As more and more people fall victim to mass gun
violence, the debate between whether there should be more or less gun laws
heats up. For a large majority of people, they fall on either side of this
debate. The problem is, to be on either side of this debate suggests an
unwillingness to think about the problem’s origins. Whether the public has a right
to bear arms has nothing to do with what is allowing for the U.S.’s staggering
gun violence problem – Collectively speaking, the U.S. has a deep, severe
mental problem that is based upon its very foundation.*
[* That is to say, The U.S. as a country was born
out of violence and established a two-century old patriarchal, racist society
not much better than the U.S.’s country of origin.]
But this deep, severe mental problem is merely indicative
of a larger problem; what it means to be human. In the last year there has been
an alarming rise of practically fascist, regressive leftism in America
paralleled by the number of people who think Donald Trump should be the
President of the U.S. On both these sides there is a very particular way in
which these people’s brains operate, which is to say however good their
intentions may be, they are not capable of critically thinking not because they
lack the tools – self-reflection requires no tools – but because they are
determined to believe what they want to believe.
If the number of people on the planet is any
indication, this lack of self-analysis and moreover, reasoning ability, has
preserved and perpetuated the species. This same ability is what puts people at
odds, though, and has long made the world an unfriendly place to live. It
appears as though we may have to settle for this state of affairs in order to
preserve and perpetuate the species, which really is the point of life after
all. Our genes don’t care how we treat each other; they just want to get
themselves into the next generation. If this is the case, it is more likely
that people are going to be less rational than rational despite how many
generations come and go. In other words, it will always be the case that people
will make dumb decisions, do dumb things and believe in dumb ideas. Despite
absolutely zero evidence, particle physicists cling to string theory. Despite
the overwhelming evidence that smoking is harmful to the body, people still
smoke. Despite the health problems that come with being obese, people still
overeat. Despite being as far from science as one can get, people still heed
warnings from their horoscope. Despite the fact that wealthy socialites
contribute nothing to society, people still worship them. For a human, being
dumb is inescapable.
It is tempting, seeing how humans are capable of
as much hope as they are capable of stupidity, to assume people can be rational
especially when lives are at stake. For example, cooler heads prevailed in
October, 1962 during the Cold War when Russia attempted to base missiles in
Cuba aimed at the U.S. Ultimately, Russia withdrew their weapons from the
U.S.’s backyard and a nuclear war was averted. This is because everyone
involved came to see that for either side, the whole debacle was a lose-lose
situation. At the same time, Russia acted irrationally and thought, “What the
heck, the U.S. won’t mind if we put some missiles in their backyard. After all,
they have missiles in Italy aimed at us.” Sadly, hope is often a result of humans
acting or doing something stupid. We ‘hope’ as a hedge against a cruel world in
which we would otherwise feel completely defeated. In this example, we hoped to
avoid nuclear war and we did, but first, someone did something which required
hope as a hedge against their action. That is to say, if we build a nuclear
weapon, we have to hope that we never have to use it which indicates building
the nuclear bomb in the first place is irrational. (Using nuclear fission to
produce energy, yes. Using it to kill people, um…)
Acting or thinking rationally is a foreign
practice for most people. There are many reasons for this, the foremost being
that thinking requires the brain to use a lot of energy and it goes against
people’s general desire to be placated as soon as possible (despite evidence
that prolonging the reception of an award or desire appears to allow for more
enjoyment of the award or desire). One cannot even rationalize with a teenager
who will post damning pictures of themselves on social media despite how far
their posts may travel around the world to say nothing of their local police
force because a teenager, like people in general, needs to placate their ego
immediately. As I alluded to earlier, it is not a part of human nature to be
rational and this is why it is so rare. With human population closing in on 7.3
billion people as of 2015, it appears there is no particular reason for the
human race to be any more rational than it is if being irrational perpetuates
the species. Notice if you will that the people with the most offspring are
usually the least educated and often the most ideologically radicalized.
There is no rationalizing with an irrational
person when there is nothing in it for the irrational person. An irrational
person will choose to believe in a heavenly afterlife over being atheistic
because even if they see an atheistic lifestyle as potentially making their
earthbound life more important, they know that one day their earthbound life
will end. In other words, the atheistic principle as it may apply doesn’t offer
the ultimate in hope. If there is no potentially bigger reward for changing
sides in a debate, it is very unlikely that people on opposite sides of a
debate will come around to a new way of thinking. Once a person is
indoctrinated into thinking a particular way, it is very difficult to change
their mind. It is often not worth the energy one spends trying to do that
unless one’s survival is literally at stake. That is to say, it is irrational
to continually engage irrational people when there is only a small chance of
changing their minds ‘for the better.’ It does happen, on occasion, that people
do think deeply about their ideas and beliefs, but it will always be the case
that such people will be vastly outnumbered and ultimately always be at the
mercy of the irrational.
This is in part why, here at the end of 2015, I am
coming home from the war. Fighting stupidity, however noble, will forever be a
losing battle. Over the course of years of debate and attempted discussions,
I’ve had very few rational, much less civil, interactions with people on a
myriad of issues. It’s not worth trying to get people become uncomfortable with
their ideas or beliefs; I only become a villain so I suppose it is better to
let sleeping dogs lie unless I am confronted myself. I will allow people their
beliefs if there is no cost to me, but of course one should not expect to get
off easy when trying to engage me with their irrational ideas or beliefs. I otherwise
don’t have the time to waste and I don’t want to end up like Socrates (as if I
were important enough to be so lucky).
I have plans for 2016 that include contributing
to answering the question of time, exploring Genetic Philosophy (developed by
yours truly) and solving problems within the Philosophy of Language (as far as
any philosophy is concerned), committing more time to my tourism blog and spending
more time writing fiction (something people seem to lap up as they apparently
identify strongly with lives that are not real) and reading for enjoyment. I
have enjoyed writing and posting my thoughts here as any good philosopher must
mentally masturbate, but I suppose I have reached the point in my life when I
want to do other things.
This blog will be maintained in 2016 by
occasional ruminations and relevant re-posts, but other than that, there will
be no commentaries on religion, atheism, politics or any other current events.
I know, I know, what will you do with yourselves? You can always follow Kim
Kardashian on Twitter.
