Tuesday, November 28, 2006

It is a feature, not a bug.

In a post, which can only be described as alarming, Ravikiran prescribes periodic destruction as a remedy for human happiness.

Why is this alarming?

It is a folly to assume that aim of human endeavor is happiness. Yet this elementary mistake is the assumption behind almost all schools of thought.

The truth is humanity is expendable; we have no more importance than a rather complicated machine for survival of genes, evolving over millions and millions year under the slow but inexorable pressure of natural selection.
But even this is moot because even genes are nothing besides being interesting pattern of molecules, with a rather remarkable ability to replicate.

It is clear that then strictly speaking life is a mere matter of accident and logically worthless. The necessary corollary to this is that there is no “aim of humanity”; the very phrase in fact is teleological delusion.

Of course when one realizes this, the only logical course left is nihilism.

However at this point logic is confronted by instinct for survival, which is much more primitive and hence much stronger. Survival wins, but not without conceding the ground to logic, the resolution is achieved by inventing an aim.

The question then arises is, what should be the aim.

But first, happiness as an aim is erroneous, because it is attainable; in general it has less to do with wealth, with cannabis more effective in inducing euphoria than money can ever be. Of course once attained there is same conflict between logic.

Then, there is no single answer for this, but a necessary requirement is that it should be unattainable, beyond reach of human enterprise and ingenuity.

Hence the concept of God in earlier times. Now I admit I have no problem with the concept, I am without hesitation or qualification religious.

Problem is that present education places exaggerated importance on logic. This enforcement makes logic a more potent force, and hence mere religion can not overcome it. It is futile to further the case of religion, because an average human, thoroughly spoiled by modern instruction, confounds logic with purpose, which is self evidently absurd, because logic in itself is worthless like life.

However not all is lost. It turns out that there is one weapon in arsenal of survival instinct. Because while people may have abandoned religion, they are, fortunately I may add, still greedy and jealous of their neighbors.

The aim of a human then should be to outhoard your social peers. This is an escalating pursuit, with no end and hence a perfect aim for humanity.

Another externality is that it also powers technological innovation, and is bedrock of capitalism.

Hence, in conclusion, the proper thing to do is to replace God by gizmo.

Now excuse me while I contemplate the profound implications of this post.

5 comments:

Sharan Sharma said...

Very interesting post, Gaurav.

Have just picked up strands from your post to pick your brains on AND today's been a bit of a 'philosophical day' for me, so here goes:

> we have no more importance than a rather complicated machine...survival of genes, evolving...natural selection.

That's about humanity, about the human race. What about the individual - Gaurav? Where did he come from? Where does he go after death? What happens to the 'I' then? Where is the consciousness coming from? All this is not explained by the 'machine' logic.

> It is clear that then strictly speaking life is a mere matter of accident and logically worthless.

Or so it appears to us. The assumption you then are making is that we are able to understand life perfectly. But couldn't what appears to be an 'accident' be just a part of a well-organized plan where you're playing your part, maybe without even knowing it?

> even this is moot...genes interesting pattern of molecules...remarkable ability to replicate.

That's the physical part. What about consciousness? How does that stem forth?

> happiness as an aim is erroneous, because it is attainable....a necessary requirement is that it should be unattainable, beyond reach of human enterprise and ingenuity.

Why should it be erroneous simply because it is attainable? Yes, if it is attainable it also liable to be lost. So, the view of one school of Indian philosophy (advaita) is that you do not need to *attain* happiness because you *are* happiness.

Then what is the aim of life? "The removal of the delusion that you are not bliss personified"! How's that?!

Let me just end my ramblings by a great 'anuvaka' from the taittiriya upanisad (III-vi):

"He knew Bliss as Brahman; for from Bliss, indeed, all these beings originate; Having been born, they are sustained by Bliss; they move towards and merge in Bliss."

(If you get a chance you should hear the above being chanted by traditionally trained reciters at a slow pace. It's abs. fantastic)

Sharan Sharma said...

Damn that was a long comment! Mahine ka quota khatam...

doubtinggaurav said...

Sharan,

You take humour too seriously :-)

Sharan Sharma said...

sometimes the lines blur...as in this case...actually all that you said makes perfect sense from a philosophical-discourse point of view...

doubtinggaurav said...

Sharan,

hmm any glimmer of intellegence from me is purely an accident ;-)

Regards