[lit-ideas] Re: Aaaaaargh

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:41:54 -0400

Learning that life should or shouldn't be full of something is useless.  So is 
philosophy useless except, sometimes, for describing.  Ideas like weak/strong 
are useless.  Giving humans in training what they need, such as, for starters, 
seeing them human enough not to hit them, is the answer.  And that's the very 
thing that nearly everybody fights tooth and nail against.  

I tell ya, after promoting ideas such as good parenting and promoting looking 
at unconscious drives as the issue that makes the world go round, and doing it 
for years, and being all but waterboarded for it, and not having the ideas 
entertained even in the abstract, there's no question but that there is no hope 
for humanity.  Much easier to just bring it on, as Bush said.

I know, but I don't care.  Anymore.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mike Geary 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/28/2006 2:06:11 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aaaaaargh


AA:
> You don't know and you don't care.   Thanks for making that clear.


Well, I do care (in my way), but I don't know.  Neither do you.  Neither does 
anyone -- not definitively.  We create narratives to make sense of the world 
and we call it History, and some are quite learned narratives, but who can 
explain why they themselves do anything they do?  You posit "bad parenting" as 
the cause of all the evil in the world.  And I agree that "bad parenting" often 
produces people full of anger and hate and resentment -- but not always -- and 
I certainly don't believe that THAT explains the world.  We are but fancy, 
naked apes.  We come into the world knowing only one thing -- how to suckle.  
All else is learned.  Including the notion that life should not be filled with 
violence and strife.  Even this notion should be suspect though.  As indeed all 
notions must be, lacking God's imprimatur.  Perhaps this notion is but the 
propaganda of the weak, of those kept alive by the strong.  Love, tenderness, 
kindness -- could these be simply the virtues of losers? 
  Who's to say?  Maybe Nietzsche and Hitler and Bush are right, maybe in the 
long run destiny belongs to those who are strong enough to crush the weak and 
stamp out those who would nourish 'niceness'.  Maybe those whom you think of as 
good are dragging humankind down, keeping human progress anchored in 
sentimentality, delaying the dawn of Strong Mankind.  That's always a 
possibility, you know.  Perhaps your "bad parents" know a truth that you are 
ignorant of in your "wouldn't it be nice" Weltanschauung.  Think, Irene, what 
we could achieve if we could just rid ourselves of those who drain our 
resources to no end but their own whiny, dependent survival.

So, no.  I don't know.  I just go according to the Weltanschauung I've 
inherited.

I don't care that I might be wrong.  Don't care that the Hobbesian epithet: 
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" might truly be the case of human 
existence because (1)  I can't do anything about it if it is, (2) I've found 
too much solidarity, too much wealth of wonder, such astonishing kindness, and 
overwhelming intelligence to ever be tempted to believe that Hobbesianism could 
possibly be the case of the world.  However, it does seem a bit short to me, 
but I'm sure my grandkids will say: "He lived a long life."  I hate the young.

Mike Geary     
Memphis

I don't know, but I do care.

Other related posts: