero or villain is purely random for the vast majority of humans. So, the poor themselves are not a reason to care about them. In his book, The Confessions, the so-called Church Father St. Augustine stated, argued, and essentially realized that even babies are either evil or have the potential for it. He exclaims to God, “No one is free from sin in Your sight, not even an infant, who’s span of early life is but a single day.” As St. Augustine explained, “What, then, was my sin at that age? Was it perhaps that I cried so greedily for those breasts?” That is, of his mother, for milk. “Certainly, if I behave like that now, greedy not for breasts, of course, but for food suitable to my age, I should provoke derision and be very properly rebuked. My behavior then was equally deserving of rebuke.” He complains that once he saw a mother with two babies, who, while trying to feed one, the other cried out of envy and jealousy for his turn at the trough. This is a tough view on life in a tough era in which some theologians, including St. Augustine, even argued and believed in the damnation of unbaptized babies. As a true power of this world and apparently of the next, St. Augustine accepted this condemnation of even babies as the price that he had to pay for eternal happiness for God. What a great human being he was.

It never occurred to him to rebel against such happiness and to rather accept damnation and hell with those babies. So, why should it bother a sinner such a me? And why does that rebellion occur to me as a viable option? In terms of the potential evil of humanity, of even babies, his contemplation was right. Why should he reject his happiness simply because some — maybe as little as 5% of those dead babies — could have been true saints of humanity if given the chance? The differentiation between the lives of those who fit into the 90% – 95% of humanity that I describe as random poor and those in the remaining 5% to 1% that are the powers-that-be are just as random.

The chosen few that have the power to decide for themselves into what percentile they will be, and furthermore, to what percentile the remainder of humanity will be, are chosen randomly. It is a random choice by God. As a random choice, it could have been me placed into any one of the four categories. It could have been me — depending on luck deciding whether I was a gas chamber victim, operator, rebel, or a St. Augustine — deciding into what category the remainder of humanity will be.

So, do I care and have empathy for the poor and hate the powerful as purely a selfish act — as an act of envy — because I am not among the powerful as St. Augustine was; if I had that power, would I not care in the same way that he did not care? Probably. Unlike the existentialists who in the end pretend their concerns are not based on their own self-love but are based on empathy and a concern for humanity, the truth is that their concern and my concern is mostly a selfish act of envy and jealousy as described or as alleged in the Parable of the Workers.

Well, so what if that’s the true motive of my concern? God’s power includes the ability to randomly decide whether He would give me life and what kind of life. He has randomly decided to allow his chosen few to control my life and most of human life. Why should I accept his randomness? He wants me to work all day for the same amount of money as those whom He chose to work in His vineyard for only an hour. Why should I accept that? There is no reason why I should accept it, just as there is no reason why not. By randomly rejecting God and His random choices, I am getting as close to being a god as a human can become. Without that, the only other option for being a god is making a choice to randomly make nothing out of something: killing life. Killing life, the only random act that is even more God-like but for some reason that I cannot choose.

 
I can try to do better than God’s random power. I cannot do better since I am not God but I can at least try to do it. I do not want to accept happiness based on the suffering of babies because by doing such — I say to myself — I would be accepting His arbitrary power over me. I reject His power. Tough talk. But, as we used to say in the Navy, I can talk the talk, but can I walk the walk?

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Fair?

 

Is God fair?

 
I ask this question because fairness and its use seem to connote a different meaning than justice, so much so that the present ruling class glorified philosopher John Rawls wrote a book entitled A Theory of Justice arguing a rationalist foundation of “justice as fairness”. Fairness implies a certain simplicity and mathematical balancing that appear to be much more accurate and honest than the concept of justice. For example, if you have three starving people and three apples, fairness would dictate that each person gets an apple. If you are playing football, you expect the referee to be fair to all players, that is by applying the rules and making the calls the same for all players.

 
This type of reasoning creates an illusion of rational rules that creates an illusion of justice but ultimately, when critically and analytically examined as they pragmatically work in reality, it still leads to the same uses and usefulness as the words ‘justice’ and ‘injustice’ contemplated in prior essays. For example, if you try to factor into the three- hungry-people-decision the different ages, weight, metabolism, health, and almost infinite number of other factors that differentiate people, it becomes a rationally unsolvable problem of “justice”. Do you give a young, fat, healthy child, with a much more likely chance of survival more than one apple or the sick, skinny old person who needs it more but most likely will die anyway? The same types of problems arise in the football example. If a player is viewed as an asshole, especially playing in an away game, the fans expect more calls to go against the player and the calls will go against the player more often. Such unfairness in the rules — or such unfairness in the application of rules — is actually seen as justice, punishing the player for being an asshole (however the Powers-that-be or the fans define being an asshole). So much so that if the player is seen as an asshole because of actions off the field when not even playing football, such as for example he beats his wife, then the fans, the league, and the referees expect that the player will not even be allowed to play but will be suspended or thrown out completely out of his playing job and salary. Thus, in this latter case, the Powers will deny the player, his wife, and their family any income from the only employable skill the player has and bankrupt them as an act of justice. Such unfairness in the game is seen as justice in society.

 
Ultimately, as with justice, anything that helps get the individual or social group ruling  class ideology what they want as meaning in their life is fair and also just. What hinders that goal is unfair and unjust.

 
Therefore, in substance, analytically, there is no difference between the use and usefulness for ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ and neither can be applied to the concept of God. If He wants to give three of his starving creations three apples, one apple, zero apples and just watch them starve to death, or whatever She wants to do with the apples, He is free to do so unhindered by any human created concept of fairness. Ultimately, the answer to the question asked by Socrates of whether something is good, fair, or just because the gods’ love it or whether the gods love it because it is good, fair, or just is: neither. If we were to answer this question in terms of human language treating God as a Person, the answer would be that something is good, fair, or just because God loves it.

 
Do our questions regarding God’s hatred for the poor apply also to nature and the animal world, in essence to all of reality or just to humans?

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Just?

Is God just? Can the words “justice” and “injustice” be applied to God?

 

The search for justice has been a constant source of injustice in life, especially for the poor and working class from whose perspective we are examining the question of “why does God hate the poor”. Calls for justice are usually the starting stage of the greatest injustices of history. “Justice” has been defined in many ways, by philosophers and theologians, all of which have failed to achieve justice. For classical and for modern philosophers varying from Plato to Karl Marx, justice means “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. As usual, this sounds nice in the abstract, but both for Plato’s Republic and to the other extreme of Marxism and its post-modern progeny, the end result in reality is always the same tyranny of the few over the many that is the class struggle of history. Modern theorists on justice, such as John Rawls in his books A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness and Karl Popper with his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, tried to subsume the Christian Beatitudes into a secular form of social norms but such attempts have failed miserably in making any qualitative improvement in human society. When acting in association with capitalism and science, some calls for justice have at least materially or quantitatively improved the human condition. However, such association qualitatively has served only to replace chattel slavery by wage slavery; all have done nothing to improve qualitatively human nature in any way in relation to any concept of justice or injustice — all such concepts are relative to a given point in history. The lower classes continue to remain slaves and will continue to do so for as long as there continue to be humans in the class struggle that is history.

 
The word “justice” is purely a human creation. In the reality of human language, the meaning of most words is their use and usefulness. In this sense, the meaning of the word “justice” in human reality as used by any individual is “that which gets me what I want”. If the individual wants something to give their life meaning and they get it, the process and result is just. If someone else or something denies them this meaning, this denial is unjust. Assistance in getting what the individual wants in order to give meaning to their life is justice. Any denial is unjust. For a society, justice is anything that maintains order and the status quo power structure of that society, and injustice is anything that threatens the status quo power structure and order of a society.

 
Does the word justice have any inherent meaning when applied to the concept of God? Again, you must remember that God is defined here as the reason why there is something instead of nothing. Based on any purely analytic examination of the nature of God, the answer to the question of whether justice or injustice applies to God is “no”. God is the ultimate power of reality. He can do whatever He wants, whenever She wants, and to whoever He wants. The word justice has no meaning when applied to God, any more than do the words good or evil. The concept of justice does not apply to God and He cannot be described as just or as unjust. Nothing can deny God anything. God does not need anything. God does not owe us anything.

 
This is why religions such as Islam and Old Testament Christianity that make justice the ultimate virtue and aspect of God are so dangerous in life, especially to the working class and the poor, more so than religions such as New Testament Christianity that make love the ultimate virtue. Any religion that gives the attribute “justice” to the absolute power that is God is a dangerous illusion for the working class because it equates the workers’ or the poor’s need for something with God’s need for something. This equating of what the worker wants to what God wants not only weakens workers’ ability to will, work, and fight for what they want and need because they expect God to get it for them but also serves to justify any atrocity that the individual worker wants to commit to their fellow workers in order to get it. This results in the working class wasting a lot of time and energy fighting among themselves while the Powers-that-be stand by and watch the battle — enjoying their power. Once one starts to believe that God will give you prosperity, education, or whatever simply because one wants it and therefore it must be just, one has lost the battle against the Powers in any struggle one is fighting. God may do such for the rich and powerful, but He will not do it for the working class or for those that are not among the Powers-that-be; this is the whole point of this question we are asking of “why does God hate the poor”. He plays favorites. He is entitled to do so. Workers and the poor must work, fight, and struggle for what they want. He is not just or unjust. He is God, He can do whatever She wants.

 
New Testament Christianity tries to get around this aspect of God by talk of love, mercy, the Trinity that includes a Person that is divine, and so forth trying to make love the primary and only attribute of God. However, even according to New Testament Christianity, justice is not a reality in this life and, from my reading of the New Testament, is not a reality in the next either — if there is a next. “Justice” is a minor word in New Testament Christian reality. I realize the New Testament states in the Beatitudes “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. And Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, but these Beatitudes do not say how the thirst and hunger will be filled nor what the reward will be. It definitely will not be by justice because God can do whatever He wants with His creations, either in this life or in the next, if there is any. As Clarence Darrow said, “There is no justice in life, in or out of court.” More accurately, the description should be that there is no justice in this life or the next, if any.

 

This Christian reality is best brought out by the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard at Matthew 20:1–16 that goes as follows:

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Faced with injustice, essentially God’s answer is: “it is my world [vineyard], I can do what I want with it and with you”.

 
So just to summarize where we are as of now in our contemplation of the question of “why does God hate the poor”, we can conclude that this question is not one of good or evil, of morality or ethics, nor of justice or injustice. None of these human creations apply to God. If He wants to hate the poor, He is free to do so without any limitation by attributes of good, evil, morality, ethics, or justice. What about fairness? Also, is it a matter of free choice? Is God choosing to hate the poor? Does She know She does it? Does God love and hate? Can She really hate the poor? Or, is His mistreatment of them purely business and not personal? I will consider these questions next.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Moral?

If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

Is god moral? To contemplate this question, we must have some agreement on the meaning of the words “morality” and of “God”. For simplicity, I will usually use the classical “He” to reference God since I lose track of the present fad of grammatically cycling between “She” and “He” and  because “It” seems to lessen the seriousness of my contemplation. Personally, I do not care whether God is a He, She, or Whatever.

 
I submit the meaning of the word “God” is probably easier to agree upon existentially. We have to contemplate this question in the same way one would contemplate the ontological proof of God: from the perspective of the word “God”, that is of our definition and understanding of the existential meaning of the word “God”. Whatever meaning that word has for anyone regardless of whether they are a theist or an atheist or anything in between, its one necessary and universal attribute would be that the word “God” by definition means the reason for their being something instead of nothing — this is true even of a pantheistic version of God in which the universe and its existence occurs by necessity or simply by luck through the workings of universal scientific empirical laws and thus these laws are your God. Agnosticism is not rational; since this is a rational contemplation, I am not dealing with agnosticism. I am therefore I think — I think in particular and especially about my existence. If I think then I think of the reason for there being something instead of nothing including there being me. It is irrational, delusional, and cowardly to fail to take a position on the reason I or anything exists.

 
For morality, the only attribute for its meaning that is universally agreed upon is that it is an act of will. It is an act of will giving meaning to a meaningless universe. That we “will” may be an illusion and the choices we make pre-destined or pre-determined by empirical material reality but even if such is true, all moral, immoral, and amoral choices would still be called and are acts of will or choices — free or not. Morally, immorally, and even amorally, even if I am pre-determined or pre-destined to be something, I can still reject that something. If there is no free will other than the illusion of freedom, such rejection will only be nominal and a fight I cannot ever hope to win but it is still there as a choice and a powerful one at least existentially if not for anything else. It is a choice that will define me and give meaning to the meaninglessness of my life even if it is a predestined or predetermined life because morality as the absurd hero Meursault of Albert Camus’s The Stranger finally realized as he faced the gallows is “opening [one’s] heart to the benign indifference of the universe” and willing to give its meaninglessness meaning. There is a large existential difference between accepting one’s fate and fighting against it — even if the fight is destined to end in loss. Remember the last words of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus; as Sisyphus looked down and contemplated his meaningless task and became conscious of his wretched condition, in this tragic moment he realized “[t]he struggle itself […] is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”.  (For a more detailed analytic contemplation of the meaning of the words “free will”, please see Wittgenstein on the ‘Illusion’ of Free Will.)

 
As contemplated earlier, ethics, good, and evil are meaningless when discussing God. But what about morality? Despite His necessary nature, does it make sense to talk about God making moral, immoral, or amoral choices? Or, as Socrates asked, is something moral because God wants it or does She want it because it is moral? If the reason for there being something instead of nothing is simply the universe and you are an atheist or your God is pantheistic, it makes no sense to apply any concept of morality to God — the universe simply is, its meaning is to exist. Its existence precedes its essence and precedes language and thus any wordgame of morality. What if you have a personal God such as the Christian God Who is a Being? He is an infinite, omnipresent, and all-powerful Being but still a Being. As a Being, is He able to will the universe to have meaning and thus have a morality? At first impression, it appears that the concept of morality should apply to a personal God. However, in reaching this first impression, we forget what morality is: willing to give meaning to a meaningless universe. Even a personal God does not need to will anything nor does He need meaning; His existence is its own meaning. She is complete and whole, infinitely and completely in Himself or Herself or whatever your personal God may be and Existence is the meaning of God. Therefore, God is not moral or immoral but the best way to describe even a personal theistic God is to say He is completely amoral. I must say the “best way” or seems because as with the pantheistic God, this existence that is the essence of God also precedes language and thus logically and strictly speaking is something “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

 

God being amoral or the wordgame of morality not applying to God makes perfect sense as Wittgenstein’s famous quote above brings out. If God were really just another moral busybody or even the most powerful moral busybody of all telling me how I should be living my life in the short span I have in life, He is no better than any other moral busy body except in degree not in substance or essence.  He is no better in quality than any other existentially created morality that makes my life simply a mascot for its sense of morality; I might as well create my own morality and enjoy being a god myself.

 
That should answer the question as to whether God is moral for all concepts of God, except for Christianity and its Trinity or any equivalent form of theism or polytheism.  I suggest that the theologians of the early Church came up with the Trinity concept as a way around the amoral nature of God. As always, the ancients were a lot smarter than what we give them credit for being. Since the Trinity includes a person who is human, Jesus Christ, the question of His morality must continue. Given that Jesus Christ — the Jesus Christ Person in the Christian God — is human, is Jesus Christ moral? Regardless of what one might think of Him, there can be no dispute that He is moral. According to the Christian concept of what Jesus Christ is and then on to the Beatitudes and on to anything that can be ascribed to him, this Christ Person does want to give meaning to life and does not exist simply as having the power of His Existence be its own meaning and an end in itself. According to the Trinity dogma, there is a Third Person, the Holy Spirit, that is the relationship between God the Father and the Christ Person. So for a Christian with Faith, the answer is that God, through Jesus Christ, is moral. God loves us, wants us to be happy, will reward us in heaven for following his morality, so on, and so forth. At this point, we are leaving rationality and getting into Kierkegaard’s existential Leap to Faith and of Pascal’s Gamble that are beyond this essay.

 
However, the Trinity problem does not solve the initial question we are asking. So far, there is no problem with the use of words. Like the ontological proof, we are dealing with logically subtle and abstract but sound and valid reasoning derived from the very meaning of the words and concepts used. Morality is an act of the will, not of reason. Morality is an individual willing meaning into the world. And thus, evil is the opposite of whatever this good the individual defines to be. God, in the non-Christian sense is amoral because God just is. The Christian option seems to be that in exchange for accepting as a necessary part of God’s amoral nature all the suffering that has been, is, and will be part of humanity — in exchange for accepting that — we will be rewarded with happiness in heaven by the human person in God: Jesus Christ. By accepting the massacre of the innocents, I will be happy. Such beliefs do give meaning to life and thus are a morality.

 

But it is not one with which I want to be involved. Or, morally should be involved? Why not? Because it is unfair and unjust — it is not a fair and just way of getting results. So what? Again, it is God’s universe. He can do with it as He or She pleases. Why do I not want to be involved in it? Is it altruism on my part or arrogance and conceit? Is it because I want to have greater power than God? Since God is amoral, is He also unjust and unfair? I will consider these questions next.

Why does God hate the Poor? Prologue / Part III

This next essay dealing with this question was supposed to deal with the issue of whether God is moral. However, I’m going out of context for this essay because of comments that I have received. Some still say that the question of why God hates the poor is the same as asking why God allows good and evil. It is not the same question. I’m going to use the argument for “intelligent design” as a means to further explain and differentiate why my question is distinct from and is not the same as the question of why does God allow good and evil to exist.

 
The argument called intelligent design is made by its proponents as an argument for the existence of a personal God in opposition to some evolutionists who argue there is no such God. Logically, in terms of the nature and philosophy of science both arguments are essentially nonsense because neither argument is scientific. Statistical analysis and correlation are all modern science needs to be science. This essay series does not deal in the philosophy of science so I will not deal with the nature of evolution nor philosophy of science but only contemplate the intelligent design argument as a means to specify and clarify the relationship between God and the poor.  The argument from intelligent design is substantively unsound and a fallacy because there is no intelligent design in the universe. From the smallest part of reality and onto the largest and from the smallest event in history and onto the largest historical events, reality and history is ruled by arbitrary and random acts. Everything in life is essentially decided by luck, despite popular opinion to the contrary. For example, even supposed obvious differences in good and evil in popular opinion between a Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and an Adolf Hitler and the events of which they were a part are not the result of any inherent differences in the universe, in their nature, or any intelligent design, but of pure luck. With a change of birthplace, parents, education, and class upbringing, the places of even such obviously different individuals in history as hero or villain would easily have been exchanged. In fact, five hundred years from now historians will treat these three as equals. If anything, historians will investigate and write about how Churchill and Roosevelt got away with their many historical blunders and outright evil acts to cause human suffering that created the power of a Hitler.

 
Reading, writing, or crying about genocide, fascism, Nazism, or whatever the latest fad evil political -ism may be and dividing historical individuals into heroes or villains is a shallow understanding of the absurdity of life, history, and the universe. Only those ignorant of history divide history into the good and the bad and into heroes and villains, male or female, of one race or of no race. Regardless of the majestic greatness of one’s heroes or the despicableness of one’s villains — be it a Churchill, Hitler, Muhammad, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or whoever — the historical good or evil of individuals and of social constructs is not the substance of reality. Such concepts of good and evil, hero and villain in history are purely results decided as a matter of luck and the roll of circumstantial dice. The winners in life need not ever worry about morality, ethics, or the law; such are concerns only for the losers. Simple creation of historical heroes and villains gives meaning to one’s life and creates a simple morality of good and evil that ignores the banality of evil and the haphazardness of both good and evil in daily existence — that is in individual life, the only reality of which an existentialist is certain. If Hitler had died in his youth in the trenches of the Western Front or during one of the first half-dozen assassination attempts upon him, he would be remembered as a courageous recipient of two Iron Crosses who died for his country and for workers’ rights — in fact, if he had died during one of those early assassination attempts upon him, he would probably to this day be remembered as a hero and martyr for socialism. In which case, Churchill — if remembered at all — would be remembered as he was known during World War I: a self-aggrandizing, dishonest, ambitious, political hack psychopath from a rich family whose fortunes he squandered and who was responsible for the Gallipoli Campaign disaster. Muhammad is essentially a 7th Century Hitler who succeeded in creating a one thousand year reich and thus as victor is a prophet instead of a villain. Dr. King and Mandela were lucky to have racism as their opponent. As exhibited by their sexual conquests of women, patrician personal ambitions, and political shrewdness to take credit for the work of others and to let others do their killing and dirty work for them, they would be just another 1984 O’Brien will-to-power conqueror if they had a more sympathetic opponent. Gandhi was a racist patrician wife-beater who was lucky to have others do is killing for him. Such individuals are not really individuals but social construct values created for marketing purposes by patricians.

 
The reality of history is that 90% to 95% of individual humans regardless of status in life as poor, rich, slave, free, beggar, worker, and so forth if put in the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human being or watch idly as others knowing and intentionally kill every other human being — including eventually those watching. The only difference for the modern patricians of our Technological Society is the law allows them the power to have others do their killing for them. The individuals who make up each of these two classes of bound variables arbitrarily and randomly change each moment of life. The heroes who make up the 5% or 10% at any given moment who would rather be killed than kill another or watch another be killed will move over randomly and arbitrarily as a coincidence of sometimes insignificant changes in circumstances to the other set made up of killers. Meanwhile, some of the killers will at that same moment transfer over to become heroes. Thus, the existential reality is that 100% of individuals under the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human as a matter of brute and irrational or even rational force.

 
It is pure luck that has made one set heroes and the other villain. And the same is true of all heroes and villains throughout history. The real intelligent design of the universe is more analogous to a poker game in which God is the dealer, calls the games, knows the players, and sets the antes, raises, and bets. Not only does He know the players and the cards, but He made the players, who are what they are because He made them in the same way that He made the cards and thus the probabilities are what they are because He made them. In theory, giving God the benefit of a doubt by assuming that He does not cheat and by assuming quantum randomness not deterministic classical randomness, we can say He does not control the outcome of each hand nor of the game. These are decided purely by the luck of the draw, the probabilities of the given deck, game, and hands, and on each player’s ability to read the probabilities and the other players. In theory, this game universe is an empirically just and fair universe in which there really is no good or evil. The best player wins and deserves to win. No one can say that it is an evil that the best player wins nor in any practical sense can we say that it is unjust that the best player wins and the loser loses.

 
It becomes unjust, unfair, and evil only when we bring morality into the mix and by that I mean we view the game from outside of the game. The best player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but win. And the worst player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but lose. The reality of this card game universe in which the winners and losers are set is really much worse. As the dealer, God is entitled to call the ante and to set the highest bets and raises. If He calls a big enough ante, bet, or raise, many people are excluded from playing, let alone having any chance of winning — even assuming they had all equal other abilities to win.

 
In the big picture of this card game universe, it does not really matter whether player A, B, C, or D wins, as long as they keep playing to keep the universe going. To make matters worse, God creates the players so that they will only play if there are winners and losers. No one who wants to play in this card game universe is going to keep playing if there are no winners or losers. Everyone wants and believes that they can be a winner until it is too late. Why would God design such a universe to favor some players over others? Of course, many noncompetitive altruistic types who may be reading this would see an easy solution to the problem: simply don’t play. But that is equivalent to saying simply do not play the game of life and ignore the way the game is designed. This is easy to say if you want to live the life of a hermit waiting for Christ to return in the Last Judgment, then it’s easy to say don’t play the game. You are essentially choosing death. However, if you want to live, prosper, or at least survive in the real world, you have to play the game, and you have to play to win. Or otherwise, those who only care about winning take everything you have: mind, body, and soul. God is God, so there’s nothing stopping him from creating such an unfair universe. But also, there’s nothing stopping Him from not creating this game, so why does He do it — instead of creating a different one that is fair? Is God moral?

 

In the perspective of my poker game example, it seems that this question is one of justice or fairness because He treats some creations better than others, but it really isn’t. Justice and fairness only have meaning in relation to a morality. Is the question of whether God is moral the same as asking whether He is just or fair? Now that you hopefully understand why I differentiate the question of good and evil from the question of why God hates the poor, I will go back to the intended next question in this series, is God moral?

Why Does God Hate the Poor? Prologue / Part II

Why does God hate the poor? It is not my intent to complain about this problem. Such would be a waste and equivalent to complaining about it becoming dark at night. I accept as an indisputable and unchanging fact of life that cannot be altered by human action that humanity always will be as George Orwell described it; I quote him from his book 1984:

Throughout recorded time and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world. The high, the middle, and the low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they’ve born countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from age to age. But the essential structure of society is never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself. Just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium however far it’s pushed one way or the other. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the high is to remain where they are. The aim of the middle is to change places with the high. The aim of the low, where they to have any aim, for it is an abiding characteristic of the low that they are too much crushed by drudgery, to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives, is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history’s struggle, which is the same in its main outlines, reoccurs over and over again. For long periods, the high seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the middle, who enlist the low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the middle thrusts the low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the high. Presently a new middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.

 

Would it be an exaggeration to say that throughout history, there has been no progress of any material kind? Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago, but no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought humanity, human equality, any millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the low, no historical change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

 

The only problem with this great description of reality by George Orwell is its limitation to recorded time. Even assuming there is such a thing as unrecorded time as distinct from recorded time, separation of humans into the lows and highs seems not to be limited to any social construct but seems to be an undisputed absolute truth of human nature. In all possible worlds in which there are human beings, this social construct will exist and thus it is not solely a social construct. All humans living and treating each other as equals and loving each other may be a vision of Heaven but would be a short, boring, mind-numbing, lazy, life on earth. Without struggle and battle for something, human life would be shallow, boring, cowardly, and short — unless you were self-centered enough to become an amoral god ignoring reality to live in the timeliness and thus the power of the moment throughout a shallow, cowardly, and passionless life.

 
Phrasing the problem as a matter of evil existing in the world misstates the nature of the problem. One of my philosophy professors phrased it as follows: evil exists in the world; if God exists, there are only two reasons for evil’s existence: either He wants it to exist, or He cannot stop it from existing; either way, He is not God. This phrasing of the problem is a fallacy, because the concepts of good and evil are human creations. God by definition is the reason there is something instead of nothing. The something can be whatever God wants it to be. If this something involves pain and suffering for His creations, so be it, it is His creation. He can do whatever He wants with it. It makes no sense to say that before creation there existed a requirement that God’s creation must be friendly and kind to any beings He creates. He created creation, it is what it is. As I discussed in an earlier essay, ethics is simply a set of rules created by those in power to stay in power. It makes no sense to demand that God be ethical. He is the ultimate power and source of all power. He makes whatever rules He wants. It makes no sense to talk as if He has a choice between good or evil or wills good or evil. The concept of choice and will necessarily involve an incomplete being that needs something. God is omnipresent, infinite, and complete by definition. He does not need anything, and thus there are no choices that He has to make nor for Him to want or will anything. He and His nature all exist by necessity. As the philosopher Spinosa described, we may just be moments in the infinite necessary existence of God contemplating Himself and thus we have the perception of time, choice, and will; but, it is simply human perception that sees choices and will. God’s existence and all aspects of His nature exist by necessity.

 

The problem as I have phrased it is a more accurate description because the issue is a bigger problem of morality. Given that God is the reason we exist, does He owe individual creations anything for giving us existence we never requested? Do we owe Him something for making us exist? Given all of the evil that has existed in the world, including evil inflicted on innocents such as infants and beasts of burden, even if God were to offer us eternal happiness in Heaven simply by accepting Him as He is, would it not be our moral burden to reject it? Why does God prefer certain people over others? You can call it divine predestination, class conflict, or whatever. The reality of human nature, for other than a completely solitary hermit existence, is that God prefers to have about 1% to at most 10% of humanity at any given time live much better than the remainder of humanity and to have the power of oppression over the remainder of humanity. For this small percentage of humanity, at any given time, life has meaning of their own creation. For the remainder of humanity at any given time, their meaning of life is purely to serve the meaning created by these few Powers-that-be. In the absence of such service, life is nothing but meaningless anguish. At best they are gifted with their life being short. Dostoevsky wrote a couple of great novels asking these questions, The Brothers Karamazov and The Possessed, but never answered these questions. These are questions that must be answered as part of trying to answer the overall question of why does God hate the poor.

 
Let us try to build on prior essays to approach this question, try to answer it, and try to see if there is an answer as philosophers not as polemics by self serving gods. The first issue that we must approach in trying to answer this question is whether the concept of morality even applies to God. Is God moral?

Why Does God Hate the Poor? Prologue / Part I

Why does God hate the poor? This is a question that is very difficult to analyze rationally because of the nature of reason. Other than for logical techniques such as mathematics and pure logic, reason seems only to be capable of expressing pragmatic truth about the subject matter of its reasoning. That is, it only serves as a tool for solving a given problem and that solution can only be proven false by the problem — when the solution fails. Reason can never provide solutions that are true in all possible worlds nor can it state a truth that is true in all possible worlds. I say “seems” because when reason expresses doubt about its ability for certainty, it disproves its own skepticism either by formally stating that it is true there is no truth or by stating it is absolutely true that all truth is contingent or relative. Using “seems” to try to get around or to describe this problem or limitation of human reason causes its own problems.

 
What does “seems” mean? Does rational thought necessarily lead to a phenomenological view of reality that is worthless for anything but allowing academics to generate endless verbiage saying nothing about “nothing” — since according to them there’s nothing except what they are saying about the nothing that is out there for which we need them to “deconstruct” it for us. If I do not know what is out there, how can it “seem” like something or anything? What does “seem” mean? What does any word mean? These are problems in the philosophy of language that are beyond the limitations of these essays.  We just need to be aware of these problems when we try to contemplate questions such as this dealing with the nature of God.

 

I am trying to deal here with a real problem that has troubled many philosophers and myself my whole life: why does God hate the poor? Trying to resolve this problem in any way through religious faith, especially by Christian faith, always fails me; so this problem continues to bother me. Responding to this problem by telling me that life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery or reality to be experienced only makes it worse by proving the severity of the problem. Why are there some people in life who have enough time on their hands and the opportunity not only to sit around and abstractly come up with bullshit such as this, but they also have the motive, opportunity, and ability then to go around and if not lecture at least to profess to others that life should be a mystery or what life should be while the majority of the world, including me, is simply trying to survive and are responding on a daily basis to problems and situations trying to destroy that survival. Sure, telling the poor that they should be poor in spirit as well as poor materially would solve their spiritual suffering, if not their physical suffering, but why should anyone be poor in spirit and poor in material wealth and poor in their options in life when it is just as possible to be wealthy and powerful and to be poor in spirit?

 
The so-called Church Father St. Augustine is a perfect example to what I am referring. He spends most of his life wealthy, carousing, fornicating, fathering and abandoning children, drinking, and generally having an overall great time, until he gets bored with such worldly pleasures and decides that he wants to possess outer- worldly pleasures. So, he decides to be saved by belief in Jesus Christ. And now with the certainty of eternal life in Heaven, he goes around lecturing to others to be poor and not to live life carousing, fornicating, fathering and abandoning children, drinking, and generally having an overall great time. Even with this conversion, he does not become poor in spirit or materially in any way. Instead of being a Power-that-be among the upper class of his native city of Hippo in North Africa, he becomes a Power-that-be among the new Power in antiquity, the Christian Church. It was perfect timing. If he had stayed a rich pagan, his class might have expected him to risk his life and to defend the city against the barbarian Vandals coming to destroy them. “Barbarian” is a word to describe ambitious poor people that are trying to become rich. Instead, by converting and becoming a church father, he avoided this personal and economic risk because the Vandals respected the Church, Church property, and its ministers. The rich always get away with such hypocrisy. President George W. Bush is a great modern example. Here is a dude that spends most of his life as a lazy, ignorant, cokehead; who wastes what little education his family paid for him to receive and wastes all the business opportunities he had; until one day he decides he wants to be president of the United States. At that point, he sees the light of Christianity and goes on to use preaching and his family connections to become President and start two wars in which others do his killing for him.

 

(Coates is another example of which I have written about extensively in prior essays.)

 
I’m fully aware that by making such complaints I come off as greedy, whiny, and spiteful, as the poor usually do when complaining about their lot in life — unless they reach the point of complete depression, desperation, or starving in the street, at which point they become a temporary object of pity and charity for the rich. If the poor materially try to fight their way out of hopelessness and material poverty, they are considered greedy and spiteful barbarians again. Unlike the rich and powerful whose greed, ambition, and aggressive competitiveness are the forces that move the economic world throughout history to be sustainable and evolve, regardless of whether you call it barter, mercantilism, imperialism, capitalism, or whatever the present day economic “-ism” may be. My intent here is not to complain about this as a problem. Such would be a waste and equivalent to complaining about it becoming dark at night. It is an undisputed and unchanging fact of life that cannot be altered by human action that humanity is and always will be divided into the powerful who can create meaning in life and the remainder of the powerless whose meaning in life is to serve the meaning created by the powerful with their only other choice being a lifetime of struggle, fight, and battle against that meaning — a meaningless struggle that they will always be destined to lose. The details of this division in human nature were best described by George Orwell in his book 1984 which I will contemplate.

 
For any amateur Christian theologians out there who may read this, I want to point out that this issue is also a Christian theological issue. The New Testament quotes Jesus several times as saying, “The poor, you will always have with you.” — Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8. So this is not only a philosophical issue, but also a significant theological issue.

Existential Philosophy of Law

A slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown. He must dominate in his turn. — Albert Camus, The Rebel

This essay is a continuation of my closing thoughts in Why Tolerate Law available on the attached Blogroll. Blind loyalty to patrician Hegelian reason and state worship in the form of law as meaning in life is different in degree but not in substance to the theocratic state worship of the East and is a surrender to cowardice not an existential leap from it.

This is a contemplation of the meaning of the universal “law” in its modern sense of nonscientific law: in the universe of language discourse that results in decisions of legality and illegality. There seems to be more to the meaning of “law” than simply a set of rules. For one, calling something a rule instead of a law requires knowing the difference between rules and laws. Second, unlike most sets of rules such as games, one can leave the game to make other games. This option does not exist with law; if one leaves the law or legality, one is either in lawlessness or illegal. I will further contemplate whether this universal can be naturalized to scientific law and seek to determine whether such meaning and naturalization are or can be an existential philosophy of law. This contemplation will require contemplating the attributes of existentialism as they exist in plebeian lives that includes nihilism and not solely from the more popular academic patrician existentialism that excludes nihilism. I do not want this contemplation and any existential philosophy of law to be just another academic -ism, it was have pragmatic value for the plebeian portion of the class struggle that is history.

Existentially, life will always be meaningless and whatever social meaning it has will be forced upon the many by a few. For those few with the power to make their meaning in life the meaning of the group’s life, existentialism gives their will to power freedom to act and makes their struggle existential and aesthetically beautiful. However, for the many upon whom the few force their meaning, existentialism not only fails to give their will to power this same freedom but instead binds it and leaves their struggle to be existential and ugly. Patricians have the luxury to pine for meaning through their aesthetics and then violently either through law or directly to force that meaning on the remainder of humanity, but the plebeian existential absurd hero must not only fight and survive the absurdity of the universe but also this patrician will to power that forces the meaning of their lives upon the universe and all outside their class. For all known history and at present, both struggles eventually involve use of violence, but at least for the moment, the violence aspect is hidden in the behavior modifying techniques of Technological Society. As the plebeian existential absurd hero Don “Wardaddy” Collierand through Brad Pitt ad-libbed: “ideals are peaceful, history is violent”. Empirically, given that class struggle is an unavoidable inherent attribute of all social constructs, plebeians must ask whether it is better to suffer an existential struggle with the universe while governed by the few while living in material poverty in pre-Technological Society or while living comfortably in Technological Society with free time for contemplation of philosophy.

If an existential leap to morality is made, eventually that morality will run into the status of law as an unopposed normative power in the West as the present reality that must be confronted and then accepted or opposed as a good or an evil.

I do not intend to promote or criticize any particular social construct of Technological Society, either political (so-called conservative or liberal versions) nor any of the countless academic myopic constructs pretending to be history varying from feminism to classism to libertarian to post-structuralism to race studies and so forth nor its economic constructs such as capitalism, socialism, and so forth. My contemplation is only to describe the social construct called law that is a universal in all social constructs as a final arbiter of their normative statements. From the plebeian perspective, criticism would be stupid. Modern plebes irrespective of their status as wage slaves or not, of all sexes, kinds, and lives in Western Technological Society, live the finest material and least violent lives in known history. Money may not buy happiness but it buys everything else. At the same time, however, it would be stupid to promote Technological Society because it still maintains the same class distinctions and unequal will to power that all social constructs throughout known history have maintained. Patricians will promote it on their own without our help — despite their pretending to despise it. However, patricians despite complaints to the contrary, will promote it as static condition to remain forever as the ultimate social construct meaning for life in the same way they promoted chattel slavery, feudalism, bullionism, mercantilism, and all the other -ism’s that came before capitalism and socialism and any other social constructs they presently promote. If there is a next progression for Technological Society, it must come through plebeian existential struggles with patricians and not from any patrician existential struggle among themselves. Regardless of whining about despair, patricians are just fine as they are, were, and will be.