Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six Read some Nietzsche...he's good for this type of stuff.
Man has doomed himself when man brought forth contraints to cage his inner-being. Everyone has an inner-self, and most of us deny it in some way. There's a rare few out there who don't...my favorite of which is serial killer Melvin Rees who actually used an existential argument during his trial. Theorectically, according to philosophy, he's correct. As an existentialist, if it was his "self" to rape and murder, so be it! But most deny their "self"...why?
Society. Morality. Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. I'm not going to go on a great rant about how man is dead since man has caged his animal-self inside a moral box, but as it stands, he has.
Existentialism is a good philosophy to look up for this type of argument...especially Nietzsche and Camus (who was an absurdist of sorts). I always loved Camus' essay The Myth of Sysphus which justifies suicide. A key argument in why people commit suicide, according to Camus, is that onlookers look at someone who has committed suicide with an objective eye. The onlookers all gasp and gossip that the suicider didn't understand life at all, that they couldn't deal with the pressures of life, that life was too much for them. What they don't know however, is that the one who committed suicide was so sure of life, understood life so well, dealt with the pressures of life as they saw fit, that they saw no reason to live any longer.
But of course it's a lot deeper than that...such as: proving you exist and proving someone else exists...yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.
It's an interesting essay.
But point is, your brother, why is he sad? Because he took a happiness that in some way denies who he really is. Only he knows what he's lacking. And most don't even acknowledge that. Which is really sad. But there are many reasons why most people deny their inner-beings. Morality is the biggest reason why, but religions of all sorts are also a huge factor in it. Which is why, when it comes to existentialism, the belief in any religion is essentially a moot point.
~cheers! |
Nietzsche, i've had him in my signature before...and satanist seem fond of his philosophies, i guess i'm going to have to dig out my books. *sighs thinking of the closets of packed boxes*
the hubby's going to love you.
as for my brother, i wouldn't necessarily say he's sad, but definitly angry...i guess that's not really the opposite of happy...but it definitly contributes to his state...what i find, interesting is that generally, the rest of my family is happy...my father is a complete contradiction, physically falling apart, doctor certified punch drunk and his biggest thrill in the morning is being able to use his remote and walk down stairs to move one of his many sheds, but he enjoys life, even if he's a few waves short of a shipwreck, his house is falling apart, but he's going on vacation soon, in a hundred thousand dollar rv?
i suppose that's what i find most odd about the plight of humanity...there are so many variables to what makes a person decide to live their life to the fullest and what makes them happy, or as you suggest, "cage themselves"... existing in a state of self captivity, denying their needs, for whatever moral reasons they have for doing so...there has to be more to it than morals and society?
living in a cage, does make it easier to exist on this plane...especially with those that prefer people fit into the idealized mold of mudanity, it just becomes frustrating when they seek to impose their cage upon others...another doom of humanity?
"my favorite of which is serial killer Melvin Rees who actually used an existential argument during his trial. Theorectically, according to philosophy, he's correct. As an existentialist, if it was his "self" to rape and murder, so be it!"
charming, i like nothing more than a killer with smarts...
what's the difference, if any between the self and nature, would his arguement have been different if he used nature, rather than "self"?
if you look at the animal world, it is indeed their nature to rape and murder, even if those terms do not apply to their existance, and they have no self...but because we are seperated by a conscious intelligence, more is expected of us.
i do agree you have a point about people who deny themselves and what their nature desires, other's decry as inhuman...but couldn't it be generalized as animal nature?
in actuality, we are animals...
it's scary to think that the only thing that seperates us as animals is a consciousness of our capability for intelligence...but i think it's apparant intelligence doesn't necessarily seperate us from animals, even simpletons can exist within the confines of society's cage, and some of the most intelligent people, seem to prefer an embracing of their animal nature...reveling in the freedom it brings, despite the restriction a moralistic society insists upon imposing(that's not necessarily a bad thing.)
...is it just consciousness that places us at the top of the animal totem pole or am i missing something...more subtle in our humanity?