Category Archives: philosophy

literature, philosophy, quotes

>Thoreau – Walden

Leave a comment

>

“The greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?”

Like most people ever interested in politics, independence and philosophy I’ve come to check out H.D. Thoreau every once in a while. I first read Thoreau back in 1989, when I was 14. I read Civil Disobedience, or Resistance to Civil Government as was its original publishing name in 1849, and it completely seduced my mind. Some of the first words are there forever: ”That government is best that governs not at all”, as well as ”I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government”. I believe that’s what started my political awareness/interest, reading a 140 year old lecture and finding so much modern truth. When I started reading about Holocaust revisionism some ten years ago and the way these revisionists are put in prison for asking questions I immediately remembered this quote as well: ”Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison”.

Walden or Life In The Woods (1854), appeared to me some years later, and I remember being quite disappointed since it lacked the immediate “instructions” and guidance I was hoping to find back then. Sure, I got the message, but I was looking for action, not contemplation.
Now, having recently seen the stunning movie Into The Wild, I picked up Walden and studied it again, this time with so much joy. It was as inspirational as when I first read Civil Disobedience, but on a completely different level. I found it quite cool to realize that a lot of the stuff he’s writing about in Walden is where my ideas are right now. It took me another 14 years to arrive there, and now I really appreciate Thoreau’s great piece of art.
I wonder where I’ll be in another 14 years… I’ve got so much more reading to do. Must prevail!

Check this page for thorough information about the man and his works.

Some excerpts from Walden:

There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me — some of its virus mingled with my blood. No — in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way. A man is not a good man to me because he will feed me if I should be starving, or warm me if I should be freezing, or pull me out of a ditch if I should ever fall into one. I can find you a Newfoundland dog that will do as much. Philanthropy is not love for one’s fellow-man in the broadest sense.
[…]
Some show their kindness to the poor by employing them in their kitchens. Would they not be kinder if they employed themselves there? You boast of spending a tenth part of your income in charity; maybe you should spend the nine tenths so, and done with it. Society recovers only a tenth part of the property then. Is this owing to the generosity of him in whose possession it is found, or to the remissness of the officers of justice?
Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.
[…]
I would not subtract anything from the praise that is due to philanthropy, but merely demand justice for all who by their lives and works are a blessing to mankind. I do not value chiefly a man’s uprightness and benevolence, which are, as it were, his stem and leaves. Those plants of whose greenness withered we make herb tea for the sick serve but a humble use, and are most employed by quacks. I want the flower and fruit of a man; that some fragrance be wafted over from him to me, and some ripeness flavor our intercourse. His goodness must not be a partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity, which costs him nothing and of which he is unconscious. This is a charity that hides a multitude of sins. The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy. We should impart our courage, and not our despair, our health and ease, and not our disease, and take care that this does not spread by contagion.
[…]
I believe that what so saddens the reformer is not his sympathy with his fellows in distress, but, though he be the holiest son of God, is his private ail. Let this be righted, let the spring come to him, the morning rise over his couch, and he will forsake his generous companions without apology. My excuse for not lecturing against the use of tobacco is, that I never chewed it, that is a penalty which reformed tobacco-chewers have to pay; though there are things enough I have chewed which I could lecture against. If you should ever be betrayed into any of these philanthropies, do not let your left hand know what your right hand does, for it is not worth knowing. Rescue the drowning and tie your shoestrings. Take your time, and set about some free labor.
Our manners have been corrupted by communication with the saints. Our hymn-books resound with a melodious cursing of God and enduring Him forever. One would say that even the prophets and redeemers had rather consoled the fears than confirmed the hopes of man. There is nowhere recorded a simple and irrepressible satisfaction with the gift of life, any memorable praise of God. All health and success does me good, however far off and withdrawn it may appear; all disease and failure helps to make me sad and does me evil, however much sympathy it may have with me or I with it. If, then, we would indeed restore mankind by truly Indian, botanic, magnetic, or natural means, let us first be as simple and well as Nature ourselves, dispel the clouds which hang over our own brows, and take up a little life into our pores. Do not stay to be an overseer of the poor, but endeavor to become one of the worthies of the world.
I read in the Gulistan, or Flower Garden, of Sheik Sadi of Shiraz, that “they asked a wise man, saying: Of the many celebrated trees which the Most High God has created lofty and umbrageous, they call none azad, or free, excepting the cypress, which bears no fruit; what mystery is there in this? He replied, Each has its appropriate produce, and appointed season, during the continuance of which it is fresh and blooming, and during their absence dry and withered; to neither of which states is the cypress exposed, being always flourishing; and of this nature are the azads, or religious independents. — Fix not thy heart on that which is transitory; for the Dijlah, or Tigris, will continue to flow through Bagdad after the race of caliphs is extinct: if thy hand has plenty, be liberal as the date tree; but if it affords nothing to give away, be an azad, or free man, like the cypress.”

movies, philosophy, politics, religion

>Zeitgeist – The movie / Remastered Final Edition

Leave a comment

>I stumbled upon a guy this afternoon who had not seen Zeitgeist (go here for sources, subtitles and additional info). You may download it here (yes, it’s legal!). It’s a must see for everyone. Below is the remastered final edition, two hours of the most interesting conspiracy theories ever put on tape. Watch, digest and explore.

“It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.”

In my opinion this movie is about making a choice: Do you want to live your life through the eyes of someone else, or do you want to think for yourself? Question everything (Zeitgeist included, of course).

This YouTube channel has a bunch of interviews with the producer of Zeitgeist, Peter Joseph.

culture, philosophy, politics

>Know thyself! – The criticism of life

Leave a comment

>

Matthew Arnold, author of Culture and Anarchy, claimed that art is the criticism of life.

In our society people are viewed through a lens which magnifies wealth, power and bloodlines, where instead it should magnify the moral qualities of character. We tend to praise those who perform great deeds, but neglect those who aren’t that very explicit or ”successful”, the ones who lead their ”hidden lives”. The world only cares about status, and is completely blind to the worlds within us. This dependency on status is all we read and hear about wherever we go.
Art, literature and music may help us notice, understand and appreciate those hidden lives that are waiting to be born. Most of the times, the hidden values being offered through culture are those of most interest to the ones interested in moral qualities. This is where we find philosophy and radical ideas rarely talked about in the mainstream arena. This is where spirit and man collide, as opposed to society where spirit and man collapse.
Society teaches us to judge a book by its cover, to depend on status for credibility and to look up to the rich and famous. Culture might help as a cure to society’s sickness.

I do not wish to see men of culture asking to be entrusted with power; and, indeed, I have freely said, that in my opinion the speech most proper, at present, for a man of culture to make to a body of his fellow-countrymen who get him into a committee-room, is Socrates’: Know thyself! and this is not a speech to be made by men wanting to be entrusted with power.
Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (1882)

Earlier posts related to this subject:
Intelligent misanthropy – Part 1
Intelligent misanthropy – Part 2

interview, literature, philosophy, quotes

>Humanism without humans

Leave a comment

>

Peter Sotos – controversial writer, thinker and musician, probably most famous for being arrested for obscenity because of his fanzine Pure (1984), as well as being a member of the power electronics group Whitehouse – is a man I’ve taken great interest in, pretty much because of what he says in interviews and what you can read between the lines in his explicit works.
Total Abuse is a collection of nearly all of Sotos’ texts between 1984-1995 (including Pure, Tool. and Parasite), and what I find most interesting with this book is the interview and introduction made by Jim Goad. I wrote about this in the paper issue of Ny Moral #1.

Here’s an excerpt from the interview where he talks about humanism and humanity.

—

Jim Goad: I’d like you to comment on this [line] from PARASITE #5: “Like most humanism, it conveniently doesn’t include humans.” Where has humanism gone astray? What are they not understanding about humanity?

Peter Sotos: Well, I think we’ve been talking about it, really. These people have these dreams and fantasies, it’s like people who decide when they’re two, or when they’re going to their first prom, they decide, “You know, mom, I wanna have a really high-paying job, and I want to have two kids, and someone who loves me, and go out on Friday nights to balls and dances”, whatever they think, I don’t know. And just their whole life shows you that that’s not gonna happen… And they still cling to these things, not as sort of dreams or fantasies, by the end they’re just these sorts of religious beliefs… And humanists, people who are just so concerned with the human element, with others and everyone’s care and concern, so boggled by the actual information that exists. But once again, you say this sort of stuff, and you sound as if you’re – as if I’m – upset. When, you know, the opposite is true. I’ve come to this from – it just seems obvious to me… People aren’t going to have these rosy little lives.

It seems like it’s wishful thinking that gets misunderstood as some kind of ontological verity.

Yeah, right. They’re dedicated to, you know, “Well, this was promised to me.” And they drive themselves crazy. But the thing is, I do like what life has to offer. I don’t want to sound like, “Nah, this is terrible. Why don’t these people wake up?” I mean, it really isn’t like that. I just think it’s a much more realistic viewpoint.

—

Read more about what Peter Sotos has to say right here.
And then read some more on the Fanzine site.

movies, philosophy, religion

>Religion and its influence on society

Leave a comment

>

You probably know this one already: Tom Cruise, famous Scientologist, is quite scary in this clip – and he’s not acting… It pretty much shows how indoctrination rules in religion. Nothing new, but it seems like a lot of us need to be reminded about this blemish on humanity every once in a while. I’m not saying all religions are crap, they might be of good use to a lot of people, but when religion and faith becomes business and tools for power we’ve failed once again.

A pretty good documentary on the subject of religion and faith is The Root of All Evil? where biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the very readable book The God Delusion, takes on religion and its influence on society.

philosophy

>Intelligent misanthropy – Part 2

3 Comments

>
Jan Stenmark: Some people are too stupid to feel anxious. That’s smart.
—

First you might want to read Intelligent misanthropy – Part 1.
Then you might pose the question: Is being misanthropic really such an intelligent thing?

Well, misanthropy is a way of looking at humanity that probably will emerge over time. The more you learn about this world and its inhabitants, the more you would want to distance yourself from its craziness. At least that’s how I look at it, because I see no change to the better in the long run.

Alain de Botton writes in his book Status Anxiety:
“The disadvantage of this otherwise usefully clear-eyed view of humanity is that it may leave us with few friends.” I don’t necessarily agree with that few friends thing. I’m more in agreement with what Chamfort said:
“Once we have resolved only to see those who will treat us morally and virtuosly, reasonably and truthfully, without treating conventions, vanities and ceremonials as anything other than props of polite society … the result is that we will have to live more or less on our own.”

To spend time alone is essential to me. That’s what keeps me going. But:
“It is sometimes said of a man who lives alone that he does not like society. This is like saying of a man that he does not like going for walks because he is not fond of walking at night in the forêt de Bondy”, as Chamfort said. In other words: I have a desire for company, not just 24/7.

What disappoints me though is that I often have to wage wars alone as well. People may agree with what I say, but I’m the only one saying it. That’s awfully tiresome sometimes, the lack of support. And people say I am the one who’s lost all hope! At least I’m still fighting/writing. Seems to me like you – the passive masses – are the hopeless ones…

philosophy

>Intelligent misanthropy – Part 1

Leave a comment

>

”Intelligent misanthropy” is a way of looking at people that I stumbled upon when reading Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton. I believe it suits my personal philosophy perfectly, since it’s free from pessimism and pride. After all, I’m a pretty happy guy, you know.

Once you start dissecting the opinions of others you’ll soon realize that the vast majority are very confused and most of the time in total error on the majority of subjects. “Public opinion is the worst of all opinions”, as the great philosopher Nicolas Chamfort put it.
Common sense is actually common nonsense, since it suffers from simplification, prejudice, unintelligent thinking and a supreme lack of knowledge. People usually tend to rely on emotions, old habits and intuition, instead of rational examination. Thus “one can be certain that every generally held idea, every received notion, will be an idiocy, because it has been able to appeal to a majority”, in Chamfort’s words.

In today’s sick society it’s obviously very important to be looked upon with love and respect from just about everyone you meet. If people despise you, you will not feel great. It will hurt your status. This is when the intelligent misanthropy philosophy comes in handy.
Before you let them hurt you, examine their opinions, their behaviour, their intellect, and most certainly you’ll come to the conclusion that they are fuck ups not worthy of your respect. Only when their words are damning and true is when you should start worrying. If they curse you with false and unintelligent bullshit, why bother? Instead, without aggression or pessimism, just sit back and let misanthropy rule. They suck.

Arthur Schopenhauer said: “Whoever attaches a lot of value to the opinions of others pays them too much honor”.
When we realize that most people’s values in life are futile, superficial and plain stupid, we’ll become uninterested in what’s going on in their minds and concentrate on our own thoughts and what people we respect are discussing. As Voltaire put it: “The earth swarms with people who are not worth talking to”.
Schopenhauer again: “Would the musician feel flattered by the loud applause of his audience if it were known to him that, with the exception of one or two, it consisted entirely of deaf people?”.
In short, why take the majority of people seriously? Why waste the energy and space? They are the ones who rely heavily on traditions and shallow thinking, and yet they ask themselves “Why do the Hottentots eat grasshoppers?”. Because it’s tradition, baby. Once again it’s you who are the ignorant fool.
As the old saying goes: “Never underestimate the power of people in large groups”.