There is no rational way of looking at the world any longer. And I would submit that anyone that says that they’re looking at the world in a rational way has lost her mind.
This is to say that when we honestly look out into the world of human activity, which is the global world of actual interactions of people and groups and nations etc., The first impression has to be that human beings are retarded. If the first impression is not human beings are utterly stupid, then I think we are in a situation of denial.
There is been no time in history except maybe in the past 100 years where people looked at another cultural group and try to empathize and understand where they’re coming from through their belief systems.
The contradiction involved with “understanding another person’s belief” reveals the problem of our times has this nonsensical ideal extends out as an ideological construct upon what it is supposing to be not merely an Nother ideological construct.
The extended analysis of this ridiculous situation is that ethics is not something that an individual human being comes upon because of some sort of religious or ideological, or some manner of a central thinker pondering various aspects of logical inferences and empathetic understandings of how other people might want to view their world. I submit that perhaps in some sort of past, human beings were able to uphold such fantasy because it wasn’t a fantasy. But if we hang onto the modern ability of our sense of intelligence and ability to process information, to there by get out of more deep level of awareness of humans being, if we really look out in an attempt to understand what is occurring in this come flagger ration and saturation of expressed human intelligence, it is only with in a certain type of ethical priority that we become able to see that this ethics is based in a logistical situation more than it is in some sort of universal goodness, or ideological scheme of good and evil where by gaining our liberal ethics redundantly.
it is offensive to most people to think about the reason why I have an ethics of good or evil is because I am utterly incapable of destroying that group that has a different ideological base then I do.
History of humanity across the globe could be understood in the context of a faith in and ability to destroy another group totally. And ideological base that is different from the one group that I am in is not considered as such, it is considered as something that is not natural or something that is evil, or in our latter part of history, our modern part of history, something that we have a right to exploit without considering their opinion, what we have come to call “colonialism”.
Until till most recently we still had an idea that we could completely destroy this other group that represents something unnatural. But what we have been finding at least through the 20th century and into the 21st-century, is that we are unable to do this. This is the foundation of modern capitalism.
Capitalism is based in the fact that we cannot totally destroy our enemy. There is always an excess, always collateral residuum in some form, and capitalism at heart functions on this excess.
The ethics of capitalism confines what is ethical to a view that is unable to see beyond itself. Capitalism depends on the fact that no one will be able to overcome their liberal sense of human ethical propriety. They will not be able to because they are unable to see and unable to admit, it is offensive, a “sin” to consider that the only reason I have a sense a good or evil – that is based in my wanting to understand someone else’s “belief system”, and that we should except everyone for whatever they might believe or whatever their culture tells them is right or wrong or truth or false – is because that I cannot destroy those people. In short the reason why I might get along with my enemy is because I can’t kick his ass. There is probably not some inherent goodness in me that prevents me from not destroying this person that I hate; it is because I cannot, I am unable to, destroy this person that I compensate for the lack that exists within me, to their by come to an “ethical” conclusion that I should really try to understand this person and understand this aspect of me that is hating this other person.
It is possible, in the end, that when I look at the reason why I might hate this person ( or group) it is really because I cannot remove him from my life and if this person was removed or if I was able or “ethically allowed” to remove this person from my life then I would not hate this person because that person would not exist.
It is the same with groups.
I can stand back and I hear about all these wars and conflicts between nations and I cannot help but think that these people are just plain fucking stupid. There is no understanding either side, because it soon as we come to some conclusion of understanding either side eventually there’s going to be some other side somewhere else that that particular group that just made up is going to have war with.
So perhaps this essay should be more properly called “contemplation on the futility of addressing human idiocy”
🐶. Wow. Who wrote that?
Indeed, I have a compassion for these idiots. But it is the simple fact that my compassion will not prevent these idiots from going to war that really presents to me how I am involved in and humanity of which I’m not really involved. It must be that these people who are at war do it for some reason that is beyond rational or what I could consider intelligence. Whatever it is that is compelling these people to go to war has to be something else, it has to be in some other manner that their brain functions, but if I am intelligent then it must be that they are not intelligent, and if they are intelligent then I will fully admit that I am not intelligent at all.