Nihilism is wonderful. It is to philosophy what zero is to mathematics. Multiply it to any magnitude of beauty, emotion and meaning and you end up meaningless. Add it to any of these and you add nothing, but also lose nothing. It’s nothing. It cannot stand on it’s own, yet has the power to void the tenets of human values in a snap on one hand, and to impart incomprehensible infinity to the trivial on the other.
What harm does a bullet do to anyone or anything in it’s brief transit through flesh?
What would that be? Nature’s way of alarming it’s subject of harm to it’s body? Why alarm for that? For protecting it from the inevitable? Pain would indeed be a harm in it’s absoluteness, yet be as absurd as everything fundamental in the universe: life, laws of physics, origin of universe etc because it can’t help at all in preserving life indefinitely, and is thus pointless in the greater picture of life and death.
Death of a man is the annihilation of the universe for him, something that adds great weight to this philosophically absurd event, but only for a while. As always, it gets exponentially absurder as we move out to the greater picture. In this case, the greater picture of one’s death, and thus of his entire universe, is the death of the actual universe at some point in distant future which, again, is absurd since what meaning would annihilation carry when creation carries none? What then makes death a mournable crisis, apart from the emotional connotations? If Absurdism, the philosophy, is the uneasy chronic belief in man’s inability to unravel the answer to the infamous question of “meaning”, death is it’s acute implementation in which you couldn’t procrastinate over the question anymore and finally receive the greatest blow you’ve always feared, even if you philosophically claimed not to give a damn.
If a dying man leaves behind a family which relied upon him for it’s food, there sure is some inconvenience in death, inconvenience to the dependents. Ironically, such harm is again in form of pain or death of the dependents. We’ve already seen how absurd such harms would be.
So, all the bullet did is shout out loud to the world the inherent meaninglessness of the universe, only to be silenced soon by the psychobiological defenses of the listeners. It tried doing something, but failed. It did nothing.
There’s moral nihilism. Morality is but necessary. Necessary not for equilibrium in society. Necessary emotionally. Something should be there to tell us what we have to feel, and how we are to behave in response to actions and attitudes of others. Our biology doesn’t tell us anything there, nor does our rationality. Some sort of morality models floating around us have to be internalized to maintain a steady stream of such information. These morality models aren’t always formal, not always doctrines, not always written. These aren’t internalized consciously. Our minds pick these up all on their own, perhaps to fill up a critical gap in our ability to judge, decide, and react.
Since there’s moral nihilism, there’s no global consensus over absolute rights and wrongs. Such consensus is impossible. This is good. This can be exploited. I get angry over stuff so easily. All it takes for me to get rid of these emotions is to internalize an alternative model of morality, and hence an alternate judgment. This trick plays really well, such that I’m able to tolerate what the most tolerant of minds couldn’t. I’m not always able to do this, especially when i’m overwhelmed with emotions already. But I’m learning with time how to kick off this defense at the most optimal time possible. Perhaps you could too.
This text is purely philosophical. The Solar-i Press shall not be held liable for the actions of readers inspired by this text including, but not limited to, suicide and homicide.
Why do we, the living beings, need life ? If we eventually all die, is there any memory of life we carry forward that we live for ? We live for the fun of it , one may say. Then what about all those animals who spend their entire lives just in search for food without any element of “fun” ever crossing their lives. All they get back in return is life itself, asking for more food. Can you see the deception hidden in this circle yet ? Still not ? Maybe because nature has hammered the mega deception deep into our cognitive circuitry as what is often termed as the “Survival Instinct”.
Life instinct is universal across all life forms, as prevalent as DNA itself. Evolution has been smart in incorporating it into the backbone of life right from the beginning. Had it not, the whole idea of evolution would have collapsed before it even took off. Thanks to this instinct, not even a single bacterial cell is ready to give up life without backfiring against it’s host or whatever is trying to kill it. At the end, Nature is using the service of all living forms for it’s very own survival.
Man is smart. But Nature is smarter. Every time man was close to unraveling the deception of this never ending cycle, nature dragged him under phony philosophical umbrellas designed to scramble his insight for the master deception. The most primitive man was kept alive by animalish survival instincts. Later, religion was brought into play for the more evolved intellectually capable man, to serve the same purpose for many more millenia. And now, as the religious influences have started fading away, nature is dragging us into humanism. It is making us all believe that THE purpose of live is to serve others and make life easier for the generations to come. I’m a humanist myself but I consider humanism more of a coping strategy than a true purpose.
I realize why some people would disagree to my philosophy. Because “life is beautiful” and “we have to live it anyway“. But then, what about those to whom it ain’t beautiful at all ? What about those fighting with their basic drives to make sense out of this life ? Why do they have to live ?