a new understanding of today, time and space.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
141

Philosophy has been described as the pursuit of wisdom. In looking at this,
it kinda begs the question about wisdom. What wisdom, how would we know
what wisdom we are pursuing. Are we pursuing individual wisdom or are we
pursuing universal wisdom or are we just pursing wisdom and never mind what
kind of wisdom we find? If we are correctly understanding Socrates, then we should
first of all, know thyself. This will allow us to correctly understand what wisdom
we are pursuing. Are we pursuing philosophy to calm the soul or enrich the mind or
are we pursuing wisdom to change the world. An incident occurred yesterday at work,
which I tried to understand to help me understand my own personal pursuit.
I am a checker in a supermarket and quite often to change the prices or remove an item,
we need what is called an “override”. Now only certain people are allowed “overrides”
one of them was checking in front of me and the girl behind me needed the “override”
to perform some action. So she went to the girl with the “override” who as usual was engaged
in some personal chit chat with a customer. This supervisor is always talking, never, ever, stops
talking. So the girl needing the “override” to get on with her work, interrupted the supervisor
asking for the “override”. The supervisor turned to the girl and was rude, mean, nasty about
the first girl, in front of several customers, one of whom commented to me how rude the
supervisor was to the girl needing the “override”. I actually couldn’t believe how mean and nasty
the supervisor was and so I found the new appointed Ass. manager and told him.
Now upon further reflection, there are several aspects to this.
First of all, the girl who was abused didn’t report it, I did. Should I have let it go and why?
If I take the stoics advice, I wouldn’t have become upset because the incident didn’t involved me
anyway. I should have taken the stand that these outside incidents shouldn’t have bothered me,
because they can only bother me, if I let it. Only things that I allow to bother me, will bother me.
I can be “stoic” about this incident because I have no control over the incident and I cannot change
what happened and because management really don’t give a shit, I could never change any type
of this incident because management will never act upon any type of complaint by employee’s
because they really, really, really don’t give a shit. To complain about something that cannot be
change is not productive. This attitude conflicts with my impulse to change the world for the better
and conflicts between employees is not for the better. Here a deeper impulse becomes clear,
I stand with those who believes the universe, nature, can be changed. I do not stand with
Machiavelli who said that a person is born complete. If they are good, they are good for life
if they are bad for life and nothing can change that. He used the leopard never being able
to change his spots as an example of how man cannot change his spots, good or evil spots.
I believe (as with all liberals) that change is not only possible but necessary. So I have a conflict
that this company that is fixed and determined, but I believe in change. So how do I change
the unchangeable? We also hit another problem in that the company, as with all companies
in a capitalist system, only believe in profits. This corporate nihilism, this institutional nihilism
means that anything that doesn’t contribute to profits is unnecessary and unneeded and
unwanted. So human values such as kindness, warmth, honor, love, happiness are not accepted
in a working environment because those values, those human values interfere with the one and
only goal of the company which is profits. It doesn’t matter to the company if
a supervisor is mean and rude to the workers as long as profits are maintained. That is
the only value the company values, profits. So how to I resolve this conflict which pits
two different value systems against each other and how do resolve this issue of should
I be “Stoic” about it. Should I work on the only aspect I can control which is my response to
a situation. I cannot control anyone or anything else, so I work on my response which should
be acceptance of the situation because I cannot control or change the situation.
But to do this means I must know that I cannot change the situation as I want to do, to
make it better for everyone involved. (there are many different responses to this, I understand
that, for example, to make it better, according to whom?) there are many different
aspects to this one small incident if I look deeper into it. If I just take it as face value and
say, the supervisor is a bitch (she is) and let it go. Where is the wisdom to be found here?
do I take philosophy as knowledge or do I take philosophy as a way of life and understand/take
this as an example to improve myself? I am not taking request here, I am simple asking
questions of myself. How should I understand this incident? Is philosophy simply an attempt
to understand the world or is it after understanding, to be used as wisdom and then to change
the world? Is simple understand enough or must one change oneself or change the world? Is all
three possible?

Kropotkin

142

At several points here, I have commented on the institutional nihilism we live
in with capitalism. I have offer up clues as to how we are to find a cure.
Today we shall begin that search for a cure. Our system, our entire system
be it political, social, economic is diseased, poisoned by that institutional
nihilism. The fact that human values that make life worth living are crushed,
destroyed, to promote one value and one value only, profit, money. Ask someone
to value something and the only way they can value it, is through a monetary means.
Try this, ask someone you know, who they are and the answer will almost always
be what their job is. People view who they are in terms of their economic function which
is sad because their economic function is simply to make money, so people view themselves
in terms of the money they make, either personally or in terms of the money they make
for their corporation. People define themselves economically. Are they are kind person,
irrelevant, are they a nice person, irrelevant, are they happy, irrelevant, do they something
to offer the world, irrelevant. Their value, their point of existence involves the exchange of
money either as a producer or as a consumer. personally, I want more than just to be a point
of exchange in a system that doesn’t value me. As a human being, I want those human values
which give life meaning, not just to be judge by a false and phony value like money. So the
system, our current economic system which is defining the political and the social systems,
has only two ways to go. we have only two ways to go. the first way is the roman way, which
is a long slow death over centuries. the system is compromised, our system is compromised
and as the years pass people will try to escape it. They will physically try to escape it like
in Roman times when people left Roman area’s and moved to area’s outside of Rome’s control.
The other technique will be like in Roman times and you see it happing today, people are dropping
out in both physical terms and in mental terms. In Roman times it was dropping out and focusing
inwards vie Christanity. The rise of christanity was a direct response to the centuries of
failing empire, internal warfare, the rising taxes (because the wealthy and churches paid no taxes
the increasing tax burden fell harder and harder on the lower classes which could no longer pay)
In the face of these increasing pressures and burdens, the only response was either to flee physically
or to flee mentally and one way to flee was to join a cult which promised a life eternal and a
better life than can be found right now. We see this today, as people are turning inward and
away from the institutional nihilism that exists. We can’t physically move as capitalism is everywhere,
so people are running from religion to religion and becoming born agains Christians which is a form
of escape. We have quite a mix of ways to sedate ourselves to help us forget our existence and
our place in this existence, booze and drugs is what I am talking about. We also have sports shows
that rival the gladiator games of Roman times in the form of Football and baseball and basketball
and hockey and along with the rise of mma? which truly replicate the games of Rome.
We have the rise of shows like the Kardashions and the real housewives of wherever which
help the modern women escape the modern world. The means to mentally escape are ever
present and growing in number. Tune out, drop out, a message we have heard since the
60’s is a message that says our society is less and less a society we humans want to live in.
So the first way the society goes as I said is the long way until the barbarians finally come
over the hill and end this sham society and the second way, the second way is the French way
which is the French revolution which quickly change the old and decaying society in a few years.
Which way we are heading, I cannot say, but I do say, let us control the change that will be coming.
Let us decide how we are going to change society and then change it. Control events before they
control us. We must end, remove capitalism. its time will end anyway because first of all, if enough
people drop out, capitalism will be unable to sustain itself. It must have new consumers or it dies.
Capitalism must consume or die and either the people will be unable to sustain it or the resources
needed to sustain capitalism will end, either way, it means the end of capitalism. The end is in sight
for capitalism. We need to understand this and control events or the end of capitalism will be
a very, very ugly event taking out millions of people, animals and even entire countries.
We must face this. We cannot evade or deny it because it will happen. the only question is when?

Kropotkin

143

I came on this thought while thinking of the “Donald”.

Politicians all the time put out “position papers” which define or lay out a position
for a Politician. Now that position paper give us some knowledge about the position
about a candidate and that is fine, but now here is the problem, position papers are
simply look at an isolated position. Take the “Donald’s” immigration position which is basically
throw out anybody who is not a citizen (and I suspect a few more that that) This is an
isolated position because of the immense ramifications of such an action and more importantly
the position doesn’t show us the philosophical underpinnings of the “Donald”. His position on
immigration doesn’t connect all the aspects needed. let us take something like prison reform
which Obama and Bernie have touched on. The philosophical underpinning of prison reform could
go like this, Machiavelli believed that a person couldn’t change their basic goodness or evil that
is formed at birth. A leopard cannot change their spots and a person who is evil cannot change
being evil. So a person who accepts this will believe that prison is for those who are unable to
change their spots no matter what. this is the philosophical underpinnings of conservatives,
so this idea that people are unable to change in terms of prisons means we toss people into
prison and throw away the key because of a philosophy, basically. What is the philosophical
underpinning of an immigration idea whereas we throw people out of the country for not
being a citizens (leaving out the fact that you would be separating millions of families)
I would guess that there is not a philosophical underpinning of such an idea.
Now to return the idea of an philosophical underpinning back to you.
What are your philosophical underpinning? As a liberal, I have studied my
philosophical underpinnings and know why I believe in what I believe. It is not
a so called “knee jerk” reaction to people or events. I have studied and explored
what my philosophical underpinnings are, have you? Have you studied the basic
philosophy that underlines your beliefs or are your positions just positions papers,
thrown out at random with no connection to anything?

Kropotkin

144

The Greeks were fixated in the idea of nature. For them, living best was often
those who lived in favor or in harmony or in agreement with nature. The problem
as I see it was simple, what is this thing called nature? The Greeks felt nature
was purposeful and organized, logical. Whereas I see nature as without purpose,
without organization, without logic. I see random, chaos, chance as the leading
factors to the universe and the Greeks were totally the opposite. They saw god/gods
as being the prime mover and prime reason for the universe to continue to be maintained.
this philosophical underpinning led the Greeks to hold certain basic assumptions whereas
because I hold different assumptions my philosophical underpinning is far different than
the Greeks. chance/random plays a role in my universe which makes it hard to create
a philosophy which can incorporate a changing universe. Which leads me to
point about philosophy itself. Science and philosophy tries to understand and
analyze various aspect of life. It is easy to analyze something that is static, unmoving,
unchanging. It remains the same throughout the analyzes. Try to understand and analyze
something that is moving, changing, adapting throughout the analyzes. To
understand something that is in movement is very hard because by the time you have
understood something, it has moved, changed, adapted into a different form and this
is why science and philosophy have had a hard time pinning down certain parts of the universe.
For a philosopher, how do we pin down what a government is, when the government changes
its nature and what it does, every day. How can science pin down what a human being
is, when a human being changes every day. How can we say a human being is x, y, and z
when the x, y and z changes every day. We can generalize that a human being is roughly this,
but that is about as close as we can get, roughly this. Religion says, God is this, and what this is,
really isn’t going to change much because god is unchanging, not moving, not adapting to something.
So those in religion have something that doesn’t change much and thus they can feel secure about,
or feel safe about because what they are praying to doesn’t change. Whereas in science and philosophy,
we feel somewhat insecure because the object of our studies, changes, moves, adapts and thus
making analyzes hard and understanding hard. Hitting a stationary target is far easier than
hitting a moving target, but not impossible. We have to change our method of analyzes
to adjust for the moving target that is life. Philosophy must adjust its method to account
for that which moves which is life. Sometimes we must lead our target if we are to hit it, just
like in shooting, to hit a target you lead it by a bit, shoot at a point and let the target run into
that point. That will be the new philosophy, lead your target by a bit and then let the target run
into it.

Kropotkin

145

As I am doing this on my iPad because my
Notebook is once again being devirused and
I’m not very good with this so be patient.

I have spent the morning reviewing this whole thread
And I am looking for what, I am not sure. Maybe a commonality between the ideas expressed. Words like vision, philosophical underpinning, connection,
Chance, nihilism, happiness, know thyself, communication, way of life, context, reality, isolation,
Words like these don’t exists in isolation, they have their origins in the past explaining some necessary
Human example? Or some human need. To understand let us return to philosophy. If dropped into current philosophy as is, is confusing as hell. You have all this history clouding up current philosophy.
It is hard to make sense of philosophy today because
Of 2000 years of past philosophy which haunts current philosophy, but if you go back to the beginning of philosophy when Socrates brought philosophy from the sky and made it a human event.
Philosophy is not out there but in us, it is us. The thing that connects all those words is us, humans. We are the connection between those varied ideas.
They are words which describe the human condition,
The human need to communicate itself to others.
We have a constant need to communicate who we are and what we are thinking and feeling at all times. Ignore this human need to express itself and you miss a basic, fundamental need of humans.

Kropotkin

146

Again kids, still on iPad, sorry.

We know all about the good in people because it is mentioned all the time. But what about the clear and obvious fact that there is, for a lack of better word, evil within people. The nazi holocaust was not an islolated incident, it was simply the best known incident of collective evil. We don’t have to look hard for other incidents of collective evil. Open any history book on any page and you see this collective evil. How do reconcile the obvious good and this obvious evil? How do we make sense of the dichotomy in humans? How do we philosophers, create a philosophy that accepts and places this evil within its proper context. The only philosopher who even attempted some effort at this was of course
Nietzsche. Humans, all humans are capable of great evil, just as the German people were capable of great evil. Genocide is by no means a German phenomenon. In every corner of the globe and virtually every people at one time or another has done or tried to exterminate another people, be it a tribe or culture. In most philosophy, there is no place for genocide, no place for great evil. But it is a reality in human existence and must be accounted for or our account of reality, our version of the truth will be wrong, very, very wrong. This is why most philosophers are just plain wrong in their philosophy.
They only take into account part of the human
equation. Good + evil = human. So how do we account for evil in our philosophy.

Kropotkin

147

Socrates felt that people doing things not in their
Interest was because that just lacked the proper knowledge. For Socrates, knowledge meant virtue. A wise man was wise because had the right knowledge and that lead to the right virtue which meant he acted properly. Knowledge equal virtue. That was the Greek equation. Btw, the medieval equation was “knowledge of God equal virtue”. Today we know better, we have seen people make a “bad” decision even knowing it would not end well for the person making the decision. Today knowledge does not equal virtue. People quite often make decisions contrary to their best interest even knowing nothing good will come from that decision. So for example, the nazis
Knowing on some level that that genocide of the Jews was wrong, still engaged in that action. Somehow they override their “knowledge” and allow their emotions to dictate their actions. How do we account for this in our philosophy? There is no logical or rational reason for the genocide of the Jews and yet they did it. Why? How do account for this evil without resort to isolated position papers. You need to have a unified connected philosophy which accounts for good as well as evil.

Kropotkin

148

So we are faced with issue of evil. There seems to be two types of evil. One is your general earthquake, flooding, meteorite from the sky natural disaster and
Another is nazi holcaust and genocide and man’ evil to man. The first evil is a general smack humans
around evil. The second is man evil to man with a evil that is kinda both types of evil, where children
are born with birth defects and children getting
Cancer and that type of evil can be both man made
and natural. The question becomes how do create a philosophy that incorporates evil. You have Leibniz for example who called this world the best possible world of all worlds, leaving one to wonder how high Leibniz really was. The Greeks paid no attention to this aspect of life, this question of evil. If there is a god, you to question him based on evil done in regards to our floods and earthquakes and other natural disasters given that people claim that God is in charge and everything is part of some master plan.
Man’s evil to man given god alleged allowing man the freedom to act is then not gods fault and is man’s fault. But what of children being handicap? Some of that is man’s fault with man’s actions being the cause of the child’s handicap but not all. Some of it you can lay at the feet of God. But where does that leave us?
A universe with God in it becomes complicated when trying to understand evil and its role in our lives. But remove God and evil changes. Natural disasters is no longer God fault but random actions, chance and chaos acting in our lives. Man’s evil to man becomes solely our fault and our responsibility. We are held accountable for our actions and our inhumanity to man. And the sad state of birth defects to innocent children’s and cancers to children and the trials innocent children face? That “evil” who takes that responsibility? Understanding the universe we live in can be rather complicated and messy. A philosophy that doesn’t take this into account is incomplete at best and worthless otherwise.

Kropotkin

149

a nice double today, being able to get on this site and having my
notebook back.

Ok, I was talking about evil last. I was talking to a youngster at work
last night and was explaining my take on evil. It occurred to me that
we might be able to extend this concept of evil to include systems like
capitalism. If capitalism either through action or inaction allows people/
children to go hungry, is that not evil? Now some would blame the victim
as the defender of capitalism often do, but really, who would choose to
go hungry and children don’t have a choice at all. I believe some would say
that capitalism is not inherently evil but through the choices of man, the free will
of man, children go hungry. sound a awful like god, as capitalism playing the role
of god and with man’s free will, some go hungry, just like Christanity. The latest
attempt to absolve god and capitalism from its rightful blame for their actions.
I believe that true evil is a conscience choice. The choice to harm others or even
oneself when other options were available is evil. We choose actions that
hurt others and that is evil. evil is a choice. Now how do we include that
into a philosophy?

Kropotkin

150

So we have decided that evil requires intention. A tidal wave sweeping millions into the ocean
is not evil because it is luck, chaos, chance that influences the tidal wave, not intention.
So we can say that man can intend evil but what about systems. Is capitalism evil?
does it have intention which creates the evil aspect. Capitalism has intention because
it does certain things for instance, capitalism is nihilism because it denies human values such
as love, hope, charity, kindness and other human values which are not value because they don’t
contribute to profit and anything that fails to contribute to profit is eliminated. so with intention,
the system of capitalism does evil. How can we be so sure about the intention of capitalism to commit
evil? easy. what is the main selling point of capitalism? Its efficiency . If Capitalism is as efficient
as most proponent claim, than capitalism would have intention. it would intend for income inequality,
it would be sure that wealth would end up in the hands of the owner class, the 1%. It is not an accident
that it happens because accidents are not efficient. Efficiency means intention and so capitalism is
evil. but we have not really approached, what is evil? We have done other things but not defined evil.

Kropotkin

151

We are left with the problem of, what is evil?
as defined by my crap dictionary:
Evil=

  1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
    2.harmful; injurious
    3.unlucky; disastrous
    n. 1. wickedness; sin 2. anything that causes harm, pain, etc.

I see several problem with this definition starting with morally wrong. What is moral
to one person is immoral to another and that leads to the word wicked. Wicked as
defined by whom? let us try the next definition, harmful; injurious. The problem here
is some acts which we consider evil actually benefit some people, so the same action
might harm some and benefit others. There is no clear point that says, this is harmful to
all especially given that we have clear natural acts which can’t really be evil because
they are random, chaotic, chance without intent. We can only have evil when it is done
with intention and intention suggests that the intention is done with the idea that someone
will benefit from acts of evil. Let us explore this. You have the holocaust which by all
accounts is evil and yet, yet some Germans did benefit from the holocaust. Bankers
who were able to get hold of the Jews money and property, by paying a small fee or no
fee benefited when they resold the items. People who were able to buy businesses
very cheap benefited and people who were able to get Jewish homes cheap also
benefited. anyone who could profit from the removal of the Jews benefited from
the holocaust. So if people benefited from an “evil” action, is it really evil?
And we cannot dismiss the fact that the Jews did not benefit and so they suffered
evil from the holocaust. So some were harm and some were not harmed by this evil,
how do determined if it was in fact, evil? The U.S benefited because Jews fled
Europe and took their talents and skills to the U.S and an example was Einstein and
the loss of Jewish talents and skills damaged Germany and its allies. So, we have
some who profited from evil and some who were damaged, so is it really evil?
The idea that damaged or killed in some anarchist fashion is wrong as the law
was quite clear in isolating and containing the Jews. So legally, the Jews were
put into camps and had their businesses taken away and their lives taken away,
so we don’t get any help from a legal standpoint and from a legal standpoint,
the holocaust was within the legal rights of the state. so we cannot depend on the law
to help us out. How do we find the truth if an action which hurts some and helps
others. What is evil?

Kropotkin

152

Perhaps I have been going about this the wrong way.
Instead of calling it evil, which cannot be defined, perhaps
calling it irrational, might be better. Humans have clearly have
an very strong irrational streak in them. For no real apparent reason
humans will make choices that defy logic, defy any rational reason to make.
Sometimes, just sometimes humans choose chaos, randomness, chance instead
of logic or reason or plain old good sense. I too have done it. Choosing chaos when
a rational choice of logic would have told me the right answer but I was
dammed and determined to go down the path of irrationalism and chaos.
An example of this, when the middle class or working class vote GOP,
when it is clear that the GOP hates the middle and working poor class.
Why vote against your own interest? Irrationalism is the only answer. so
how do we include this irrationalism into our philosophy? Sometimes we
make really irrational choices, how do we account for it in our philosophy?

You have the rational, logical side of humans and then you have
the irrational side of humans. Rational + irrational = human.

Kropotkin

153

You got the Greeks believing that the universe was designed by god and
this universe was the best of all possible worlds. For the Greeks, philosophy
dealt the positive, the possible. The Greek religion however did deal with
the dark side, the irrationalism, the question of evil. At no point did you have
any choice, any way to control or change either good or evil. They were things
that happened to you and the only thing you could control was your reaction
to good or evil. As we moderns know well, we have no control over events
and we must learn to control our reaction to them.
As we understand good and evil, good is what is pleasing or beneficial to us,
evil is what is displeasing or not beneficial to us. Yet we know that the same
act or action can be both pleasing or beneficial to one person or group and
is displeasing and not beneficial for one person or group. The same act can even
be pleasing and beneficial at one time to a person and displeasing and not
beneficial at a later time. Good and evil are just words that have no
fixed meaning because the meaning changes depending on who is doing the
talking. As the words, good and evil, shift and shape depending on who is using it,
we cannot depend on the words, good and evil, to mean what we think they mean
because they so shift in meaning. Perhaps we can tie down the words good and evil,
by attaching them to the majority. So an action is good if the majority of people
benefit from that action and an act or action is evil, if a majority of people don’t
benefit from that action. Tie good and evil to the majority, just like we tie the
political to the majority. so a tax cut that doesn’t benefit a majority is what
we would call evil and a tax cut that does benefit a majority is good. This allows
us to determine what is good and evil because every single action can be called
good or evil depending on who benefits and who doesn’t. On what other
grounds can we decide that good or evil is actually good or evil? As every single
act or action can and will help some and hurt others, we must place deciding
on whither an act or action is good and evil by some means that puts good and evil,
beyond a small sample group or an individual. good and evil only has value when
it is tied to a majority of people.

Kropotkin

154

good and evil are not an individual choice but a collective choice.
As this thread and the Cino thread slowly become one, it seems
evident that morality and ethics are not for the one, the individual,
but about the majority. And where does this leave situational ethics?
Not really sure.

Kropotkin

155

the claim has come (not from me by the way) that the state and the
individual have different morality. Let us first explore the truth of this
matter. the state claims the right to punish. An eye for an eye is not
allowed from an individual and if an individual tries it, he/she will get
punished for it. The judicial system is an attempt to remove punishment
from the hands of the individual. The state also claims the right to taxation,
and the issuing of permits and the oversight of defense of both the individual
and the state.
I would submit that much of todays individual’s response to the state is
in fact a response to the failure of the state to fulfill its self-imposed
obligations. We can see this in the failure of the judicial system when
it is quite clear that the rich is treated one way and the middle class
and the working poor are treated differently. We see this in taxation when
people like buffet and Romney pay less percentage of their taxes than their workers.
My father in law was a CPA and he said many times, if you are a millionaire and
you paid any taxes, you are just being generous because the tax laws were set up
so that millionaires didn’t have to pay taxes. This double standard is quite clear
and obvious to the middle class and working poor. The wealthy are treated to one
standard and the middle and working poor to another standard. Income inequality has
damaged society leading to the lower economic classes not trusting the system to
treat them fairly. this has lead (in part) to the rise of the gun culture. the failure to
trust the government in treating people equal has driven a wedge between the classes.
You never hear of wealthy people being shot by the police, only economically
lower class of people being shot. The government is treated economic
classes differently and that is in part leading to the crises of trust in the government
and that difference is in part because the government has two standards for actions,
one for the rich and one for all the rest. The individual tries to treat everyone equal
as we have been taught from childhood and the government doesn’t believe in that.
the morality of the government and the morality of the individual is different.
the dividing line for the government is wealth. For those who are wealthy get treated
differently. The principles of equality demand that the government treat all the same,
wealthy and poor alike and the government is failing to do that and that is damaging
America. this new morality is damaging America. We cannot claim to be a democracy,
a majority driven democracy and still have the government treat some different than
others because of wealth. We have to be a majority based government, society and
culture and economics because otherwise we are not a majority based government and
we are something else.

Kropotkin

156

I was thinking about the last post and I got to thinking about
the big picture. People don’t mind being the bottom of the barrel
or suffering in some fashion if, if they aren’t suffering alone.
by that I mean, people will put up with a lot if they feel
they aren’t alone, doing the suffering by themselves. If we are collectively
suffering, people will take that and not mind so much, but if people
feel like they are suffering and others are getting out of it, it ticks
people off and therein lies the issue. People do feel as if they
are the one’s who are bearing the brunt of the suffering, people like
those in the middle class and the working poor. The wealthy just pay
their way out of it or use politicians to escape doing their fair share.
We share and we share alike the pain and suffering of modern existence,
and that is ok. but if people are able, because of wealth, to escape that
pain and suffering of modern existence, that really bothers people.
I think part of the modern angst is that people feel that the pain and suffering
of modern existence is felt by the middle and working class and not the wealthy.
And why should the lower classes be forced to uphold a far greater burden than
the wealthy? If we equally shared in the burden of modern existence, I think
that there would be a whole lot less anger and escaping the modern existence.
People are escaping as best they can from the modern world via drugs and booze
and watching TV drivel like the Kardashions and sports because they are trying to
escape the burden of modern existence. Tea party types are escaping just by
their anti-government rants because they feel it is the government that created
the burden of modern existence. Everyone is blaming everyone else because
there doesn’t seem to be a true escape from the burdens outside of death.
We could handle our modern existence if we felt it was share by everyone
but it isn’t and that is the reason for much of our anger and angst and escaping
the modern age.

Kropotkin

157

Yesterday’s post left two points. One is about the collective and the
second was about the burden of the modern age. I shall hit the collective
today and leave the burden to later.

A week or so ago, I went to a bar/restaurant to watch the Cubs play baseball.
I could have stayed home and watched it and it wasn’t about the beer.
It was about sharing a social event. That is what we humans do. We go out of our
way to share events. We collectively want to go cheer our team or we want to
share events like elections or something like that. We can easily watch these events
from the privacy and comfort of our homes, but we would rather share. Now this ties into
yesterday’s post in which humans will put up with suffering if, IF we collectively share in
that suffering and pain. This collectively shared experience is important to humans.
We share such events as weddings, births, deaths, parties, sporting events, we share our
experiences, that is what humans do. Now this is a major reason why democracies are
important. We share the experience of government together. As we now see that
the government no longer belongs to us, but to the oligarchs, we have tune out, which
is the oligarchs plan all along. We must collectively recapture the government because
it is our government. We share, that is what humans do. We must keep this in mind for
everything we do. We are a social, share experience type of species. Our government
must also reflect this. Our social media already knows that we share experiences otherwise
what is the point of social media? An event occurs and we want to share it with others.
That is the human experience. So we share our experiences with work and in sports and in
government and in social media and all other phases of our lives. You and I are not exempt
from this human need. We too share as we are writing about our shared events, lives, philosophy,
on a social website. Even pretend philosophers must connect and share collectively.

As for the burden of the modern ago, later.

Kropotkin

158

this is my 8th attempt to clarify the burden of modern society.
I tried several times last night and got nowhere.

We live in an impersonal society, an impersonal universe.
We have an economic system that is nihilism personified.
We have an political system is has been corrupted and stolen
by those with power and wealth.
Our lives is defined by a impersonal value like money.
We are consumers and producers and that seems to be our value.
If we fail to buy our systems collapse, we have this burden.
If we fail to consume our system collapses, we have this burden.
If we fail to reproduce our species ends, we have this burden.
If we fail to pay taxes, we go to jail, we have this burden.

We have burdens and obligations and responsibilities.
We have the weight of the universe on our shoulders.

is there any wonder we reach out to our fellow traveler
in hopes of finding some solace, some respite, some hope.
a burden alone is a weight beyond our capacity to bear.
a burden shared is a comfort to the soul and gives us hope.

We face these days darkly and in despair because
there seems not to be hope because we feel alone.
My fellow human, my fellow traveler,
we are not alone, we have hope because
we have each other. So despair not.

The burden of modern life can be lessen
if we share the responsibilities, the obligations.
If we share the burdens of modern life
they become bearable and not so heavy.
if we work for each other and not against each other,
we can support our fair share of the universe.
And that is all we ask, to share the weight of the universe.

Kropotkin

159

Everything is connected. words by Kropotkin?
No, the Buddha.
The universe is one substance. Words by Kropotkin?
No, Spinoza wrote that.
Everything came from one source. Words by Kropotkin?
NO, Science says the big bang.
We are all one. Words by Kropotkin?
No, Jesus.
We are one with Nature. Words by Kropotkin?
No, Plato, (Socrates) wrote that one.

The idea that we are connected has a long, very long history
from religious leaders, to the philosophic leaders, to the scientific leaders.
We are one because we came from one is a truth that has been there
from the beginning and yet, yet, we still need people to remind us of our
oneness with everything. We humans really don’t have a strong learning curve,
do we? We are still mislead by our eyes as to the nature of the universe.
we still mistake the multiplicity and diversity of things to mean we don’t
have a oneness with everything. But break down everything and it becomes
the exact same thing. Everything in the universe when broken down to where
it cannot be broken down anymore, becomes the exact same thing, atoms.
So where is the multiplicity and diversity when everything broken down
becomes the exact same thing? this is not a new message as I have pointed out,
but a message you have heard time and time and time again.
so why do you resist?

Kropotkin

160

As for writing and the thinking I do for the writing here, I make the
time. I have reduced the clutter in my life. I rarely go out, I don’t
talk to or communicate with any friends, I have as much as possible,
isolated myself. My wife, of course, says it is bad for me and I am ruining
my life and I am setting myself for a very lonely life and so on. but a human
life is a cluttered one, a life filled with so many distractions and so many
ways to keep it busy. Fortunately, I have a retail job which often times
makes me works in the afternoon and evenings thus freeing up my mornings when
I find it best to write. If I had a regular 9 to 5 Monday to Friday job, I doubt
I would find the time to write and more importantly, time to think. When I think,
I just let my mind go, I don’t hold it back or try to control its thoughts or directions.
I let the thoughts carry me to wherever they go. I also use another technique
which helps me keep and clarify my thoughts. I interview myself and that
goes something like this, a CNN interview where I am being interviewed
and I have to justify my answers to the interviewer. this forces me to clarify
my answers, to have them make sense by this interview process. Sometimes
if one hears an answer said out loud it make a different type of sense than
a answer read on a piece of paper. and the last technique I use is where I
give a pretend speech to a group. Now once again, by saying the words aloud,
you give them a different meaning than by just reading them on a paper.
How would my ideas sound if I gave them in a speech? I would try to
“convince” my “audience” of my position. this is another means to try out
my idea’s in a setting. If the idea sounds crazy in front of an pretend audience,
it most likely sound crazy in front of a real audience. All three means are ways
to dissociate myself. It allows me to look at my ideas like an outsider would look
at my ideas. My ideas are given a test run as it were, before I post them here
which is another way to look at my ideas. When scientist look at life, one of the
very important aspects of life is feedback. My techniques allows me to give myself
feedback which allows me to adjust or change my idea’s. Many ideas I thought
were good or even great ideas have been tossed after my feedback techniques
showed me their flaws or failures. It is not just about the idea’s and what the ideas
mean but its about the way or the technique used to create or clarify the ideas.
the creation process is just that, a process. What is your process?

Kropotkin