a modest theory rejecting Marxism

After several days of work, I finally have a day off… thank fucking god…

so I was reading about Niels Bohr this morning on Wiki…and one comment
was made that got made me to thinking…one such quote was this:

" There is no quantum world. This is only an abstract physical description."

the second quote is this:

"According to Faye “Bohr thought of the atom as real. Atoms are neither
heuristic nor logical constructions”

and as I do, I wondered about how these sentences impacted or influences
philosophy. In science we have two “realities” one is the theoretical,
mathematical vision of what reality is…for example, we had theoretical,
mathematical understanding of black holes long before we ever found a
black hole in real life…the theory of black holes is actually found in the math of
Einstein E=Mc2…the discovery of an actual black hole occurred decades later…

we can have an theoretical understanding of something… such as atoms…
but we might not have ever seen an atom in real life… so we have two
understandings… the theory and the reality…

so let us think about this in philosophy or aspects of philosophy…

Marx who was the clearest and the single best critic of capitalism,
believed that the final goal of the various economic structures,
from hunter-gatherer to Mercantilism to capitalism was the final state,
the worker state…where there was no elites or capitalists who stole
the profits/efforts from the worker… and in doing so, became fabulously
wealthy… to remove these leaches, as Marx understood them,
his final goal was the creation of a worker state…or in more Marxian
language:

" the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which
the proletariat holds political power"

where the proletarians are wage earners… the workers…where the rules,
standards, laws are all based upon the workers desires and needs, not
the Bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class which currently owns everything
right now…

so Marx was trying to get to the point where the workers, the wage earners
who actually did the work in the state and society, were the ones who profited
from that work…and not the Bourgeoisie who simple steal that profit
from the work/effort of the proletarians…

his solution was the creation of the worker state… but this theoretical
idea is nice sounding in theory, but let us look at the reality of it…

as I have described it elsewhere in some thread or another, that the concept of
work, as in creating and producing something isn’t really the dignified act
that has been portrayed by a nostalgic look into the past…

the idea of the “craftsman” who took pride and dignity in his work, misses
the reality of work… the point of work is to put food on the table…animals
hunt, we work. it is the same basic process…to put the necessities on
the table…

the problem I have is this, the very fact is we are no different then animals
if our goal or point of existence is to simply garner our necessities of life,
either by hunting, as man in the form of the hunter-gatherer did for a million years,
or by the current economic system of capitalism… means we are just like animals…
spending our days hunting/working to gain the necessities of life…
to work is to be an animal… if all work is meant to do which is put
food on the table and clothe us or house us…to work isn’t the highest possibility
of human existence… it is the lowest… equal to animals spending their days hunting…

I have often written about the journey that we are on, going from animal to
human/animal to finally becoming human, fully human…

if we are engaged in work as our means of existence, then we are engaged
in the animal aspect of existence… to rise above being an animal,
we must become more then just a worker, just spending our days
gathering the means of existence… and nothing more…

so, from that standpoint, a worker state that is envisioned by Marx
is the lowest form of existence possible for human beings…he is saying
that the worker state is the final stage of human existence and I say,
it is the first stage of existence and we have much further to go…
to achieve our final possibilities as human beings…as we can see by
the current events, capitalism has failed, and I shall go into that in
my next post or so…

So Marx had a theory about the final state of human existence but
if we take it seriously, we can see it can’t possibly be the final state
of existence because it doesn’t allow us to reach our human possibilities…
it only allows us to be animal, but not human… so what is our
point of existence?

just to be like animals and seek out our daily necessities in our daily
work? no, that is the lowest and meanest possibility of human existence…
we are human beings… with possibilities we haven’t even begun to explore yet…

for a truly excellent definition of human beings is this:

Human: to explore what is possible for us to achieve and then go beyond that…

to be human is the journey from animal, as we were, to animal/human as we are,
to becoming human, as we will become…

and work is just another step along the way in our journey into the discovery
of what it means to be human…to seek our possibilities and then act upon them…
that is what it means to be human… not to work to gain our daily necessities, but
to overcome that animal need and become more human and then, and then
go beyond that… to explore what it means to become more then human…

Kropotkin

Yeah I knew you weren’t 67 or whatever age you say you are.

K: in fact, I am 62… but hay, I just assume you are always wrong and I
am never disappointed…

Kropotkin

Only women and men under 40 use that expression.

You know this.

K: never disappointed…

Kropotkin

R: step your game up…

Rengel

in our modern day society, the point of “being”
as a citizen, is to be “productive” in other words,
somehow increase the wealth and efficiency of
the state/society…

but I hold that definition to be false…
if work, as we understand it, is not the point of
existence, then what is?

that is the question, isn’t it?

so, let us reject work as a reason for existence, and let us reject
happiness as a reason for existence… (and why reject happiness?
it doesn’t actually mean anything… what does it mean, to be happy?)

so if we reject both of those, work and happiness, then what is left?
then the reason for existence is?

I have held that the point of human existence has been to explore
our possibilities as human beings…what does it mean to be human?

are we builders, explorers, thinkers, writers, musicians, workers,
believers, athletes, travelers, artists… yes…

and we are also seekers… of the truth, of knowledge, of wisdom,
of what it means to be human…

what possibility are you seeking? to say, I want to work means
you are exploring the lowest possibility of being human…

rise above that and seek that which is above you…
seek the possibility that seems to be higher then you are…
in other words, our role model isn’t the ant, but the human
role model is Icarus…seek the highest possibility of being human…
if we fail and crash into the sea, so be it… risk everything to
become who you are…

Sapere aude…

Kropotkin

K: says the low A ball player…

Kropotkin

so we continue to work out what it means to be human…
another example is given by Jeremy Bentham…

that of the theory of “Utilitarianism”…
that the “fundamental axiom” of his philosophy is
this:

“It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure
of right or wrong”

It holds that within Utilitarianism, is a family of normative ethical
theories that proscribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being
for all affected individuals

and I have rejected, as Nietzsche rejected but for different reasons,
that the point of or the reason of existence is seeking happiness, as
the point of existence…

if we reject seeking happiness on an individual level, we surely will
reject it on a communal level/societal level…

what we need to do is seek and not proclaim that we have the answers…

for proclaiming that we have the answers already is, as I have pointed out,
a theological/polemical answer, I have the truth and all you need to do is
follow that truth to be, “happy” “fulfilled” “saved” “to find immortality”

whereas I hold that we must seek our possibilities… which does change,
my possibilities at 62 is far different then they were at 22 or 32 or even 42…

the “truth” changes as we age or find ourselves in a different environment…
a truth that was “true” when I was unmarried, changes as I am now married
for over 25 years…we hold “truths” that are relevant and current at the time,
change as we age or find new environment to exists within…

in other words, we discover that our “truths” are really “ad hoc” and not
permanent…for a “truth” that is “true” at 22 is no longer “true”
at age 62…

at one point in time, I held such beliefs as Nietzscheism as being the “truth”
and that “anarchism” was my “truth” today, at 62, I no longer hold to these
“truth”… it isn’t the "truths’’ that change as much as I have changed
and that I have changed my “truths” to match my current situation…
age 62, in my current economic situation, very middle class, my working
conditions, a shitty job…and once I can retire, if only, I will once again
change my beliefs to match my current status…my “truths” that I hold
dear are by all standards, “Ad hoc” as your truths are also “ad hoc” you just
haven’t figured that out yet…

what “truths” you hold today will not be your “truths” tomorrow…
and if they remain the same despite a change in one’s situation, then
you are not adapting to the ever changing personal situation you exists within…

as you age and change environments, your truths must, must change to
adapt the your current situation…or as it has been said,
the dinosaurs died because the were unable to change to the changing
environment… to change is to be human, to remain the same to
be a dinosaur…what are you?

Kropotkin

of course those polemical/theological spirits like
ur and observe and Pedro will still insist that I am a communist,
even though I have expressly rejected that viewpoint…
but why?

because they are polemical writers only interested in
propagating their viewpoint, their “truth” and they have no
interest in what is true or reality… because they have an agenda
to preach and their delusion that I am a communist fits into their
agenda… whereas the fact I am not a communist doesn’t fit their agenda…
hence they hold to their version of the “truth” regardless of the reality of
the situation…

which is why I call them theologians/polemical writers… because
they are only interested in promoting their agenda, not in seeking the truth…

they are interested in their set answers and not in the questions…

Kropotkin