💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › evan-stoller-what-is-life.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:49:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What Is Life? Author: Evan Stoller Date: 04/15/2021 Language: en Topics: nihilism, green nihilism, utopianism Source: What Is Life? And the Politics of a Utopia Vol. 1. https://sway.office.com/gNxlSqtf8LFcOt3O?ref=Link&loc=play
When considering humanity, one must look at the bigger picture. It is
impossible to consider humanity without considering our place not only
in history but our place in the universe. How can a human ever truly say
they matter when humanity in general is just a speck in the history of a
planet that is microscopic in terms of universal measurement? One can
matter to their family, or to all of Earth even for a couple of days, or
a couple of years, or even a couple of millennia when considering
historical figures. What does this matter though? You may have ruled an
empire or saved 1000 people, but what is the worth of those people when
the worth of humanity is practically nothing. So we don’t matter...what
does this have to do with anything? Well, it might almost be cruel to
say we don’t matter when every person, old and young, wants to matter or
wants to have an impact in some way, shape or form.
It is easy to say, almost impossible to deny, that humans don’t care
about their lives. Even suicide has an impact and those contemplated the
worth in their own lives and weighed the care they had for it. Some may
choose to end their own life because they feel worthless or feel as
though they are not enough. This may be overwhelming realization or
onset from something bigger in how our brains function.
Our brains are truly the most complicated, complex, magnificent things
in the world. Just one slight difference in how neurons transmit
signals, and suddenly someone feels worthless, can smell colors, or is a
sociopath because of how they see humanity or how they see others. An
overload in how much we actually matter can be overwhelming and these
complex brains, even one that functions “normally,” cannot truly process
the insignificance of our lives.
Now that our brains see a problem, they crave a solution to fix it. The
issue with trying to find a solution to a problem we can’t understand is
that it just makes us want something that is not possible to get. We
want to matter; our brains crave it because we need to solve the problem
of not being significant in terms of Earth’s history or even in the
present universe. Well...this creates another problem for our brains to
solve, what can we do about wanting something we can never get?
The short is answer is nothing but have fun and make ourselves and
others happy. The long answer goes into a depth of political and
philosophical ideals that are possible to achieve and implement these
into society as fast as possible. This is called optimistic nihilism.
This optimistic nihilism is how all humans must think before our lives
run out and it’s too late to accept reality. According to
Louis-Laves-Webb, Optimistic Nihilism is, “Optimistic nihilism views the
belief that there is no underlying meaning to life from a perspective of
hope. It’s not that we’re doomed to live in a meaningless universe–it’s
that we get the chance to experience ourselves and the universe we
share. The optimistic nihilist looks at a world lacking meaning and
purpose and sees the opportunity to create their own.” To me this means
one thing concerning politics.
We, united as a people, must make a utopia as quickly as possible before
humanity runs out. The history of humanity as we know it is going to be
short lived so we must make it as nice and as close to perfect as
possible before we run out of time. Each generation much contribute to
the well-being of the next in order to try and reach this utopia. But
what is Utopia?
What a utopia would consist of is completely subjective, but we can
share some common concepts based on the common human nature. Everyone
would have to live comfortably, not only having the basic needs, but
also to have some form of luxury to feed our materialistic need. To have
a utopia people must be happy, so in turn we must reduce the common
misery we face in everyday life. I believe this means we would have to
eliminate poverty, currency, work, schooling (in the modern sense), and
other social constructs that limit the human potential.
How would it be possible to do all of this? Well, we would have to
eliminate government, first and foremost, as it holds back our potential
as a society and our rights in general. People may fear for themselves
or fear for how humanity would do, but the strongest force is not the
government, it is the human mind acting collectively. We must
necessitate our individual rights, but when a crisis comes, the most
reliable source is not the government, that can be witnessed throughout
history. The most reliable source to fix a localized crisis are
societies coming together to solve their own problems. It seems that
every government falls, but we have only replaced it with another
government; however, it has evolved and slowly become less controlling
over time. We have moved from monarchy to democracy, and at the same
time our innovation increases exponentially. What would this figure be
if we had no government limiting our individual rights, and no currency
to limit what we are able to work with. Do humans not have a natural
drive to learn?
To eliminate misery and create a Utopia, we must eliminate modern social
structures like a market or an economy. There is no point to have these
if there is no currency (the root of all evil). Why have a market, jobs,
or education when learning and applying what is learned is a natural
thing to do for humanity. The reason the modern schooling system is so
harmful is that it only prepares us to go into industry. It prepares us
for the work force and causes kids who have a knack for something like
entertainment or some form of self-employment to do badly. Undoubtedly,
the abolition of work or at least reduction of work would be needed for
a utopian society.
Next, we must look at the aspect of luxury in a utopian society, as it
is obvious all humans have developed material want. Well, there should
be no doubt in anyone’s mind that technological capability will increase
exponentially within the next century at least. If we were to abolish
currency it is obvious that a luxurious society could maintain itself
through the aspect of four human aspects: the want for material things,
competition, mutual aid, and the desire to learn. These four natural
aspects of human nature would drive us to have luxurious lives not only
for us, but for the society around us. These four aspects would work
together like gears turning to make a machine work. The want for
material needs would drive us to learn about architecture or
blacksmithing, or welding. When we learn this, we have the desire to
show off what we’ve learned or do favors for others because it makes us
feel good about ourselves and makes us feel good at something (a form of
fulfillment). That is where mutual aid and competition come in. We give
to others because it makes us feel good about ourselves, the uppity
feeling one may have by being a philanthropist or even donating a couple
dollars to The Salvation Army. This is a natural feeling and we do it
because it is fulfillment in some way shape or form to know we improved
someone else’s lives. The natural competition between not only people
within societies but possibly societies as a whole to have the attention
and fame they may crave to have their societies recognized will
contribute to a more innovative, luxurious society.
Individual rights are somewhat of a controversial topic when it comes to
politics, but nonetheless I see it as inevitable. A true utopia could
never have anyone ruling over anyone or hierarchy of any sort. Hierarchy
creates oppression and oppression even being existent means we don’t
live in a utopia. The best architect in the society may have the best
house, but does this really constitute hierarchy? They may have a
feeling of being above someone, but if no one else constitutes them as
better and no one has more power or wealth, there is no real hierarchy
within the community.
This leads to the destruction of most social constructs, as most social
constructs are harmful. Things like poverty and hierarchy can truly be
considered social constructs because they are intangible concepts
brought about by human made concepts like money or power. Does no one
else see a problem with someone not having a home because they don’t
have enough paper that represents an intangible construct to buy even a
small home. And because this money represents an intangible construct,
it fluctuates, and this fluctuation can lead to a downturn in a whole
country. This itself is unstable, and countries like Venezuela can be
seen suffering from hyperinflation.
Personally, I have heard the claim that humans are naturally selfish,
but I refute this claim by simply pointing at society. Amid COVID-19,
mutual-aid groups can be seen coming to the aids of other not for
profit, not for recognition, but simply for the concern of other human
beings. If people did not care about the well-being of others, we would
never have food kitchens, or non-profit organizations. We wouldn’t even
scream “Don’t go in there!” when a character in a horror movie steps
into the basement. It is evident that people who claim humans are a
creature need to step outside and simply see the counterargument in
their own backyards.
It is also evident that humans are a dependent creature, but this does
not constitute a taking of individual rights. This can be a confusing
concept so let me explain. Humans crave company and attention. It is in
our nature. Humans marry for one reason: to have a companion for the
rest of their lives. This is the same reason solitary confinement is
such a cruel punishment, it takes away the human nature of interaction
(having company and attention). This refutes the extreme individuality
and egoism people like Ayn Rand argue for, where the ego is the most
sacred, and one must only have concern for themselves. People care about
the company of others before treating themselves. I guarantee someone
living alone in a mansion would rather downgrade their house if they had
a companion to live with. Our materialism and our ego follow the need of
our dependence. Nonetheless, our ego must still be pampered, and we must
take care of ourselves because we crave freedom. The only true way to
feel freedom is having every individual right protected. Living in a
collective society may not completely allow for someone to think on
their own or complete their own tasks for their own happiness.
Everyone’s happiness cannot be achieved through compromise, but
individual freedoms can still allow for interaction and dependence on
others while not having to compromise anything but possibly time.
Striving for a utopia like this allows for humans to enjoy their short
timespan on this earth, achieving everything we want, doing whatever we
want, and making life enjoyable for the next generations. Decreasing our
own chances of a utopia decrease them for the next generation and
wanting revenge on the next generation for not living in as good of a
world seems rather petty and embarrassing when taking the true worth and
value of human life and how the human timespan will only be judged by
our achievements. Holding back the human races achievements through
revenge not only makes the person individually look bad, but humanity as
a whole. Therefore, attempting to find and achieve this utopia is the
only way to create happiness and live this short, pointless life to the
fullest.
When considering the works of past philosophers, we must consider not
only their own lives but also the date they were written and what they
lived through. Undoubtedly people like Marx had good writings and I take
special consideration from advocates of individual rights like Max
Stirner and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Nonetheless, none of these
philosophers dealt with the same problems we face today and none of
these philosophers had the same access to studies, surveys, and
scientific research as we do today. People like Murray Bookchin found it
better to constantly redirect ideas or ideologies that decreased
government power because we are always gaining access to new information
and new technology. It is rather futile to try and implement an old
ideology to a new society when there are new problems to face, and
interpretation needs to be done, leading to infighting that may corrupt
or destroy the system.
How often do you see new interpretations or ideologies trying to fix or
critique Marxism? I clearly don’t see why theorists just describe their
own true utopia, even if it’s not possible, and try and bridge the gaps
that make it possible. There is no doubt we would see somewhat of a
similar conclusion. Even if there are vast differences it is easy to
interpret how anarchy would turn out.
Undoubtedly, there would be multiple societies practicing different
forms of anarchy or practicing different ideologies. Some may die out,
especially ones with markets, as workers will most likely flee to
societies where they will either get treated the best, or where they
think their lives are most likely to improve. Others will soon be forced
to follow.
I believe this will leave many agricultural societies, like what is seen
with the Peter Maurin communes or Twin Oaks. I believe this may also
lead to many anarcho-primitive societies, as I believe the choice to
revert to one’s natural state or to choose the convenience and luxury of
full freedom within a society and advance technology may be the main
split. Those who choose rapid innovation and mechanization in order to
abolish work will build a life of luxury for themselves and their
society. It might even be said that some of these people may take pride
or hold some type of nationalism in the society they’ve helped create or
contributed to, and this nationalism may honestly be a driving force in
making this society better. With a life so short and meaningless, why
not take pride in your experiences and what you’ve done? Why not gain
the recognition you can while you are still alive? Why not obtain all
that you want and give to others what they want because this and only
this is what leads to true human happiness and keeps a human sustained
with true human pleasure?
We can adopt how to build a society or even how to achieve a society by
building upon what we’ve learned from history and from philosophers of
the past. If we do this in science, building upon theories of the past
and adapting them or discarding them if it’s obvious they aren’t true,
why can we not do this with political theory? Well...it’s in the name,
it’s all theory, and usually governments end up using a mix of
ideologies and people could never test if a true implementation of that
theory would work realistically. Nonetheless, we can still build upon
ideologies by, just like in science, taking the good or what we know is
right or what works, and using this to create new ideologies or even
implementing new ideologies, which is what countries attempt, but the
world moves faster than our governments.
Obviously, to reach anarchy we must need a path to get there.
Personally, I am open to any way to get to anarchy, whether it be
through a revolution as described by Marx or the pacifism of the black
market described by Konkin. There is work we need to do to counter the
government, but no matter what we do, we must act rather quickly as to
be an optimistic nihilist, you want to achieve as much as you can within
your short life. To accept that one’s life is so small that it cannot
possibly matter to plainly accept reality. As seen in Chapter 1, through
accepting this reality, we are also accepting the fact that we need no
government, currency, or social constructs holding us back, and that we
might as well live life to the fullest because if we are going to die
soon, and humanity itself may die soon on a universal scale of time, we
need to die happy, and humanity itself needs to die happy, at that point
we have achieved our goal as a species.
Of course, when mentioning nihilism, one must consider the Russian
nihilist movement, which I believe had the right idea in spreading the
idea of nihilism and how small we truly are, but undoubtedly took the
idea the wrong way and possibly took the wrong idea. The logic that
because we are insignificant means human rights and violence are also
insignificant makes sense when explained in simplistic terms, but when
the movement needs a bigger influence, human rights and violence cannot
simply be passed off. There is no doubt that the violence was justified,
and I do not completely abhor justified violence; however, there needs
to be more push for the revolutionary aspect if optimistic nihilists
choose to take this route. The best way, in terms of keeping a workable
society intact, would most likely be speaking out primarily, and then
creating several branches of the movement, who take separate routes, but
somehow prevent infighting. This multipronged approach would be the only
effective way to bring about change within society as smoothly as
possible, as it is obvious from past revolutions or social changes,
there needs to be support from many classes and cultures.
So, what can we take from different philosophies? Well of course Marx
had the right idea in advocating for a moneyless and classless society
as this is the only way people can live in harmony. There can be no
harmony or peaceful society when there is hierarchy or a currency that
creates a kind of hierarchy. The Russian Nihilists also had some good
ideas in pushing for a large-scale social realization. There is no doubt
Max Stirner had good ideas concerning individual rights and human
nature, and of course writers like him and Jean-Paul Sartre had good
writings on existentialism and what being human and humanity in general
is.
There is no way to formulate an ideology without acknowledging the
ideologies and philosophies of other theorists first. Of course, people
may call these ideologies utopian, and that they could never be achieved
in their true form, but these people fail to recognize that is exactly
what an ideology is. All an ideology should be is creating a theoretical
utopia, not a goal to reach but a landmark to try and get as close as
possible to. We need to formulate these utopian ideals from other
theorists, and as one human race, strive to a utopia.
When observing life, and the universe in general people often think of
how small they are. We can scale from our whole Planet fitting in the
Sun 1.3 million times over to our sun being just a speck in the known
universe. Not to mention the possibilities of multiverses or parallel
universes. All of this is hard to comprehend and quite overwhelming for
the human mind. There is no short way to put it except that our life is
pointless.
There is high possibility that we are not the only versions of us and a
high possibility that there are many other forms of life with
consciousness like us out there in space, whether they are even in our
universe or not. And the time we have on this planet is short, not just
as individuals, but as a human race. We are also constantly shortening
that span by destroying the oceans, overusing our resources, and
depleting the ozone layer.
Well, you may ask, what’s the point if we have no worth, no value, and
no point? Well, if you’re reading this, you obviously want to live
enough to wake up. That is the whole contradiction of our existence: We
want to live, yet there is no point in living. This does not mean we
contradict our human nature yet again just because we realized a
universal truth, this means we must go along with our human nature while
observing the truth. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and by contradicting
our human nature we are just twisting ourselves up into a tighter knot
of overwhelming depression and realization. If we simply go along with
our human nature and simply observe or realize that our lives have no
real meaning in the big picture, we can find the truth that we just need
to live our lives to the fullest, and help others live their lives to
the fullest, in order to help humanity itself reach its fullest
potential.
Well, we reach our fullest potential and what? We die out. Yes, we die
out, but we die out happy. We die out with dignity. We die out ready to
die. We die out with no regrets, no sadness, and no anxiety. These
problems are worse than ever in our current society, and we are not only
refusing to abide by our human nature and the universal truth that we
are too small to really matter, but we are destroying our earth and
rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders are
skyrocketing. Our world is practically starting to crumble before us,
and time is not going to wait on us.
We need to act now and spread social change, environmental change, and
even mental health awareness. Without these changes, we aren’t truly
able to experience what humanity has the potential to be. If we create a
better world for ourselves, our generation will die happy, and the next
generation will pay it forward and so on. Why die unhappy, if it brings
us no pleasure? Life is pointless so we should give up on humanity just
dismantles the entire human nature.
I feel the need to end simply because I would have clearly drawn
attention by now if there was interest to draw. The simple fact of the
matter is that if we are not striving for a utopia, for a better future
for not only us, but our children, what are we doing? Are we simply
ignoring reality? Is reality what we make of it? There are a lot of
questions to life, not all of them answerable, but this one thing is
answerable: What Is Life?
Quite simply, life is what you make of it. The very chance to experience
life is a gift to the human person, and we need to take advantage rather
than sitting back and letting people in charge whom we don’t personally
and therefore instinctually not trust guide our lives. These people in
charge we may choose, but we don’t KNOW them. If we govern ourselves or
let the community govern us, only then can we have a say in our futures,
die happy, die with dignity, and achieve the utopia we all have been
trying to strive for and the happiness we have been searching for our
entire lives.
“The Abolition of Work.” The Anarchist Library,
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work.
Louis Laves-Webb, About the, and Louis Laves-WebbUpon receiving my
bachelor’s degree in Sociology from the University of Texas at Austin in
1990. “What Is Optimistic Nihilism? — Louis Laves.” Webb, 25 Feb. 2021,
www.louislaves-webb.com/optimistic-nihilism/.
“The Communalist Project.” The Anarchist Library,
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-communalist-project.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Origami
Books, 2020.
Miller, David. Philosophical Anarchism.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, et al. Being and Nothingness: an Essay on
Phenomenological Ontology. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.
Stirner, Max, et al. The Ego and Its Own. Digireads.com Publishing,
2019.
WHKMLA : Nihilism in Russia,
www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0708/sowan/sowan1.html.