The rational man.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

( Upon watching the movie time machine followed by reading the book I became inspired to write this thread.)

( Both versions of the movie are nice.)

The main character was one Alexander who travelled in the future where all of “mankind’s” creations lay in ruin where everything was loss into oblivion.

[b]Here are some scenes of Alexander revised somewhat by my own perception and meddling:

Alexander says: " How can this be the future? Impossible. What about all those great men who made sacrifices to achieve the enhancement of humanity? What about culture? What about philosophy, history, art, and science?

How can everything that we as humanity have made come to an end like this? How can great books of marvel turn to dust like this? How can everything we have worked for come to ruin like this? "[/b]

Like a man victimized Alexander felt that the cosmos owed “humanity something” other than the chaos that enveloped the total ruin of civilization.

A man of “human” rationality like Alexander specifically thought that this entity called “humanity” was special or privileged being exempt of the natural motion of the universe which is creation and inevitable destruction.

[b]Alexander: “How dare that the cosmos and heavens destroy everything that humanity has worked for.”

“How dare that the cosmos remain indifferent and silent to man’s reason or ingenuity.”

“How dare the cosmos doesn’t conform to the whims of man or his constructed categorizations of self worship the very idealizations of his existence.”[/b]

But what exactly did Alexander think was owed to his beloved “humanity”?

What particular conceivable “something” did he think that his kind was owed?

It was the dream and mythology of civilization that he thought was owed to his humanity by the cosmos itself.

Alexander: “How dare the cosmos destroy all civilization revealing the cruelty of existence that there is no god to watch over us and care about our very lives!”

For at that very moment looking upon oblivion the cosmos inflicted the ultimate cruelty on a man like Alexander unconceivable to him. In the straight stare of devestation and ruin Alexander’s once invincible “reason” was destroyed.

Alexander’s vain pride of humanity layed before him as a broken skeleton of its former glory and out of the ashes came nothingness.

Civilization guided by reason, history, philosophy, and science in which Alexander came to remember in his whole life in the end came to be nothing in the future.

Whether the world was destroyed by asteroids, supernovas, volcanoes, or by men themselves the final purpose of the universe in the end was nothing.

The dreams and hopes of fancy that men strived for all those years were no more with the salvation that men so desperately fought for being nothing more than just that a naive dream.

What did Alexander really lose? His illusions.

Nothing lasts forever except for nothingness itself.

( Thus was the tale of Alexander the time traveller.)

2

Were the people gone too? Did he lose both his forms of relationship -Culture, philosophy, society, history, art and science? Were all the people gone who give these forms meaning? If they were gone then the forms never had meaning. Forms have meaning only so long as they help to keep humanity alive and functioning. Dead people given no meaning even to dead forms of relationship. If the forms do not serve the people they will not last, and may destroy those they were built to serve. And we would have to say, if we could see this occur, that this is a tragedy. But tragedy is just another form too, and one we apply to every form of political murder; so the meaning has been well drained off already.

3

The people were still around in primitivism in the story. Future people did survive but much to Alexander’s surprise they lived alot like primitive beasts like his understandings of pre-history from his own time.

In the last chapter he decided to stay in the future to teach the primitive future men of ruin “human” reason all over again instead of going back to his own time. :unamused:
( Shakes his head.)

( So the same inevitable ruin and destruction could start all over again much like the Greek story of Sisyphus pushing up that boulder up upon a hill where nothing is really progressed except for the illusion of progression itself.)

4

Good interpretation of events here Joker.

I’ve been hassling with the question for about four months now… what does it matter if the whole of human civilization were wiped out? It doesn’t seem like it would matter. But, if it truly does not matter, then why do living beings seem to live with inherent purpose and meaning? I don’t know; it’s a contradiction that I’ve been meaning to get some answers out of.

All I can come up with is that the meaning of life is to survive and the meaning of survival is to live. It’s got me boggled! :astonished: :-s

5

We are not so long escaped from the past that we cannot reproduce it; but we are much further now from our genetic roots, and perhaps too terribly inbred. If we compare ourselves to primitives I think the main difference is not the obvious ones of culture and technology; but is the myth of the individual, which we subscribe to, and support. I think that is what is wrong with us. And I do believe the primitive expression of individualism made better sense. You see, I am German and Irish, and I think the Romans taught each how to die because their approach to warfare was so totally different. To the Germans and Irish, individual valor was more essential, and socially necessary than general victory. They died well rather than fighting well. The Romans narrowed their front, and switched out the front line without regard to individual victory or personal fight. They tag teamed their barbarian enemies. And the Roman way was victorious as it is in our way of battle today, and in our way of work, all together, not for honor, but the same pay. Yet, we give great lip service to the individual, all the while denying that individuality. So where do we accept individualism? In the worst possible places; in leadership, at the heads of state, or corporations. Look at how much individualism is allowed in your church or school or job. These non individuals acting as individuals are the most dangerous breed I know of. If there is likely to be nuclear war it will be started by an individual having no respect for individualism, but only the word of God however individually that is understood. Everybody in the chain of command is a danger, not because they are an individual, and not because they are not an individual; but only because they are both, and the difference in them cannot be entirely resolved.

6

That is the golden question of all ages. :slight_smile: So far most people have done everything in their power to stay away from such a question as it challenges everything they believe in.

7

Hey Sisyphus what is the point of pushing that boulder on the hill? You know it is just going come crashing on top of you again?

Sisyphus: The point is to get the boulder to the top.

Right. But still it is just going to keep crashing on top of you again with you fleeing under it.

Sisyphus: ( No reply.)

What is the purpose of your struggle?

Sisyphus: I do not know.

Could it be that you struggle for nothing? Could it be that there is no purpose to your actions or anything else in the universe?

Sisyphus: I can’t believe that.

Why?

Sisyphus: I can’t believe that I have suffered for nothing.

8

LIfe is meaning, and the object of life is more meaning which means more survival. Meaning is value, and out of the necessity we feel to survive all things are judged, in the sense that Kant gives it of Knowledge as judgement, so, are judge positively and negatively out of recognition for whether they aid or impede our survival. LIfe is meaning and gives meaning to all the stuff of life.