The Shortcoming Of Absolutes

Each thought must carry with it only one of many perspectives. As such, a single perspective by its very nature implies limitation. Which means any given perspective and its associated thoughts can not be absolutely true. 

For example, one might suggest the absolute truth of the sun "rising and setting" every day. But this statement is not absolutely true. Surely an observer on a planet three million star systems away would not agree, let alone an observer merely three star systems away. It is relatively true based on the perspective of one who happens to reside on an arbitrarily named planet known as “Earth” in an arbitrarily named galaxy known as “The Milky Way”. Certainly our truth of the sun "rising and setting" every day is not false, but then neither is it absolutely true. Any other interplanetary observers might experience a daily "rising and setting" of a nearby star but certainly not our star.

I thoughtfully quoted "rising and setting" to make a most important distinction. This expression is merely metaphoric as the sun neither rises nor sets in a literal and hence absolute manner. It is but an illusion created by the Earth's rotation.

Yet another distinction to point out is that technically even this metaphoric "rising and setting" every day is problematic. What about observers on the Earth’s poles during the height of their summer and winter months? Their sun either "stays" risen or "stays" set, this of course being the same sun all of us more tropical types observe. At this point, even the absolute truth of the metaphor is lost.

Another critical distinction to make is that there is nothing absolutely true or real about a day. It is just a relative construct. Presumably, no other planet rotates around itself in the same amount of time. Additionally, the earth's rotational speed is slowing down which means the amount of time it takes to rotate around itself is NOT absolute! It's actually increasing every day! Imperceptibly, to us at least.

In summary, our perception of the sun "rising and setting" every day (this itself a metaphor which cannot hold absolutely true even for Earth's inhabitants) is certainly not false but then neither is it absolutely true. Such is the case with most claims of “absolute” truth.

I will admit, it seems absurd to see things as absolute. Then again, it seems equally absurd to see things as relative. There seems to be an irreconcilable paradox with the absolute/relative dichotomy*.

Many will be annoyed by my "nitpicking" of details. Most overlook or discount them out of the mistaken belief that they are frivolous. However, they are absolutely (a self-professed contradiction, but only for effect) pertinent to any reasonable argument. Any conclusion based on the false notion that variables are necessarily absolute misleads people into believing they can account for all truth with their individual perspectives.

I will end with one of my favorite Kurtisms: do not overlook the profound wisdom of scrutinizing trivial things as this becomes a stepping stone to critically evaluating far bigger things.


*see link that follows for clarification

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

I Love Patterns

As pattern seekers, it totally makes sense that different people groups faced with unique challenges saw/see convincing patterns suggesting our existence was “created” to be a certain way.....

1) people that suffered severe drought, they (would) have their rain god/goddess or several?
2) people that struggled with fertility issues (would) have their fertility god/goddess or several?

Much like Burger King‘s old mantra, “Have It Your Way!” well, have it YOUR way too! I’m sure somebody has already thought up of a god/goddess or several for whatever righteous cause? If not, just make one(s) up? Hmmm?????

Just wish people didn’t believe in vindictive gods for whatever nefarious reason(s)?

But, like I’ve said many times before, it’s likely that pesky EGO!

Why Am I Here? Why Are You Here? Why Is Anybody Here?

I think it was Jean Paul Sartre who once asked this? (Chevy Chase from "Spies Like Us".)

There seems to be an assumption that everything "there" is "there" for GOD. Why? For me? You? Her? Them?

I get it.....it makes us feel important?

It also very well substantiates deep-seated beliefs with which we've been indoctrinated.

Even I believe the universe was made by something "other" than us?

But indulge me slightly.....

What if GOD were simply the confluence of unguided forces of nature, known and UNKNOWN to us?

How can anybody not throw up their arms and concede uncertainty?

A Dose of Introspection

I'm going through a rather tumultuous period in my life. Not the bad kind, no, the good.

My humble abode is a whopping 1,335 square feet with basic necessities like AC and heat, a stable roof (I think?), clean running water, etc. Not bad if you live in a 3rd world society? But just slightly better than mediocre in "our" society.

So I'm in the process of "cleaning house" to make way for major renovations. As I am reluctant to making decisions, what do I do with all the books I've accumulated over 47 years of living?

The first thing that occurred to me is that, Kurt, you must keep some of them! After all, are not the books on your shelf basically a window into you?

Yes, but books occupy space and collect lots of dust.....

If I want to reveal to somebody who I am, well, I'll just talk to them?

Nothing Worthwhile Should Be Easy

Imagine technology allowed for any idiot to fly a commercial jet just by pressing a button to summon a robot to land the 200 ton object? Or an imbecile replacing a human heart just by pressing a button to summon a drone surgeon? (Think Mike Judge's brilliant movie, Idiocracy).

This seems to be where we're headed? Everybody is equal, right?

No, everybody is NOT equal and entitled to the same privilege as others.....

People that work harder than others, and, God bless'em, those that got the "right" genes should prosper.

The others that just don't have "smarts" because mom and dad handed down to them rotten genes have no right to claim any bounty that others justifiably deserve!

What this implies about God, I don't know?

LIFE IS UNFAIR, GET OVER IT!

Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers

July 10, 2019.....top end of the Perimeter Highway, I-285, Atlanta. Apparently either a back door failed and/or an employee failed to latch it correctly?

Cash started pouring out the back door of the money truck on one of ATL's busiest roadways. When I say money, I'm talking to the tune of $200,000. People stopped, went into nearby woods where much of it landed, and started claiming their "unearned" bounty.

Being philosophical, I'm not going into some BULLSHIT diatribe about how dishonest many of us are.

No, the first thing that came to my mind are some introspective questions.....

1) If "I" could get away with taking something that wasn't mine and "I" REALLY wanted it and/or could use it without any repercussions, would I? I don't know? I believe, or at least really WANT to believe that I would do the right thing.....return it. After all, it's not mine!

2) Why does my conscience (FYI I'm an atheist) compel me to do things against my carnal wishes? It's 2019, and EVERYTHING is being watched! So for those that grabbed some of that bounty, you WILL be caught!

3) I remember a time when I took $50 of cash out of an ATM and got $60. Did it again for $30, got $40. And again. Apparently the "money person" fucked up. Must've put $20s in the $10 slot? Mistakes happen. The first thing I thought before claiming my $30 bounty was, "that guy or girl is probably going to lose his or her job over this"? I fuck up all the time, it's part of learning?

My overarching point is this: do I "tend" to do things honestly because I'm sincerely honest, or because I fear somebody is watching me? God? Cameras? (today)

I DON'T KNOW?

What's In The Box?

          PART I - The Box

How big is it? What color? Does it emit any information about itself?

It's a white box the size of a baseball, so we're told. But this little white box reveals nothing about itself. It's obscure, nobody can get near it, it doesn't emit any noticeable smell, it doesn't cater to any of our senses, it doesn't use Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat to communicate, etc. Nonetheless, many conjecture as to its contents, mostly from the whims of illiterate people from bygone eras.

Christians are certain this little white box contains a red baseball with Jesus Christ's autograph. Muslims are just as sure, perhaps even more, that this same box contains a blue one with Muhammad's autograph. Both are built on the Old Testament tradition, but distinct nonetheless. One is red, the other blue, each emblazoned with a different signature. Clearly they can't coexist because that would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, right? But at least they're both balls? Why or how could the 2 most dominant religions on Earth, comprising more than 50% of us, believe something so similar, yet so distinct?

Just as we can create a long list of items that could not possibly be contained in this little white box, we can also create an endless list of items that COULD.

Hopefully we can all agree this little white box can't possibly fit the Milky Way Galaxy.....there's just not enough room? Nonsensical objects are eliminated too, say, something ridiculous like a deck of cards made of anger?

On the other hand, it's not inconceivable that this little white box COULD harbor either of the 2 baseballs previously mentioned. But how do Christians and Muslims know? They don't. Belief and faith can only ever attempt to fill this gap of knowledge.....it's a placeholder. Perhaps forever?

Think about man before he knew a thing about meteorology. Surely there had to be a God (or Gods) controlling the weather, so he made one(s) up to explain floods and droughts. Why? Because he had to "know" God. Why did he have to "know" God? Because he sought a place of comfort and control, without which he would not possess. Behold, faith and belief!

Analogize what believers of different faiths claim this little white box to contain. Any number of small, novel objects could conceivably fit. A scoop of vanilla ice cream? A ball of twine? A piece of dog shit? 17 rose petals? 4 ounces of Klingon vomit? Nobody KNOWS what's in the box! As I've alluded to previously, one can only ever be sure at to what's NOT in the box. Any guess as to what's actually in it is akin to the Wild West.....

But Kurt, what do you believe to be in it? Why does it matter what I believe to be in this little white box? Whatever's in the box is in the box. Perhaps it's not little? Or white? Or even a box at all?

I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA! I simply concede uncertainty. I'm fine with that. What about you?



          PART II - Agnosticism?

Will a self-professed atheist ever be elected POTUS? I don't know, but it doesn't seem likely these days?

A tantalizing question for sure, meant to reinforce the fact that atheism in the U.S. today gets a really bad rap. This should not be the case.

To me, there are 2 fundamental types of atheism: the strong and the weak.

The strong atheist absolutely knows God doesn't exist, much like the religious zealot who just knows he is right and anybody else that might believe in a competing God is "buying into a lie", something or other. The strong atheist is arrogant and obnoxious just like the religious maven. Both seem to permeate today's hyper-polarized society?

The weak atheist like myself simply lacks belief to a question in which nobody can even in principle answer yet or perhaps ever.....is there a God?

The only tenable response to this question should be, "I DON'T KNOW"? For those that call themselves agnostic, as if this were some middle ground between strong atheism and religious zeal, they are essentially weak atheists like me. Their beliefs just don't afford them the luxury of claiming a specific God entity exists. It would out of necessity, at times at least, threaten their intellectual credibility. Who among us wants to come across as an imbecile?

People have the privilege to believe and have faith in whatever they so choose......Santa Claus, flying reindeer, magic elves, the Tooth Fairy, the invisible midget that turns on the refrigerator light when one opens it, Alex Jones' crazy conspiracy theories, any number of Gods, etc.

Agnosticism simply means lack of knowledge.....belief and faith step in as proxies for this lack of knowledge. Ergo, EVERYBODY is agnostic concerning the existence of God.


           PART III - Morality?

Morality is a complicated topic, as both lovers and haters of Friedrich Nitezsche will likely agree.

One of the most profound adages ever uttered by a clear thinking being, homo-sapien or not, is that, though atheism doesn't systematically lead to moral behavior, neither does it lead to immoral behavior.

In this sense, though atheism does not guide us on how to behave well, neither does it guide us to be assholes?

Morality is up to us!

As a weak atheist, I believe being nice to others generally lends itself to others being nice to me. Challenge me if you disagree?

Evolution seems to have instilled in us, if you will, a social contract to play nice "in the sandbox" with others. Imagine if I was an asshole and you were too? Let's say we both stole from each other? How would this moral system work?

With the exception of gypsies and other numerous con-artists, collectively as a social society, it seems incumbent on us to live by the creed, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours!" Or as the golden rule more or less implies, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Hence why this proverbial social contract works......without belief in OR EVEN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
            
I hope I've whittled away the stigma of atheism to at least a few. I've tried my best.

Do Unto Others.....

as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule from Luke 3:16.

Though I love its underlying message, it is wont to backfire.

The rule, in its simplest sense, guides people to treat their enemies/dissenters the way THEY would want to be treated, NOT the way their enemies/dissenters would treat them.....

And this works seemingly most of the time.

But what about somebody who doesn't like being treated the way somebody else would WANT to be treated?

1) Some of us WANT to be judged when we're doing things we "reason" aren't good. What if my best friend doesn't intervene to tell me how awful what I'm about to do is? Why aren't you confronting me? YOU'RE VIOLATING THE GOLDEN RULE!

2) Some of us DO NOT want to be judged when we're doing things we "reason" aren't good. What if my best friend valiantly attempts to convince me that what I'm about to do is awful? Why are you judging me! YOU'RE VIOLATING THE GOLDEN RULE!

Like many issues in life, society tries to place complicated issues in a simple "black and white" fabric.

The End of All Empires

The consequence of arrogance leads to decadence and this has always been the inevitable downfall of every Empire in the history of man. It's just a matter of when, not if.

As I write this, The United States of America is a poster child for this seemingly immutable law of the universe.

For those out there not enslaved by political ideology, take solace. This is neither a right wing nor left wing manifesto.

It's just a simple, honest, politically unbiased message: as a nation, we're really in the weeds right now.

We're mired in issues that will, at the end of the day, be our demise.

The Repetitive Nature of Dogs (And Humans)

I had wondered, until very recently, why dogs are so intensely interested in the SAME blade of grass seemingly EVERY DAY.....then it occurred to me.....what must Roxy think of my obsession with the daily paper? Surely, to her, it is the SAME "blade of grass" in which we invest OUR interest in for hours at a time.....

But we all know that a newspaper is NOT the same every day.....being a cynic myself, I will say it gets progressively worse as the days pass.....but DIFFERENT nonetheless.

To a dog then, the same blade of grass provides a plethora of experiences each and every day.

The Symmetry Of Space And Time

Classical theories on physics are all fine and dandy.....until one seriously ponders physics at its QUANTUM level.....

Something has been bugging me as of late. Although the speed of light (186,000 some odd miles per SECOND) seems very fast, what puzzles me more than this "quashing" of speed we pathetic humans could ever dare comprehend is the ramifications this has on SPACE ITSELF!

According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, as one approaches the speed of light, time dilates.....in other words, when compared to another body closer to "rest", time for the body moving very quickly transpires more slowly.*

But because Einstein's theory of special relativity creates symmetry between space and time.....space ITSELF actually shrinks along with the slowing of time!

So to reiterate, as one approaches the speed of light, time dilates and space shrinks.....but perhaps most interestingly, as one ATTAINS the speed of light, time ceases to tick at all and space shrinks down to a singularity! Perhaps OMNIPRESENCE is theoretically attainable at the SPEED OF LIGHT?

In this case, could it be possible (OR PERHAPS OBLIGATORY) that ONE photon of light explains the WHOLE universe? For if SINGLE photons of light can FOREVER travel at the speed of light and at this speed time COMPLETELY dilates, would it not seem a SINGLE photon could be EVERYWHERE simultaneously and hence explain the WHOLE of the universe?

Could this hypothetical "SINGLE" entity be GOD? If so, what would this GOD look like?

IF this God constitutes EVERYTHING, perhaps God is "ALL OF US AND EVERYTHING"? Pardon the offense, but this would include CHILD MOLESTERS, FECES, RAPISTS, AND EVERYTHING WE HUMANS ASSOCIATE WITH "TERRIBLENESS"! Don't forget that this would include all that is considered DIVINE as well! 



*Of course the dilemma in determining which body is moving faster is entirely dependent on the chosen reference frame. For example, imagine Johnny is running toward the back of a train moving at 80mph. Further suppose his none-to-pleased father is resting comfortably in his seat. Who is moving faster? If one's chosen reference frame is the train, clearly Johnny is moving faster. But if one's chosen reference frame is the ground, clearly his father is moving faster.

What Is The Real Deal With Divorce?

Why is it often claimed that the divorce rate among religious people is approximately equal to that of the non-religious? Presumably because it is true. 

Why would this be the case? Because religious belief, or any belief for that matter, is ultimately of no importance in maintaining a strong, healthy marriage or any other kind of relationship.

Now what somebody "believes" might influence his behavior, but it is ultimately behavior that determines the direction of any relationship. Of course there is no guarantee belief will engender the required behavior and this is the problem with belief itself.

If somebody “needs” to believe "this" or "that" to behave "accordingly", then certainly believing is a wise path to follow. On the other hand, there are people who need not believe anything to behave in a way that lends itself to success in marriage.

It might seem apparent that people with “strong” religious convictions have successful marriages because of their convictions, but this is naive. I will guarantee you the common link in their marital success is that they follow principles which lend themselves to such success!

What would prevent a couple with no religious convictions from experiencing a very rewarding marriage? Nothing, and it happens all the time!

The bottom line is that people of all religious and nonreligious persuasions will both succeed and fail in marriage and countless other things solely based on their behavior and the principles they follow, not the principles they merely believe or at least claim to believe.

Self Defense?

What is self-defense?

Clearly, if some crazy bloke was running me down with an 8 inch blade, I would be justified in defending myself by killing him in any way available to me.....

But what if said perpetrator was running me down with a voodoo doll? Further suppose I was naive enough to believe in voodoo, in which case I would likely feel justified to defend myself by killing him in any way available to me.

Am I committing felony murder OR could this be construed as a case of self-defense?

I guess it depends on the justice system under which I commit said action.....But still, what do YOU think.....more importantly, what might GOD think?

Let's Just Cut The Crap.....

Incentives, incentives, INCENTIVES! Will you please give me more incentives to do the very things I claim to value so highly? If this is how we think as a society, then we value nothing but reward and recognition.

This is a tacit admission that we do not value the very things we claim to value. Rather, we value predominantly, perhaps only, reward and recognition. Not that this is wrong or bad, nor particularly right or good either. Apparently it just is what it is.

With this in mind then, can we cut the crap about claiming to value things in themselves and realize that what we are ultimately after is reward and recognition? Examples follow:

- We need to offer children incentives for working hard in school!
- We need incentives to compel people to better care for themselves!
- We need tax write-offs for charitable donations (to our selfishly selected causes)!
- We need God (or at least belief in Him/Her/It) in order to compel us to be compassionate and merciful
- We need belief in reward and punishment rendered by God to compel us to seek virtue and avoid depravity
- We need others' approval to validate our beliefs and actions

Counterpoint: we shouldn't NEED any of these things if we value, or at least claim to value the underlying values themselves!

My own suspicion is we do not value the values, rather we value only what benefits can be had (if this isn't selfish, what is?) through the practice of said values.

In the end, if society takes an honest account of what it actually values, I'm afraid INCENTIVES are a necessity. For if there were no incentives to do the things we claim to value so highly, I can only imagine the result: a totally self-absorbed society devoid of feeling or sympathy for anything outside of selfishly chosen causes.

What's doubly alarming is that oftentimes the practicing of our selfishly chosen causes is ultimately at the mercy of incentives! Which implies we value very little other than reward and recognition via incentives.

For atheists, this comes as no surprise and is logically concluded. For theists, on the other hand, an account must be made of our ultimately selfish behavior.

True Perfection Equates To Lifelessness

So much for the idea of perfection.....one of the fundamental reasons we exist at all is due to imperfection.

Imperfection in the way the early universe was able to coalesce non-uniform aka "imperfect" pockets of gases such that stars and planets and eventually LIFE could ensue. If perfection existed, the matter in the universe would have been "perfectly" uniform precluding any tendency for  matter to clump together at all. In this way, the universe would be lifeless. Hats off to imperfection! It is the unsung hero of reality!

How Do YOU Derive Meaning In Life?

Ultimately, existence could be seen as pointless regardless of what is believed or not.

If one who would otherwise be bad is good simply to meet the demands of God, it could be construed as meaningless. This is merely bribery or manipulation.

Alternatively, if one is terrible only because he believes God's grace will suffice, it could also be construed as meaningless. This is sheer arrogance!

Or if one is terrible only because he believes nothing, this could be viewed as meaningless too. If there is no God to appease, his only “hope” seems to be bettering himself at the apparent expense of everybody else. There is just something “cold” about this.

On the other hand, one who believes nothing but is nonetheless good could be viewed as meaningless as well. Why be good if it precludes him from maximizing his own desires and ambitions?

And last, one could be good independent of his belief but believe anyway. This could be seen as meaningless because why would he believe if he was already good? Possibly his only reason for believing is that he genuinely believes it to be true as opposed to believing only because he thinks great benefits will ensue and/or he will avoid eternal judgment.

Refer to my discussions on the nature of belief and it will reinforce my argument that belief's only worthwhile contribution is that it can, not necessarily will, make otherwise bad people good or at least relatively better. The reason I say it can as opposed to will make people good or better is because some people systematically become worse through the use of arrogant self-righteousness.

My point here is not to sow hopelessness. It is to demonstrate that because we are all different, there are numerous ways to find meaning in life.

What Is Sacrifice?

Say a friend of mine, Jill, asks if I will help paint her house. Suppose, and this would not be far from actuality, that I do not like painting. But I agree to help her regardless all the while grumbling under my breath about this arduous task I have now obligated myself to.

On the other hand, Boris loves painting! So Boris helps too, and with a much more inspiring attitude. The question is, who is the “true” sacrificer? The one with the negative attitude or the positive one?

Well, certainly my attitude is not exactly appreciated but does this not make it perfectly clear that I am in fact sacrificing? On the other hand, Boris' attitude is decidedly more appreciated and commendable, but remember, he loves painting whereas I do not! If one gives Boris credit for being the “true” sacrificer, it seems misplaced.

The trouble I have with this is that the idea of sacrifice seems to necessitate a distaste for doing something, though doing it nonetheless in the name of sacrifice. Even if my grumbling is done surreptitiously, am I not still acting with somewhat of a rotten attitude? Which is genuine sacrifice?

It seems to me the trick in getting help with something is not to find people to “sacrifice”. It is to find people which love doing whatever task is at hand. Of course I need not have it pointed out that many of the tasks we need help with will be loved by none! I think we just need to accept the fact that sacrifice will seldom if ever be met with cheers and smiles. This, after all, seems to be what makes it sacrifice.

If one lauds those who conceal their contempt for the task at hand, might we suggest their lack of being forthright about this as being in some way dishonest? Might the best sacrificer be the one who makes it perfectly clear he would rather be on a beach frolicking about with beautiful babes than helping out with this miserable task? What is sacrifice?

Must Heaven Be Larger Than A Narrow Box?

Why are views regarding who will go to heaven and who will not seem to be getting less restrictive? Because as different cultures with different religious views come together as a result of globalization, it becomes more and more apparent that exclusive views are no longer tenable.

In the USA, for example, the European settlers (invaders might better describe it for the realist) came over here and decimated the native people and subsequently adopted a predominantly Christian landscape. Up until the USA started seeing substantial numbers of non-Christian peoples, there were largely Christians and atheists. Even now, though probably not as much, atheists are thought of as largely expendable and as such it is easy to believe they will not get into heaven and worse yet will suffer eternity in hell.

But what about a wonderful neighbor who happens to be a Muslim, Buddhist or member of some other belief system? Is one prepared to believe these people will not adopt a place in heaven solely because they did not adhere to or believe in the “right” system? Increasingly less so I would say.

So what is a believer in "some will go to heaven and some will go to hell" to do with this new reality? Most will simply conjure up their own arbitrary belief to circumvent this dilemma. “God will ultimately evaluate us based on intentions,” something or other. (see How Will We Be Judged? for further consideration)

But then how does belief have anything to do with this? If we are evaluated on the basis of belief, then one must believe. On the other hand, if it is based on the purity and intention of a person's heart, why does belief matter in the least?

Hatred Toward Liberals Is A Proxy For Hating YOURSELF!

Seen on Conservapedia: A liberal is someone who loves double standards -- for his own (temporary) advantage. Hmm.....I guess this includes me? If you must hate me, so be it. I'll get over it.

In relation to how arbitrary regulations seem to be concerning government attempting to control peoples' lives through encouraging and sometimes seemingly forcing certain behaviors, why does the manner in which we define liberalism and conservatism in our society so often seem to betray their true meanings?

Is environmental control (thought of as a liberal pursuit) really liberal? Or is it more conservative? Liberals should by definition be more about “live and let live” but instead they want to implement strict rules such as banning smoking everywhere. I really dislike smoking but deep down I believe any sort of no-smoking policy should be determined by the owner of any given establishment, in general. If there are enough people that “hate” smoke, this will be a business opportunity for those wishing to fill this void.

The arbitrariness of these kinds of things just reinforces my point that people generally let a collective mentality “think” for them. Of course just a small dose of scrutiny exposes the arbitrariness inherent in most “group” thought.

Liberalism seems to me a cross between conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism's mantra might be “live and let live”. Simply let the chips fall exactly as they will. Conservatism by definition should revolve around implementing regulations and laws in order to conserve tangible and intangible qualities of life as a means to uphold tradition. We might say it advocates or at least attempts to advocate the status quo through control. How about upholding the tradition of SLAVERY? I believe there was a war fought largely over "protecting" this status quo?

Since liberalism seems to arbitrarily pick and choose issues and ideas to control, it essentially violates any libertarian premise of “live and let live”. Conservapedia's claim follows suit then: liberalism IS predicated on double standards.

However, I don't believe anybody avoids double standards. Who out there does NOT form convictions, opinions and actions solely around those which are advantageous to HIMSELF/HERSELF/SELECTIVELY CHOSEN CAUSES?

If this is the case, perhaps we are all of us liberals, many of us masquerading under the auspices of conservatism and libertarianism.

I believe liberalism is essentially the spectrum that spans libertarianism on the left all the way through conservatism on the right. Is there anybody out there completely sold out to either end of the spectrum? Not likely. We all seem to be stuck somewhere in the middle. (see The Trouble With "The Middle" for clarification).

Liberalism's arbitrary issues and ideas are essentially the “zeitgeist” or “hot-button” issues of the day. 

On the other hand, I think conservatism has mix-ups and mismatches much like liberalism. Big business is associated predominantly with conservatism yet seems more akin to liberalism in that most conservatives tend to think in a libertarian way with a few arbitrary regulations implemented here and there to prevent cheating or despotism (which seems to be what capitalism “degenerates” into if left completely unregulated). Of course there is much disagreement over which regulations should be implemented because, once again, they are merely arbitrary. It seems the political parties of the day evolve to suit society's changing views based on the “zeitgeist”. Behold! Morality does evolve!

It seems then that conservatism in its strictest sense would be what liberalism appears to be in the USA, at least concerning capitalism and business. Whereas liberals seemingly attempt to control every aspect of businesses, is this not what conservatives should want to do? Strictly speaking, is not conservatism protecting and upholding tradition through control and regulation?

It seems to me that this “mismatch” if you will, is due to people not thinking for themselves. Instead, they let a collective think for them. The question is, who or what is the “brain trust” behind this collective thought which seems “mismatched”? Perhaps a person or group with a self serving agenda of some kind? In this way, people that let a collective think for them are essentially surrogates for some person's or group's self serving interests! And we call ourselves FREE?

Insofar as my definition of liberalism is concerned, it seems we are all liberal, of course many of us dressed in conservatives' and libertarians' garb. What could possibly make all of us liberal? The fact that we all arbitrarily believe some things should be regulated whereas other things should not no doubt motivated by personal preferences and life experiences, essentially for our own (temporary) advantages! We all seem to be “stuck” between conservatism and libertarianism. Not that there is the slightest thing wrong with this. It just is.

I think this once again reinforces the role that continuities play in this reality. Our only method of dealing with these continuities is to attempt to intertwine discontinuous solutions to issues that can only be resolved continuously. (see Drawing Lines for clarification) And how could we not? It is the only conceivable method of dealing with the nature of our reality. This of course creates many of the paradoxes and hence disagreements in life. Could one be libertarian or conservative yet simultaneously be liberal? It seems so, does it not?

Does God Prefer Paternalism Or Self-Reliance?

I shall preface this by supposing a paternalistic and socialistic society of God's would not seem oppressive or evil because it would be the choice (perhaps this "choice" could only ever be conceived through God's use of force and manipulation?) of every member to partake in “spreading wealth and resources evenly”.

In any case, I want to digress into a discussion concerning believers in God and their thoughts on how society should view paternalism and self-reliance from a purportedly “Godly” perspective.

First off, is it not painfully obvious that any view of this dichotomy is completely arbitrary? Some will espouse a God that inspires complete self-reliance whereas others will espouse a God that inspires complete paternalism. But of course far more will espouse a God that is some combination of the two. The overly confident will arrogantly assume God desires whatever combination of self-reliance and paternalism they deem ideal.

But I don't think “God”, whatever one sees as God, can be placed in one of these groups (or even in a combination of them) because they are merely interpreted by the limited perspective inherent in an individual. But God's perspective can not be individual. God's perspective must be collective. And I think God's interpretation of these ideals is that they are both good and bad, both true and false simultaneously. Neither is ideal in itself nor is any combination thereof because we humans are forever engrossed in a collective struggle, especially of ideals.

Ultimately, I believe God's view on this (again, whatever God might mean to you) is for humanity to be One such that it is the desire and choice of all humanity to share wealth and resources freely. In this sense, it is socialism through desire and choice not through force and manipulation. I am NOT by any means claiming this is what we should strive for, or am I?

In any case, this is my view as to how God sees it. Whether most, including myself, are willing to deliberately embrace a socialistic society seems very far-fetched. Is this perchance what makes it ideal? Perhaps this is why most envision heaven as a place beyond here?* For they very much wish to experience a totally socialistic society, perhaps unconsciously, but have it not in them to embrace this because it would entail redistributing their (my) coveted wealth and status.

I think Jesus advocated a socialistic society predicated on choice, not through government force or manipulation nor guilt for that matter. However, it seems governments must ultimately force or manipulate. Otherwise nobody wants to pay for and/or support necessities outside their interest(s). Everybody wants to party but nobody wants to clean up! In any case, Jesus talks about giving out of the heart, not doing so out of a sense of duty or obligation. Giving out of a sense of duty or obligation will likely lead to resentment, bitterness, guilt and perhaps above all feelings of self-righteous entitlement. This seems to be our Achilles' Heel if you happen to be one that envisions a world such as this. On the other hand, if you are one who sees the current world as ideal, maybe it is not an Achilles' Heel at all. Maybe it is exactly as it should be!

Many (especially the religious among us masquerading under the auspices of "working for God") will correctly but naively claim this type of society would undermine incentive and motivation to put forth maximum effort or any at all. The problem with this is that it implies they are motivated only for the sake of reward and compensation. But then what becomes of their claimed or at least IMPLIED pretext of "working for God"?

Furthermore, if everybody imagines a “heavenly” realm where we are all of us perfectly happy and harmonious, might this be a place where we are all equally endowed with resources yet feel not the least bit cheated because we are so happy and fulfilled being ourselves and hence doing that which we love? In this way, wealth would be of little importance. I am not by any means claiming this to be my reality nor am I necessarily suggesting society should follow this model. I am simply pointing out that peoples' conception(s) of what heaven is or should be, literally or figuratively, seems to mimic this. Which suggests people want this type of society. The question is, why must we wait?

Presumably because many (including moi) can not bear the thought of parting ways with our hard-earned wealth and status. This is why many leave it to God in the "Great Beyond" to change their attitude. As in, “God, I can not embrace a socialistic attitude here. It would require me to share everything I own with all others, many of which I do not care for in the least. I would like You to change my attitude when I get to heaven so I can willingly embrace sharing with all Your miscreants.” Of course most ideas of heaven are devoid of materiality rendering the idea of sharing irrelevant anyway! Such is the absurdity inherent in these kinds of ideas when scrutinized even in the least.



*Please see further corollary to heaven in the following blog posts:
 
A Heavenly Realm
A New Take On Heaven
The Collective Struggle Of Existence