Last night, I decided to put all I know on paper. My interest in philosophy was sparked by the question ‘what is the meaning of life’, then I was 14, now at 21 and having read the books, I believe I have uncovered the essence of knowledge.
The core of my discovery is that:
Man is a machine and psychology is its operating manual.
Man is an emotional animal with a logical faculty. The emotional and logical is our psychological make up. Logic should be involved in solving analytical statements, but when we come to statements that are essentially synthetic, or experience based, we should be replying on our emotions. The modern man has a undue preference for the logical, all things must make sense. We disregard many statements as ‘unreasonable’, ‘illogical’, ‘unclear’. The statements maybe of such nature, but it is absurd to disregard them because they are emotional in nature. The question is why should all things be ‘reasonable’, ‘logical’? Those who are unreasonable just have a different psychological make up to the reasonable. The preference for reason is a psychological preference, just as the preference for emotion is a psychological preference. That is a fact, and nothing follows.
The social issues are essentially a battle in psychology. The issue of abortion is unresolved because the supporters of the two sides are from unique psychological stand point, yet they attempt to forge the war on reason while the issue is emotional one. Love, hate, hunger, religion, ethics are accessable to us of a certain psychological make up. It is entirely foolish to explain music to a cow, for the cow has a psychology altogether different from ours.
In terms of social issues, there can not be a why and not a why not. It all depends on your psychological perspective.
We are the way we are. There are differing psychologies. I personally prefer grand, wealth, spiritual freedom, while many others are attracted to the petty. I believe in racial integrity but some do not find it important. Some prefer yellow, others prefer blue, it is all in psychology.
Wittgenstein said, ‘for what we can not speak of, we must pass over in silence’, I say ‘there is nothing we can speak of, we all should be silent’. I agree with Nietzsche, he said a philosopher’s prejudice, I say a philosopher’s psychology. I am reading ‘the essential schopenhauer’ by the man himself. In it I discovered the reason why Hitler never smiled in public. According to schopenhauer, happiness invoke jealousy or envy in ours for they can not share in our happiness. Hitler never ate in public because he can not share his food with others, by showing he’s eating would invoke envy.
Why does things have to be reasonable? Why does things have to be unreasonable? I am silent.
I am going to stop understanding me, because I have achieved that. Now the machine must be put into operation. I love you all, and everyone has played a part in shaping me. My last criticism is that we have all become overly analytical. I’ve decided to go on a working holiday around Australia. I am applying for a job on a farm, never tried country life. Now is a good time to have a go. So you probably won’t hear from me for some time. I’ll be carrying you in my prayers. If you understand what I wrote, you would stop arguing. If anyone of you even have the slightest urge to quote me, then you have not understood. Thus I can not reply.
God bless you all. I am about to attend mass. I’ll be praying for you.
Your friend
Victor Lismit
