Yesterday a friend of mine appeared on a television newscast as part of a christian church for alternative kids. I was aware of his participation in this group/congregation/whatever it’s called for some time already, but I found him a real gentleman not to try and drag his friends in, which ultimately led me to leave the issue alone.. But I have a blog now, which kind of changes things a bit, now I can actually speak what’s in my mind.
Regarding religion, I have the utmost respect for most of them. I look back at the legacy of christianity with some respect for having preserved centuries of art which would otherwise be lost and inspiring lots of new ones. Im convinced though, that if the western world decided to worship the flying spaghetti monster instead of jesus in those ancient times we would still have great art. The human spirit is really something to behold.
Having said that, I find that neither religion nor science and rationality succeeded in their attempts to explain the world. The reason for this is that ‘real meaning’ is a cultural product. Men, in the course of their lives, romanticize existence and elect paragons and systems to explain the universe around them. We find it quite difficult to face existence without reference points. Men devise systems, we can even accept the idea of the absurd, but we can’t live it, we are stripped of the capacity to live in waylesness.
My favorite thinker in that regard is Albert Camus. I could freely quote Niezstche or Derrida, but I believe Niesztche kind of got carried away in his analysis, being overly metaphorical in times, and attracted much unwanted (or not) animosity. I once joked with a friend of mine that Niezstche would be the guy in school to drop the christian boy’s lunch on the floor and then ask him where his God was, and then send him to cry in the back alley. As for Derrida, I kind of think, although I’m not sure, that he believes men can live and cope with the waylesness and lack of meaning consciently, which Im not really sure for myself. Camus on the other hand, is the guy with the simple words and straightforward ideas that everybody likes. He really seemed to be a nice guy, and his points are not very difficult to understand. He used to write novels, which are easy ways to send a deep message through. And he had this little essay called “The myth of Sysiphus” which summarizes his ideas:
Who’s Sysiphus? You might be asking yourself: Sysiphus is a figure of Greek Mythology who was condemned by the Gods to repeat forever (for all eternity, mind you) the same meaningless task of pushing a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. Camus sides Sysiphus’s task with our own lives. Men’s futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values
It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when “my appetite for the absolute and for unity” meets “the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle.”Taking the absurd seriously means acknowledging the contradiction between the desire of human reason and the unreasonable world. Suicide, then, also must be rejected: without man, the absurd cannot exist. The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged, without hope.To embrace the absurd implies embracing all that the unreasonable world has to offer. Without a meaning in life, there is no scale of values. “What counts is not the best living but the most living.”
(italic text is sic. wikipedia, thoroughly edited to fit this post, but the choice of words was appropriate in a way I couldn’t put better)
Camus is there with Derrida and maybe with Niezstche on the belief that men can live free of the constraints of meaning. I tend to go only at this point, as I remarked earlier. Even Sartre, iconnoclast as he was, died admitting to believe in God, saying that he couldn’t live otherwise. God is not necessarily the white bearded dude on the clouds. God is meaning, a north star. We may very well elect it to be rationality, or love, or even nihilism. In my point of view men is not a creature capable of living in waylesness, for we are believers. Even Descartes, who refuted almost everything, didn’t refute his cogito.
So, in the end it is okay to believe in what you will, as long as it respects the space of the other. If only more people realized that we could start being straightforward and kill for oil without feeling ashamed for it.