Skip to main content

The human race is awesome.

Some will counter by calling humanity a cancer upon this earth. Fie. Nature, for all its beauty is not ethically pretty. Life feeds on life. The world-without-man is no guide for moral living. It is, by and large, amoral.

The awesome power of humanity is only further evinced by its impact upon the globe. Consider its scientific feats, its aesthetic achievements, its incredible willingness to crash in upon itself through war and economic strife. Humanity's arm is as God's. It's voice thunders across the globe. It is decked in majesty and excellency, arrayed with glory and beauty. It casts abroad the rage of its wrath. It looks upon every proud beast, and debases him, bringing him low, and hiding him in the dust; binding his face in secret. Even the Christian God would confess man is capable of bringing about his own salvation.

--Further rambling which may readily be ignored:--
But, while the human race is amazing, most humans are less impressive. Most humans kind of suck. So, if we have the power to save ourselves only as ourself, in the collective, will we also end up saving those undeserving bastards? And if we are unwilling to do so, do we damn ourselves as ourself? And if we are unwilling to do so, does this undo our murder of God? Does it reinvigorate the need for religion, amongst those with a desire for slavation? If we have answered the God of Job, can that constitute a denial of just such a deity? Are these seemingly conflicting conclusions stated as questions truly at odds?

No. We simply subvert the drive to worship, and find other things to congregate over. Even where a god may be resurrected, and given new purpose, we can supplant him with new clothes. Not quite as easy today as it was ten years ago, when we might have replaced deities with new cars and such, but money's tight right now.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Well now.

I think I'm going to try to revive my online writing habits, outside of Facebook.

And what have I been thinking or feeling in the interim, across the last couple years or so? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In part, this.