Friday, 17 April 2026

In a moment of reflection, I wrote this ‘philosophical’ piece.

 


I cannot, in all conscience, believe in any higher being, causal principle or end purpose, teleology if you will.
No guiding principle shaping the world or its beings, no redemption from sin or misdeeds.

The concept of love, caring, extends as a human concept from the fundamental groupings of mate and family that, with society’s increasing complexity, was extended to include interdependent groups, then tribes, then cultures, then nations, then groups of nations adhering to common codified mores, those having arisen in the ‘spiritual’ sphere (if one may call it that) from the shaman, through cults, to priest and religions, in parallel to, in the physical sphere, head of family, chief, law-giver, ruler, king (where the ruling concept is still quasi-religious) to national leaders (increasingly divorced from their god-given rights to secular ascendancy, through force of arms, then wealth) as presidents, prime ministers, dictators, oligarchs, and supra-national business heads, etc..
The corollary of inclusion, as I described before, was exclusion by dint of curse, excommunication, imprisonment, torture and death, either individual or, en masse, as conquest followed by coerced inclusion or its threatened opposite, or annihilation, pogrom, genocide, usually in the name of a God, but, secularly speaking, for the purity of the (chosen) race.

In the face of the undeniably ‘evil demi-urge’ deeply ingrained in man to remove all threat to one’s (group) survival,  it is the challenge of every man to overcome that base instinct to conquer, subjugate or destroy, and sublimate those powerful negative desires into their opposite, first respecting (the right of others to live), then caring and ultimately loving that ‘Other’, stranger, foreigner, infidel...
Exclusion, or the ‘selfish’ principle derives from the need to ensure survival of the family unit and one’s personal ‘future’ in the shape of one’s offspring. It is the desire for ‘eternity’ through this. Extended to societies it is manifest in architecture, music, song and poetry defining a culture that its adherents hope ‘to God’ will survive their transient mortality.

There will never become a time when man will become ‘good’ - his inalienable fate is to struggle for the good in the certain knowledge that his struggle will at times, in personal life and through history, prove futile in the endless cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations, races, and even species, including humans.

It is that determination to work and even self-sacrifice for the benefit of his fellows and humanity that defines courage and fortitude, though a strong caveat comes in the form of ‘certitude’ that ‘right’, as he sees it, must be ‘absolute’.
When his definition of ‘right’, and ‘good’ proves not be the ‘righteous’ from another man’s point of view, how does the virtuous man conduct himself in the face of denial?
Does he seek to persuade, proselytize, impose? If so,the endless cycle begins again, from virtuous intent to evil deed.