I don't study Philosophy or whatever this way of thinking is, but its really interesting to me and I'd like to see what other people think.
If University taught me anything, it was that being educated is not indicative of one's intelligence. Where others see "Educated" and "Learned," I see "Conditioned" and "Deluded." As you stated, Coxswain: you try to bear
objective love for everyone equally, unless they betray your faith in their spiritual (if you could call it that) integrity.
I believe that the problem you're addressing is the result of the
subjective penetrating the equation. When viewed in the abstract (or the "objective"), the world appears to be a lot simpler than it actually is. It's easy to make assumptions based on a crude intellectual or moral code. One may argue that killing is wrong, but is it wrong when committing murder is the most efficient route to preventing numerous murders? (e.g. Adolf Hitler's suicide initiating the beginning of the end for the Third Reich)
History, both recent and ancient, would lead us to believe that in this case the ends truly justify the means. But what actual justification is there, other than this code that we have written for ourselves? It's a construct: a tool with which to define what is, in the abstract, without form, and thus does not make "sense."
There has been much debate in regard to the unification of the European states. Whilst there is the EU, many have proposed a tighter alliance akin to the United States of America. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's a goal that's far beyond our reach. Why? Because it would require a great deal of
compromise: cultural, economic, social, etc. What one state considers
right, it is almost certain that another will view it as
wrong.
In a democratic society the majority rule, and the minority are left to sit and grumble about the "injustice" of the system. In an autocratic or dictatorial society the minority rule, and the majority are left to pick up the tab for the shortcomings of their government. Whilst the totalitarian model is perhaps most effective in times when swift decisions need to be made (war, economic instability, etc), the democratic model partly ensures that any decisions made have been informed by numerous sources, accurate or not. The output of a democratic decision is an
average. While it may be more
here than it is
there, it is neither
here nor
there. The process is a lot slower, but the result is likely to be more accurate than if it were made by a single administrative body.
Or is it? I think we're kidding ourselves when we refer to the human race as a "Higher" lifeform. We still need to eat, we still need to shit, we still need to sleep and we still have the overwhelming desire or need to procreate. We try to convince ourselves that we're going to live forever, even if that only means avoiding a confrontation with the topic of death. Chances are we're probably doomed, even if we can send a man into space or innoculate ourselves against potentially fatal diseases. The majority attribute climate change to our technological indulgence, but maybe our time's up. As far as I'm aware the global warming debate is still in fierce motion, regardless of how sure our scientists are of our involvement in the impending meteorological apocalypse.
To bring this long-winded post to a succinct conclusion I shall answer your question(s):
Is there any way around this? Will we grow in intellect and understanding and one day grasp the concept of universal love and understanding?
If so whats the answer?
Research into Psychedelic drugs? Mind control? Evolution? Technology? Strict sets of laws given by enlightened men to guide the unenlightened? Music and art? What will form men into what they must be?
What, if anything. Will drive us to a higher plane of understanding and totality?
I believe mankind has doomed itself in order to progress. As paradoxical as that may sound, these constructs (the
subjective) that we have fabricated ensure that universal peace and love is, like the United States of Europe, a goal that is far beyond our grasp. We've tied too many knots, and I am of the opinion that there are two extreme solutions:
Dictatorial: We slaughter a majority of the world's population, reducing it to a small number of like-minded individuals. From hereon population control and a strict system of education ensure that diversity, and thus doubt, is eliminated. The result is a solid and definite
direction: a yellow brick road which we hope will one day lead us to Oz.
Democratic: We work together, slowly but surely, to eradicate cultural boundaries (religious, racial, political, etc...). Over time we get closer to a common goal, informed by all corners of thought. The chances are therefore higher that the resulting
average will be more accurate than not.
As you may have deduced, both solutions are flawed. If we go the
Dictatorial route, we have no way of knowing if the path we're being led down is the correct one, if indeed there is a path at all (going back to the notion of "constructs"). And if we decide that the
Democratic model is best suited to the prosperity of mankind, the process of deconstruction may be so long that we die-out before we ever discover true "Universal Love."
We either
delude or
delay. One thing's for certain, though (given the current climate): we are
doomed.
What I would personally propose is not to cease progression because "there's no point", but to stop bloody worrying about it and make the most of the time that we still have, however short. You never know, we may even stumble upon the solution by accident one day. It's funny how lost items turn up right under your nose once you've stopped stressing about where you may have left them.
I'm not counting on it though. But what do I know? What does everyone else know, for that matter?
(Boy, that sure was a "succinct" conclusion, eh?)
Gaming World Forums
What the shit
