The essay would read more or less as follows:
What are we?
What are we doing here?
What are we thinking?
How are we thinking what we are thinking?
Why are we thinking what we are thinking?
Our ideals, the ideas we espouse and cherish and defend even under the the risk of dying in their name, whence came such ideas? From heaven? Ex nihilo? Were they ingrained in our heads ab ovo? Or have we slowly learned to believe in such ideas in such a way that they seem obvious to us, as unquestionable facts or truisms, and we can’t see how others don’t share our enthusiasm in defending or proposing them?
Maybe, maybe, long before we even understand what an idea is we are already convinced about the facticity of a lot of them? Isn’t a fact something that eludes demonstration, something which doesn’t need to be demonstrated, being self-evident?
And throughout such process, do we ever really think about whateve we happen to be thinking? Or are all our thoughts automatic and automated, while our words and slogans are no more substantial or meaningful than the utterings of a parrot, than sheer duckspeak? When a slogan has been ingrained in our brain so that we utter it without any reference to circumstances, as if it’s something that’s magically expected to generate results, effects, even without never doing anything more than give the utterer a sense of satisfaction in his righteousness, how can we detect whence came such a collection of empty words, when all we care about them is the egoistic pleasure they bring us, the pleasure of being right, of being in the right?
Let’s look deeper, there’s something to be excavated here.
What are we then? Creatures who think, who have ideas in their minds, who speak and whose words in one or another represent an utterance of such ideas as ingrained in our brains.
That was easy, but what are we doing here? I don’t mean doing here in the biological sphere, where we’re obviously basically surviving. I mean doing here in the realm of the human, in the realm of the human spirit, in the realm of thought? In the world of ideas, which is not something that exists fluctuating in the ether, like Plato would have it, but something belonging to the realm of the human, the collection of ideas, thoughts, ideals, beliefs, shared by men, and necessarily internalized and reflected in a peculiar manner in each and every individualized mind?
In this realm the most essential question seems then: what are we thinking? Are we thinking our ideas or are we just borrowing ideas from others, imitating others’ ideas and words, just parroting our way through life? Even worse still: can we have ideas of our own? Can we have a peculiar, particular, worldview? Aren’t such limited in number, or can they really be as varied as the number of people on earth? This type of questions are what leads to what I call deep thinking. Not superficial analysis of things expressed via slogans and clichés, but a capacity, developed through time and hard labor, to look both at and through things. An ability to understand both the individual and the general context within which a human life is staged. Such is much easier to imagine than to attain. Why? Because we are born and grow up in an environment of ready-made ideas, an environment in which the free expression and the search for real freedom of thought are not merely difficult, but almost chimerical. Such an environment could be called in many different ways. An efficient way to describe it is what I call the marketplace of ideas.
Why choose marketplace instead of some other term? Because we Earthlings, at least almost all of us Earthlings, were born and raised in a capitalist milieu.And capitalism has a characteristic that many have observed in the past, but few have been able to fully dissect, as it is too cruel to fully accept: everything in this system is a commodity. Including people themselves. Including their feelings, wants, needs, desires, and ideas. Yes, my friend, your most intimate desires, those secret fantasies you’ve never shared with anyone in your life, are for sale somewhere, for you or anyone else to buy. All the ideas and ideals you cherish most are on display somewhere, in various versions— economy version, deluxe version— for those willing to pay less or more for the more compact or more complete version.
Couldn’t this lead us to some very discouraging conclusions about society, the world, and ourselves? Are we just a commodity, are all our ideas for sale? Not necessarily. We don’t need to be completely discouraged by this; what we need to understand is how the economic system that governs our lives works. We have to open our eyes to the logic of capitalism because capitalism is everywhere around us and in everything we do. It’s not enough to simply retreat into our own little world. After all, this little world is for sale for us to buy, and often only becomes possible thanks to the possibilities of capitalism. In other words, even thinking for yourself is a commodity. That’s how the system works. There’s no point demonizing it; we must first understand it.
Why do some of us insist on rejecting capitalism and embracing a passionate defense of the alternative, the socialist ideology? Certainly because, for these people, capitalism appears to be extremely dehumanizing. They cling to an ideology that, while fanciful, allows them to imagine a humanity living under conditions in which each person is an end in themselves, not a mere object to be bought and sold. But the fact is that, if such an ideology appears to be something more dignifying than the crudity of capitalism, where those who have more can do more and those who have less can do nothing, it continues to be defended within capitalist logic. In other words, does this mean that being a socialist is also a capitalist luxury? Well, this is the curious side of things, perhaps even the most disturbing: capitalism not only encourages those who defend and justify it, writing books to emphasize how infinitely more advantageous the free-market economy is than the one planned by the state, but the system also encourages, unites, and dominates those who seek to oppose it!
How is this done, how is it possible? Simply by ensuring that all deniers, all detractors, all nonconformists remain solely in the theoretical realm, in the realm of abstraction, never allowing their ideologies to be more than coping mechanisms, selling and shaping them in a way that seems as sincere and challenging as possible, but never more than that: theories. “Well, I imagine a better world, you know? A world without unnecessary pressures, without inequalities, without injustice, without wealth concentration, etc.” “But is such a world possible?” “Well, what would become of us without dreams, etc.” This is how the marketplace of ideas displays, for sale to whoever wants to buy, every kind of ideal that not only promises to reform and revolutionize the world, but even destroy it completely, as long as, of course, everything remains in the realm of ideas. In the world of ideas, and here we can bring Plato into the conversation, because just like for him, everything comes down to words anyway, words thrown mindlessly out of the mouth, while in essence nothing changes, the system is the same and continues to govern the lives of those who seem to oppose it the most!
The crucial thing is to always make people believe they have a choice, that they have multiple choices. But the choices essentially boil down to two things: conform to the system as it is or dream of a change that never comes, only in the imagination. Yet, many, the majority, remain so integrated into the system’s way of thinking that they continue to believe blindly, until death, in the ideal the system sold them. This is why it’s impossible to argue with a socialist, for example, who continues to believe fervently in their ideal and feel different from everyone else even when their life is circumscribed, in every detail, by capitalist logic. Work, keep the system running in any way possible, generate dividends in some way, however minimal, and, after 30 or 35 years, retire and die. Next!
It seems like a very crude perspective, and it is. Now, to conclude, we must bring into the analysis the human factor, the selfish factor. Are people forced to participate in this system completely against their will, to their total detriment, or do they at some point realize what they’re doing and continue participating because they derive some advantage from the whole situation? Are we all helpless victims here? I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, that I will never see human beings as mere victims. No, it’s obvious that, although the system is powerful and its influence is felt from a very young age, there is an element of participation and voluntariness, and there is the awareness that we are here, within the process, participating in it, benefiting from it. So, the ideals sold in the marketplace of ideas are bought willingly by people, selfishly, and if a would-be socialist seems too resigned to living trapped in the world of capital when everything in him seems to want to fight for a better world, it’s because his natural selfishness finds satisfaction in this situation. In other words: achieving a better world can be a lot of work. Sitting on the couch thinking about it is more than enough, and, contrary to the logic of the capitalist market, it costs almost nothing.
This is it, more or less, though it can be developed further and better. I do think it has a strong resonance with your main idea in the OP.
