Ethics, Determinism, and Survival of the Fittest

Leave a comment

Look at people; look at the Pepsi® cans rolling under the seats on the 2 Train—look! It is all fake. It is determined. But “as opposed to what, based on what, from which standpoint?” they ask. I don’t know. It is just life—life is all that is the case, one philosopher says. Life is a play and a gratuitous one. But how does one establish that the concepts of cause and effect, as well as time and space, are not external ideas that the mind needs to grope for, but rather the shape that the mind gives to experience?

We cannot form these concepts through experience because we form experience through these concepts, another one said. People’s activities and Cola cans rolling, and leaves falling down trees, cannot be determined and cannot be pre-determined because if they were, their occurrence would not make much difference from a baby crying. Action would not be any different from reaction or cause from effect. We certainly need a point-zero from which we can say “This is real! And this is fake!” but even then, how would one know that point-zero is really point-zero and the real is really real and the fake indeed fake? One would never know because a self-conscious thinker thinks and acts within its own realm and will never prove anything external. We cannot observe ourselves thinking.

Men are just dirty animals—parasites, spongers. If we are thinking bedbugs—and we are—should we not behave accordingly? What I mean is this: we think we have knowledge of the world when you need to have knowledge of the world to claim that you have knowledge of the world. And how do we know that we have knowledge of the world?—because airplanes fly, cell-phones work, and Internet pages open up? What we call knowledge is circular, and logic is circular too because it’s based on…more logic.

We are talking animals. Animals eat other animals, but we are different. We set traps, or shoot them, and then we skin them, crack their skulls with a sledgehammer, fry them and eat them. Sometimes we take their females, squeeze their boobs, take their milk, let it sit and we add the same animals’ intestines in the milk to cheese it. Or we use their fur to make brushes, their skin to make shoes, their ground flesh and dripping blood to make meals, their bones to make Jell-O or soap, their fat to make lotions to put on our skin, and other such repugnant procedures. Then on Sundays, some of us drive auto uselessly large vehicles produced through exploitation of men and fueled by the remains of ancient animal cadavers to church and, wearing the above referenced animal skin shoes after a breakfast of unborn chickens fried in the hardened fat of boob-squeezed animal milk with a side of crispy slices of swine abdomen, from smelly church pews, pathetically talk to imaginary entities and kill others whose imaginary entities are different from theirs.

So as I said, if we are a bunch of large, two-legged parrots, why should we care about each other and the world? Why should we delude ourselves about ethics? Why should we care about others? But if we are more than vile nattering worm phlegm, if we claim we are intelligent philosophers, why are we so pernicious?


Author: Carlo Alvaro


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s