Thursday, May 27, 2010

Other Dogs Bite Their Enemies, I Bite My Friends to Save Them

And please don't confuse my point of view with cynicism; the real cynics are the ones who tell you everything's gonna be all right.

- George Carlin

Cynicism often gets a bad rap by being used interchangeably with "jaded". Personally, I think it would be great if we revived the tradition of literally barking like dogs at bullshit artists and other anti-intellectuals incapable of carrying on conversations in good faith. You'll never convince me that people with such a wonderful sense of absurd humor are mere apathetic nihilists.

But still, cynicism in its modern connotations is one of the most common charges leveled against people who profess some degree of pessimism about ideas of progress or improvement. For the record, I don't think it has to be an either/or choice. I still stand by what I said recently, that you can thread a middle path between hope and despair by dismissing "the future" as an abstraction and concentrating on doing what's needed here and now. I might even say that Edward Abbey was on to something when he described a pessimist as simply an optimist in full possession of the facts.

And "full possession of the facts" is what we should be striving for in the first place if we intend to improve on things. Do-gooders aren't going to help anyone if they're too beguiled by the beauty of their visions to notice inconvenient facts, a primary example being: the world does not need our permission to be what it is.

When it comes to hopeful ideas of purpose and meaning in life, people have been openly and publicly using evidence of mindless, pointless suffering against the concept of a personal, loving God and caring universe since the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, at least. Not just the suffering humans endure, but that of animals as well, many of whom only exist to disappear down the gullet of another. We've all heard of wonderful examples of intelligent design such as the wasps who paralyze spiders and caterpillars before laying their eggs in them; when the eggs hatch, the still-living victim is slowly devoured from the inside out. Or the type of worm that can only exist by burrowing into an eyeball. Schopenhauer spent a lot of time detailing this sort of thing, so if you need further material to furnish your existential crisis, he's your one-stop shop.

A friend of mine is one of those who thinks atheists are arrogant for thinking they know enough to draw even provisional conclusions, that we should live in a state of suspended belief just in case some miracle happens to contradict everything we've learned from science and history. But the only way forward for someone who is aware of all the mindless suffering in the world, yet still determined to keep some sort of faith in a higher purpose, is through teleology. You have to justify it all as part of some long-term plan, as necessary steps along the way to something better.

...[T]hat in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened with men -- but though all that may come to pass, I don't accept it. I won't accept it. Even if parallel lines do meet and I see it myself, I shall see it and say that they've met, but still I won't accept it. That's what's at the root of me, Alyosha; that's my creed.

...While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible?

...I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing.

- The Brothers Karamazov (34 & 35)

In one sense, I have to smile at the youthful, romantic idealism of Ivan here. There's no one to protest to, and there's no way for you to take your ball and go home. Like I said, the world is what it is, regardless of how that makes any of us feel. But his reaction, however futile, is still preferable to me than that of a person who trivializes and depersonalizes all the horrendous suffering in history by reducing it to stepping-stones. I live a comfortable life as a well-fed, sorta-educated, middle-class, white, heterosexual male in the most affluent and powerful society that has ever existed, and I certainly appreciate that twist of good fortune. How many advantages could one person possibly ask for? But it would be positively obscene to me if I were asked to believe that all the nameless, faceless billions of people who lived short, painful and ultimately unimportant lives did so in order that people like me might enjoy this spoiled, ennui-filled existence. It may have happened that way, but it didn't have to be that way. They were not means to my end, to yours, to any of ours. It seems to me to be, well, awfully jaded and arrogant to think so. In fact, it seems to me that a resolute determination to face the world squarely and see it plainly, without the comforting intermediaries of myth and ego, is actually one of the highest forms of idealism.

4 comments:

Shanna said...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was with you up until

"But it would be positively obscene to me if I were asked to believe that all the nameless, faceless billions of people who lived short, painful and ultimately unimportant lives did so in order that people like me might enjoy this spoiled, ennui-filled existence."

My god, Plato would swat your ass for that logic. Defend, sir, your arguments!

How can one possibly follow the other in causality?

The Vile Scribbler said...

Plato can bring it. I've always thought he was responsible for some of the stupidest ideas in the history of Western thought. Fuck that guy.

But anyhoo. I'm attacking a version of the "ends justify the means" mentality. We occupy an extremely fortunate, privileged place in history, but the path it took us to arrive here was filled with mind-numbing atrocities, with countless millions of people being chewed up and spit out along the way, until a small slice of humanity was able to achieve a leisurely existence (and even so, we Westerners still occupy a precarious spot that isn't sustainable in the long term).

I'm saying that we have an intellectual responsibility to keep facing that fact, to resist the urge to justify all that prior suffering by pointing to our privileged state, as if we were the end point toward which all human existence has been struggling. (As you might guess, I'm not a fan of Hegel either. Fuck him too.)

It's like when a survivor of a disaster credits God with saving them, while ignoring the implications of what they're saying; namely, that God must have also decided that the other several dozen people weren't worth saving. I've been called cynical before (not by you) for refusing to be like Dr. Pangloss and always emphasize the positive, but like I said, I think it's actually idealistic to take Ivan K.'s view, to refuse to settle for pat explanations, to insist on coming to terms with the immense pain and suffering in the world without flinching, without taking refuge in teleological narratives that say, "Hey, my life is good, so all that stuff that happened along the way? Unfortunate, sucks to be them, but it was all just part of the plan." That, to me, is a truly jaded view to take.

Shanna said...

I thought that was a Candide reference earlier, but I was too lazy to look it up.

I agree that saying that "God saved you" is a thoughtless thing to say after a tragedy. But psychologically, it's easy to believe that God wants you to live than it is to be confronted with the sure and simple knowledge that life is random and cannot be prepared for.

I'm sorry this offends you (and others), but after a shock like that, denial seems like everyone's go-to reaction; at least for as long as the media's eye is on them.

I prefer to comment, when presented with the "God must have great things planned for me," to counter with, "Perhaps he wanted to give you a second shot at redemption. Have you atoned for your sins on this earth?"

It seems to be easier to counter superstition with superstition, because some people are never going be able to swallow the idea that the universe is ultimately random.

All this, after telling you yesterday that I personally believe that there must a sublime meaning to it all. :) So perhaps I should say that I view the universe as "seemingly random"
I know this makes me a fence-sitter, but I just can't reconcile a cold, unfeeling universe with the warmth in my heart.

The Vile Scribbler said...

You're right that it is a bitter pill to swallow, and many never will. But I would say that the fact of a cold, unfeeling universe doesn't mean the warmth in your heart isn't real or meaningful. Love and kindness and all that good stuff aren't negated by the fact that the sun will expand and swallow the earth in a few billion years.

This is actually one of the many things I hate about Plato's influence -- the idea that temporal things are inferior and ultimately meaningless compared to their supposed eternal ideal forms, the devaluing of contingent phenomena because they don't last forever. The things we love are meaningful while we're here to enjoy them, and when you break away from that cultural conditioning, you realize that that's good enough.