Godheval

Empiricism – the epistemology of western science – is based on the 5 senses and implicitly suggests that there is nothing else to be observed outside of that. Can anyone really believe that? If so, then they must acknowledge the limitations of the human senses. A cat can see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, while we can only see the tiny sliver so appropriately called “visible light”. Now of course we have devices that compensate for our weak vision and allow us to observe the whole spectrum, but that is only recently.

Through the five senses, Copernicus derived that the universe spun around the earth, others thought the earth was flat, and Newton though the atom was indivisible. In every era it is not until further advancements that we discover the limitations of our senses, and by extension our technology. And most of the greatest discoveries and innovations have not come through empiricism but by intuition and philosophical inquiry. People get crazy ideas out of nowhere, or by simply being immersed within the marvels of nature – like the story, myth or not, of Newton being hit on the head with an apple. People then use empiricism to test their intuition, but even then can’t say anything is true with any certainty. A leap of faith is still required

Altruism – something my personal philosophy places at the peak of ethical importance – is also something that seems completely counter-intuitive and contrary to human – or animal – nature. It seems that in any situation where a person does for another, there is always something for that person to gain, even if it is only personal validation. But altruism is not merely doing for others merely for its own sake, but implies a measure of self-sacrifice. And there are even fewer instances of this behavior. One may immediately think of how parents or relatives will do anything to protect or promote the the well-being of their children. But the selfish gene argument has provisions for that kind of behavior – that the genes are acting on their own “best interests”, or rather, in the interest of propagation.

But then a rather common and obvious example of altruism came to my attention. Taking care of animals as pets. Granted, it could be said that we feed and maintain animals for the apparent “love” and “companionship” they provide in return, but this is not true in all cases, as there are some belligerent animals out there. And there is no guarantee going into a pet situation of how or if the owner will benefit. While we take care of our pets much like our children, and indeed often sacrifice some things for their sake, the selfish gene argument does not work here. While we do share some genes with our pets – the same genes common to the entire animal kingdom – the provisions we make for our pets are of a special character. Since the keeping and maintaining of pets is a practice that seems to extend as far back as human civilization itself, perhaps there is some genuine capacity for altruism in our nature, after all.

Not at all related to this subject, I’ve posted a short essay pieced together from email correspondence between myself and another skeptic.

When I talk about things like “renouncing blackness“, I think people sometimes get the wrong idea. I stated it clearly in the above-linked article, but let me say it again here. My renunciation of my race, my rejection of the whole concept of race, does not in any way distance me from my sense of justice and thereby my allegiance to those – to any – who find themselves discriminated against, marginalized, disenfranchised, or subjugated. Because my allegiance is to humanity.

So do not think – even for a nanosecond that because I say I’m “not black” that I won’t still punch you in the throat for calling me – or anyone in my presence – a nigger. Don’t think for an instant that I have abandoned “black people”, that I do not wish in the depths of my heart to see true equality, and do not ever think that I will be on the wrong side in any conflict where so-called black people are being mistreated. I choose mostly to fight my battles with ideology, to mark as my enemy the status quo which continues to allow racism and stupidity and divisiveness to prevail throughout the human condition. But please – please – do not ever mistake where my loyalties lie, and do not ever underestimate the methods I am willing to employ to see justice done.

Sometimes I feel a certain anxiety, as though the people around me – just general people, not friends or acquaintances – that people don’t trust me. And maybe they don’t for a plethora of superficial reasons, false preconceptions, or their own fears and insecurities. But what I’m wondering is if the ability to trust others is based upon a person’s estimates of their own integrity. What I mean is that, if a person considers themselves somewhat morally “flexible”, capable of doing unscrupulous things, do they then project that capacity onto others? If you feel that you are not trustworthy yourself, then do you assume the same about others?

Or is it the inverse? That because you are paranoid, insecure, or at least just cautious about the actions or intentions of others, that you assume that feel the same way about you? I am – quite obviously – a cynic, and so perhaps because I don’t trust or anticipate people to have unsavory qualities, I feel like those sentiments are reflected right back at me. Whichever way it goes, I think this kind of thing is at the heart of the barriers to communication and interaction that are so powerful in this city. Certainly there are plenty of people that are genuinely untrustworthy, genuinely immoral, genuinely fucked up – but one would hope that it’s not the majority, or even a large number. Yet it seems as though most people in this city are fearful of mostly everyone else, any macho posturing notwithstanding. What’s strange is that while this area suffers under a lot of crime, it is not unique in that respect, and yet this paranoia-cynicism-insecurity complex is very much a regional (even local) phenomenon. Such bad energy in this place.

Although I claim not to believe in anything, maintaining my position as a skeptic in all matters, there are things that I feel must, or at least should by virtue of some universal ethic, be true. These things I argue for vehemently, even at times contradicting my claims of open-mindedness and absolute skepticism. But as I sit here today, I am considering the possibility that all the ideas I hold dear, all principles I consider consistent with any sort of divine or cosmic justice, are completely false. And so I am also forced to accept the possibility that the universe – and by proxy this world – is unequivocally hostile. The only reason that I am able to engage in any ideological fight for my ideals is due to some quasi-belief that there is some benevolent undercurrent to the universe and its processes.

I am not so quick to call this undercurrent “God” or anything of the sort, but it seems it would require a willful and intelligent intervention to countermand the natural cruelty of the universe. And in the absence of a belief in such a being (but also the absence of a disbelief), I have to consider that perhaps all things will not “work out in the end”. If, for example, the ideologies that facilitate (even if only indirectly) racism, subjugation, genocide, slavery, socioeconomic disparity, world poverty, and other such global ills, are more representative of reality than the counter-arguments for a better world, then what else can I think but that there truly is no cosmic justice or benevolent undercurrent, and that the universe is hostile to my interests and in opposition to my ideals?

And how am I to stomach this, or to reconcile the idea with any hope for the future? Religious ideologues placate this sort of anxiety with a belief in the afterlife, going as far as to accept the evil of the material world as inconsequential. But what are the rest of us to do?