Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Is non-violence a sustainable and functional commitment?

Is non-violence a sustainable and functional commitment?

Think of weapons of mass destruction, what results do their use ultimately have? Ultimately, none. If I were to build the most potent, most powerfully destructive weapon, it would be the weapon that destroyed everything. Everything, including itself, it's creators, a whisper of any memory of what had gone before, or any hope of anything to come after.

The best way to interact with one's environment is scientifically. If we are scientific in our approach to reality, the quality of our lives is improved. Our accomodation is secure, our diet is balanced and healthy, and our boilers come on and off when we want them to. The quality of our relationships is also improved, because sincerity is needed in order to truthfully communicate.
Think about it. If we designed a value system in which various contradicting and weird ideologies were deemed key components, and then wished to see it take to a civillisation, we would have to dogmantically implement it on a society by integrating it in all aspects of the status quo. In no other way would it stick, because it's not fundementally beneficial for a community to adhere to an architectured value system. Even if some ideologies present within this system are seemingly innane, like 'Pink is a nice colour', it still oppresses creativity and prevents genuine interaction with the colour pink, and with any other colour. Pink being a nice colour
We would have to integrate this ideaology in the status quo using tools of manipulation, such as advertising and other, more insidious forms of propaganda. We would be left with a society founded on coercion, in which inequality and confusion were structural components.
So we need to interact with eachother scientifically! We need to base our decisions on whats working at the time, go with the flow, instead of stunting our evolution! And  we have to have ballance, also, fundementally.

I think that science is defined by being the best tool with which to interact with reality,

If tools are defined by their design, then it follows that creation is the superior force. Rather it follows that creation is true, and destruction is the absence of force.

1 comment:

  1. (Part I)
    Though of course Science does not find solutions to all human problems, or satisfy all of human needs, it is probably true that it's the only way to deal with social problems in a straightforward way.
    “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so” were the words of Galileo Galilei, words about science, basically. Galileo refused to try to find out why things existed-- like, for example, the force of gravity, because he knew he couldn’t answer the question in a rigorous, scientific manner. On the contrary, he tried to see how the force of gravity worked. The renouncement to ask oneself metaphysical questions (or religious ones, for that matter) comes precisely from the knowledge that one can never answer them.
    In order to help people, one must be able to answer questions and propose solutions. Solutions should in fact be proven by experiments in order for them to be credible – Scientists, perhaps, would make the best politicians!
    This last idea isn’t mine, but that of the Positivistic philosopher, Auguste Comte. A man who understood that science was not an individual thing, a mysterious work of some solitary genius – but a very potent instrument for analysis and social transformation.