Isms and morality... the connection...

[Peter Kropotkin]

we have what we kindly refer to as morality/ethics...

Ethics: a set of moral principles, especially ones referring to
or affirming a specified group, field, or form or conduct...

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between
right and wrong or good and bad behavior....

So, the common word between these two definitions is
principles...so do we in the modern age hold to a "set
of principles" in regard to morality/ethics?

Not that I can tell...and this question has been the primary source
of philosophy in the 20 and 21 century... in fact, what was
the primary question of Nietzsche? On what can we base
morality/ethics upon if we don't have the use of religion/the gods?
Nietzsche spend his philosophical existence working out a morality/ethics
that wasn't dependent on religion or on god...

Wittgenstein called himself an "ethical philosopher" and also
sought to find grounds for morality/ethics as did Heidegger
and Sartre...from the 1870's, Nietzche to the 1940's, Sartre,
philosophy was a search for the grounds for morality/ethics...
and it is clear that search was a failure... but we must ask,
why, why did that search fail?

I would suggest that the failure of philosophy comes from
the society/state belief in its isms and ideologies...

one of the issues of philosophy has been the fact that philosophy
tends to be years if not decades behind real life existence...
for example, philosophy still hasn't caught up with the science
of the 20th century...philosophy lags behind science.. and it has
been that way since Descartes.. and one of the reasons for
this "lag" time comes from the fact that philosophers take their
time in working out their propositions.. for example,
has any philosopher been able to work out quantum mechanics
and philosophy? Nope....and I would guess that a philosophy of
quantum physics will come out at some point in the near future...
Which is to say, how does our lives and what we do and believe in,
is dictated by quantum physics....( which is part of the point I
attempt to make which is that our understanding of
the "truth" is just as random and chaotic as the universe around
us is.. which is something that comes from Hume)

so we now turn to ism's and ideologies.... that today, the primary
ism of the world is capitalism... but what can capitalism tell us about
about morality/ethics?

Capitalism: an economic system and political system in which
a country's trade and industry are controlled by private
owners for profits....

Missing from this classic definition is the idea that capitalism
depends on supply and demand to "adjust" itself...
we prosper or decline based upon supply and demand..
if we "bet" wrong, we fail and if we "bet" correctly, we "win"
but what is the real lesson learned from capitalism?

Notice in the above definition of capitalism, that people not
"owning" things, are not mentioned...
the only value within capitalism is owning the forces of production,
all others are devalued... which is to say that workers are devalued
because the defining feature of capitalism is profits, not workers...
workers are expendable in the light of the pursuit of profits...
and each of us has been devalued because of this....

Now ask yourself, what morality/ethics can we work out from
capitalism if, if the only thing of value is money/profits?
Under capitalism, workers are devalued and dehumanized
because their only value is in the creation of money/profits...
Now think of existentialism in light of human beings, being denied value
due to capitalism.... suddenly philosophy takes on a new meaning
if we place existentialism into it proper time period.. think
of the first existentialist, Kierkegaard, and think of when he wrote,
his works date around 1840's and 1850's.. and note that
capitalism was well on its way by 1820 in western Europe...
there is your connection.... capitalism, the nullification of
of human values, thus we can correctly call it, Nihilistic,
was in full bloom in Kierkegaard time.. recall some of his comments
about mass media, in those days, Newspapers.. and the drive
to turn people into numbers and formulas.. or said another way,
to turn people into "good citizens" which meant good workers,
producers and consumers..... a 'good citizen" is not a political
term, but an economic one.. did he/she create profits? "good citizen"
say the state/society...

and so we turn to the fight between capitalism and communism?
we can now see that battle, or the war unto death in its real terms,
communism also devalues and dehumanizes human beings.. but on
different grounds than capitalism... ( upon which is one of
my objections to communism) human beings are devalued,
dehumanized under the banner of "Dialectical materialism"
which is the sacrifice of human beings to the dictates of
history.. that communism is the "next" stage of evolution..
and human beings are devalued/sacrificed to bring about this
next phase...whereas under capitalism human beings are
devalued for profits... thus capitalism and communism
have the exact same basis, the devaluation of human beings
and their values, which is nihilism...

thus capitalism had to destroy communism because they held
the same basic beliefs, the devaluation and denial of
human values....communism was a competitor to capitalism
in this devaluation of human beings..

So, we turn to the ism's we hold and the morality we hold...
our morals/ethics is dependent on the ism's and ideologies
of the times... the belief that life is cheap, stems from
the devaluation of human beings from capitalism and from
communism....so, what other systems, political and economic
systems can we create that will end this devaluation/dehumanization of
human beings? and that is question facing us today...

we do not have any type of ethical/moral system in place because
we put the pursuit of profits/wealth above everything else...
the seeking of profits prevents us from having an ethical/moral system...
and this is why philosophers in the 20th century and 21st century
could not come up with an ethical/moral system...

So, the question becomes, what system might we come with
that will no longer negate or devalue human beings?

We might say, a religious system? And yet, we can see from
history, that the religions of the world have no problem with
killing its members if they don't "toe the line".. that hard line
also devalues human beings...that the beliefs we hold,
be it god or be it in the religion itself, is more important
than the individual members of that religion....
Islam as well as Catholicism/Christianity has no problem with
torturing and killing its members or others...it was a common
theme for over a thousand years in both religions...

if we put the beliefs of god/the religion before human beings,
we are engaged in the exact same failure of capitalism/communism....
we devalue human beings in light of the beliefs, values of that
religion....until human beings become more important then the values/
beliefs of any given religious, social, economic/political system,
we devalue human beings.....

if the values of a system is more important than the human beings,
then we are engaged in devaluing human beings...
when we seek profits before human beings, we are engaged
in devaluing human beings, if we seek god before human beings,
we are engaged in devaluing human beings...if we seek
the baubles of existence, money, titles, fame, power,
material goods, we are engaged in devaluing human beings...

until we actually put human beings first, we are devaluing
and dehumanizing human beings by our faith in systems
and beliefs before human beings....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so how do we view existentialism?

As an attempt to find meaning in our existence...
and why did it fail? In part because existentialist
couldn't find a positive value in our current existence...
that both communism and capitalism has so "polluted"
the water, that existentialists couldn't see a way out....

we need to believe and understand, both emotionally
and intellectually, that human beings, Me, has value
not because I am a worker, or a producer or even
a consumer, but because I am a human being...
that alone gives me value...

I have value regardless of if I am any number of identities,
be it American or man or gay/straight, atheist, or a believer...
my choice of who I am, my declaration of who I am,
still allows me to have value.. even if I don't have your support..
my value as a human being is there regardless of what you believe
or don't believe.... thus, the attack on trans or gay people,
still leaves them as human beings, of having value regardless
of their sexual orientation... or having value even if I am
an "illegal alien" from another country... the various isms
of today, do not and cannot devalue who I am... I am a human
being with value regardless of who I am or what I believe in...
Today, the right wing holds that you are only a "real American"
if you hold only certain values/beliefs... any other beliefs or
values are denied as being un-American....but that question of
one's nationality doesn't define me as a human being.. for questions
of one nationality are accidental questions.. I didn't plan on
being born in America, it was accidental... and thus an accidental question...
just as being born male or female or white or black or Jewish or
Catholic...these questions of birth are accidental questions,
and have little value because they are "accidental", what counts
are the questions of choice..... I can choose to be free or I can
choose to hold a faith, I can be free to decide what sex I am or
who I love... who we are is made within the choices we make...
and not within the accidental questions...

and the entire question of existentialism is about our choices...
and why those choices instead of other choices?
I choose to be a democrat, a liberal because I believe
it to be closer to what it means to be human... liberals
affirm our choices, conservatives deny our choices...
I am free to love/marry whomever I choose to, that is liberal,
the conservative denies my choice as to who I can love or
marry, often by legal means.. making our choices illegal...
and such is the choice of abortions.. which has been deemed
to be illegal.. as conservatives want it to be... to be liberal is
to affirm choices, to be conservative is to deny choices...

I seek the possibilities of my existence...
I can no longer seek many of the possibilities
of my youth.. of being a great runner or of climbing
mountains or excelling in school... those choices are no
longer possible for me...but I can choose to pursue
the possibility of being a great philosopher.. as I have done
so..... that is still possible for me... and I so I say yes,
to those possibilities... and other possibilities such as
loving another or marrying another... I can choose to pursue
those choices.... and that is what being liberal means....
to be free to choose my own possibilities... and allow
you to choose your own possibilities...
be it in who you love, who you marry, how you dress,
how you live your life, or in having an abortion.....
all of them are possibilities.. now, being pregnant
isn't possible for me, I am a man, so I can't get an abortion
either, but that doesn't mean I must force you to make
choices that I demand, like the religious right does today...

You can only marry who I say you can marry and you can only love
who I say you can love and you can't have an abortion because I
say so.... and that is being a conservative ... denying choices to
others... you can't seek you own possibilities because they
conflict with my beliefs, my faith, my religion...or said another
way, turning American into Iran west....

and so where are the positive values in denying choices to others?
to deny, to prevent others from choosing their own possibilities,
is negative.. and that is where we are today in our world...
not seeking what is possible, but in preventing what is possible....

and we have another brick in the wall in why America is in decline....
we are preventing others from having choices and possibilities...
and that is negative...not positive...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

for me, the past is far less important than
the future... who I was or who we were is not as important
as who we can be or what is possible for us...
the past doesn't allow me choices, to define who I am..
the past has already been written, but the future,
I can write what is possible for me in the future...
and we can write what is possible for us...
the past is defined, and the future is not....
and that is why I choose the future over the past...

and that is why I choose to be a liberal... because I want
to make my own choices, not be defined by an already written
past.... what was, was, but I am not bound by those choices
already made by others in the past... for my own choices lie
in my possibilities.. which is to say, the future... my own choices,
my possibilities narrow as I grow older until one day, my only
possible future will be death... and I see this all the time in
older people who come into my store...by far, the largest group
of people who buy alcohol are the old... and very large bottles of
vodka and gin on a daily basis... drinking themselves to sleep to avoid
the very limited possibilities left to them... my mom is 88 and she can
no longer drive or walk very far or even make her bed anymore...
and she is limited to watching TV but even that is hard due to
her hearing loss and vision loss.... I don't actually see the point of
her existence... I personally would have killed myself, but hay,
we are two very different people.. she is bound and determined to
live as long as possible.. whereas for me, it is about the quality of
life that matters... if my life has limited or no quality, I don't
see the point of existence....

but again, that is me....
my future is about what is the quality of life for me...
am I infirmed and not able to do anything? What is the point of
life in that case? To live, and just to live has no point for me,
but that is my choice, what is your choice?

I engaged in the future, and not in the past... do you?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

The next ''witness'' for the defense is Kierkegaard...

and does K. stand for? He stands for the "individual"
and what was his against? The masses, the Herd as Nietzsche
called it... but why them? Because of the rise of the masses,'
which he, K, pointed out in mass media.... Again think about
when K. was writing, roughly 1850 or so, the rise of the
mass society, when capitalism was no longer concerned with
the one, the individual, because the one, the individual can no
longer provide profits, only with mass factories, large scale
industries can provide enough profits... this is what K.
was fighting against, did he know it? I doubt it...

The only way we can focus on the individual is because of the
rise of modernity... and so we can see how Nietzsche can now
also focus on the individual...but by Nietzsche times, it was
far clearer about the mass society that had been created....

we can now see how come existentialism was engaged in
the subject matter it was engaged with, existentialism
was trying to "fight" back against the mass society that had
been created... by making choices personal, individual,
existentialism was trying to negate the modern mass society,
with its emphasis on turning individuals into citizens...
turning the one, the individual into workers, producers,
consumers.....a mass market of supply and demand,
of the individual simply being a part of the mass movements
of capitalism or of dialectical materialism...simply one
of many caught in the forces of history.....be it capitalism
or communism....

and to some extent, we can view history through this lens...
think of the 60's, it was a time of the individual vs the state,
the "man" as it were....the protestors were protesting being
part of a big, monolithic state that had no concern for the
one, the individual.... think of the draft... how cold and
impersonal a draft is... that is the modern state at its "highest"
point.. drafting men for a war they had no choice in being a part of,
if that isn't the modern definition of modern life, I don't know what
is...

to be "Proud" of patriotism, of fighting a war that one has no choice in,
means one has been brainwashed into thinking that the only choice
one has is the choice offered by the state/society....
to be a worker, producer, a consumer, a soldier,
those are choices of our modern state.. where only mass choices
are possible...do I have a choice to just be me? nope.. for that
isn't patriotic or that doesn't create something that is equal to
patriotism, which is the creation of profits...

once we see that life is more, much more than being patriotic,
or creation of profits, then we can move into the direction of finding
out what it means to be human... to be truly human...
to go from animal, to animal/human to fully human....

Darwin laid out the beginning of human beings, religions like
the state/society lay out who we are now and the path into
becoming who we are, human, comes from us finding the next
road, the next ism/ideology that lays out what it means to be human....
and once we no longer need ism's or ideologies like patriotism
and nationalism and capitalism and communism and antisemitism
and bigotry and hatred and fear....it will be the sooner we can
become who we really are... human beings... without the baggage
of ism's and ideologies....to find ourselves free of isms and ideologies..
that is where we need to go to becoming human, fully human....

to see human beings without the baggage of isms is the path into
the future.... did Goethe see human beings as ism's or did MLK
or Gandhi see human beings as isms and ideologies?
The path of becoming lies in becoming free of our isms....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now let us take a look at science and the part of
science called evolution.....

what is science? Is it about the one, the individual?
no, not at all... science, the theories of science
are about the laws of physics, the laws of evolution,
the mass laws, or rules that govern the universe...
and I don't see the one or the individual within that
context.....

Let us take a closer look at evolution... we can see that
evolution is clearly about the many, the society, the
millions of years that has passed since we step out of tree's
and walked on the ground...how did we go from animal to
becoming human? At no point does evolution discuss the one
or the individual...

we are, as human beings, hardwired to be social creatures..
we cannot evolve, stay alive, or progress without others,
we are not, by evolution, meant to be alone, apart from
others...so given this fact of life...
we now have a plan to work into the future....

First of all, we must engage in meeting our evolutionary needs,
our biological needs of food, water, shelter, health care, education,
these are biological needs of all creatures... the physical needs of
life.... and we pass unto the psychological needs of human beings...
which are just as important as our physical needs... needs like love,
belonging, safety/security, of being esteemed... we need those needs
as much as we need food and water and shelter...

so that is the first step... to fulfill our needs, both physical
and psychologically... and then we can take the next step,
which is self-actualization.. in which we seek out what is possible
for us. instead of taking in, we put out... in our self-actualization
aspect, we are no longer simply imputing our biological/
psychological needs, but we are engaged in seeking out what
is possible for us... instead of seeking out food or water,
I am engaged in seeking out my own possibility of being
the greatest philosopher of all time....

I have risen above just meeting my needs, of food and water
and my emotional/psychological needs, now am engaged in
becoming who I am... I am engaged in my self-actualization of
who I am...

and the next step is to discover who I am in regard to
the mass society/state that exists today.... what is my role
in the mass society/state we have today?

How do I seek becoming an individual within our mass society/state
of today? That is my next path... in seeking out what is possible
for me within a mass society/state?

How do I become an individual within a mass society/state?

and we are back to K. and Nietzsche and existentialism...

and how do I give instead of taking.. which is what the
lower levels of our biological/ psychological needs are, taking...
as I have now risen above my biological/psychological needs,
that means I am no longer taking, I am giving which is what
self-actualization is all about....

and how do I give within a mass society/state? so I have laid out
the road into the future.. of what it means to be human...
finding the road into the future means going from seeking/taking
to giving and then taking the next step beyond just giving and taking...

when I have become human, fully human, I can give or take as the need
arises... I am not forced to or required to give or take, I can simple
make a choice and that seems to be the clearest road into the future...
seeking out my choices and then becoming those choices....

what does it mean to be human? to seek out and then become
our choices or possibilities...

Kropotkin...