Weltanschaung

The Philosopher’s Stone

zenothestoic@protonmail.ch

Tag: Perspective

  • On Good and Bad

    On Good and Bad

    If I am a judge, then at whose appointment? And by what right?

    A fly ensnared in a web’s steel embrace. How should I judge the spider that feeds on its essence.

    The bird that feeds off the spider; is it loved by its prey I wonder. What is good, what is bad. Who or what is the arbiter. And from what perspective.

    Rock worn over eons by wind and rain has a simple consciousness of sorts. Is it good, the wind. Or bad. And the rain; by whom shall it be judged, that destroyer of rocks. And what will that judgement be.

    The black hole, slayer of stars and galaxies. Is there any who will judge it, and by what standards. Good, its behavior, its actions. Or bad; who will say. What the rules.

    And the human species. Out of ingredients pillaged from stars, like all else, its focus survival. Driven by evolution, selfish genes. Carbon and some water come to life takes over a rocky planet and devours it. Pushing all else aside, killing to grow and prosper.

    Where in the food chain do we sit. On whom or on what do we prey. Food – a simple transfer of energy. From sun to plants and from thence to animals. Dog eat dog as they say. Sitting on the same food chain as the fly and the spider, we kill to survive and eat. Are we good or bad; who is to judge?

    For the unaware, survival is all. All thoughts, all actions driven by instinctual urges. It need not be so but few understand in their rush for more.

    A warlord rapes, pillages and steals. A business man in like fashion bribes and cheats to feed an empire designed to ensure his survival. Are they wrong these people? Bad?

    A monotheist condemns the heathen for his disbelief. Seeks the survival of his meme. Blows down tall towers in great cities. Kills and maims for a muddled dream. Good or bad and who is to say?

    Are we judges, should we adjudicate?

    Our small package of atoms will tomorrow or the next day be dispersed to re-appear in some other guise. Will we side with spider or fly. Should we condemn warlord or business man. The monotheist, the rock, the black hole – judged good or bad. And on what grounds.

    All may seem to be perspective. Birds and spiders, flies and black holes. Each has a view. Even the man who blows down tall towers in distant cities.

    Yet the emergence of higher sentience may have brought new rules. May have created judges capable of seeing through the thick, impenetrable veil of self interest.

    The abolition of suffering for all sentient species – a new banner for a better age.

    There is hope but enlightenment is the price of entry. Awakening no less, often preached and yet still so distant.

    Will we rise to the challenge. Or remain bound by the chains of evolutionary conditioning. Will we make a better world for all, a different universe. Or will the wheel of samsara never be broken.

  • The Hazards of Dramatising the Near Past

    The Hazards of Dramatising the Near Past

     writes  of the hazards of dramatising the near past and asks whether we should delay so as to achieve perspective.  “Assange, Farage, Cummings – isn’t it too soon for the Cumberbatch treatment?“.

    Very witty Martha Gill. An amusing and thoughtful article. History is constantly revised – every age has its different slant on the events of yesterday. As time recedes “facts” (if they ever exist in the absence of interpretation) become more muddied and opinion becomes louder.

    Who would have imagined 100 years ago that “colonialism” would have become a dirty word? Who in the late 19th Century criticised Jardine’s for pushing opium on the Chinese (other than the Chinese)?

    Society changes. Hopefully for the better. An old colonel down in Kent I met a few years ago was still talking of the need to shoot down natives who misbehaved. I was shocked. My father was deeply racist. I was shocked, particularly since he also professed Christianity.

    And yet each generation makes its mistakes and those mistakes only become evident with hindsight.

    Even so, if we were to agree to a ban on art reflecting events until 20 years had passed, there is no guarantee that the playwright would get it “right”. He would merely represent the coloured glass of his own generation and a generation after that mores would once again have changed.

    So thank you for a reflective article – I must give it some further thought!

    In a different article  Emma Brockes wonders in the same vein whether recently deceased author Tom Wolfe has become too dated to read.  A slightly different angle on the same question.

    I am a long term fan of Tom Wolfe and have read much of what he wrote. We still read Shakespeare, Jane Austin Dickens and Chaucer.  We will continue to read Tom Wolfe.

    Yes, their language may be antiquated and difficult for us to understand but these people wrote about human nature and society. That I fear has changed very little. Wolf wrote about greed, prejudice, race and had valuable things to say. As an investment banker and long time financial market analyst, Bonfire of the Vanities was actually a pretty profound read for me and remains so – the greed, insincerity, malfeasance and even fraud still prevail in Wall Street and the City of London. Watch “Billions” for an amusing update.

    No, Wolfe was an expert in the human psyche – there is nothing outdated in his views on the awfulness of human behaviour.