“Settling an Argument” by Norman Rockwell

A few weeks ago, I wrote:

Last night, I was on the campus of the Université de Montréal (UDM) and met a student, obviously bright yet heavily intoxicated, who repeatedly declared that “la vie c’est d’la marde (life is shit)”. I listened as he repeatedly stated this claim, along with supporting claims such as that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. These seem childish even, but he proved his intelligence through earlier conversations and I could not help but conclude that his claims were not the mere ramblings of a man who has lost his capacity for reason, but conclusions which he supported even with a sober mind. My general observations suggest that what alcohol diminishes is not the ability to make propositions which correspond with one’s sober mind, but the ability to clarify the rational basis on which these conclusions have been founded. So, I assumed that a significant part of him did believe that “life is shit” and I had to say: “I disagree”.

The discussion (if I may call it that) which followed was not constructive since, though he let me begin my sentences, he repeatedly interrupted me a few words in. I do not blame him, since drunkeness increases impulsivity and seems to diminish people’s capacity to listen to others, and the fact that I had so drily disagreed with him might have created some undue tension. My disagreement was purely intellectual and I had assumed him to be capable of debating over a proposition without the interferences of ego. A person who cannot listen cannot discuss, so I put an end to this pointless exchange. However, since his belief that “life is shit” seemed to be a conclusion — a conclusion which I find heavily flawed –, I feel the need to attack it in writing.

One of the first things to keep in mind about this proposition is that it is presented as an objective representation of reality. He did not say “ma vie c’est d’la marde (my life is shit)”, but “la vie c’est d’la marde ([the] life is shit)”. Thus, from his perspective, life, as we all experience it, is shit.

It is difficult to disagree with a proposition with elements left undefined. So, each word must properly be understood. For one, it seems clear that he did not speak of “life” as biologists define it, but as the “universal condition of human existence“. “Universal” could not have been “general” because he spoke in absolute terms and disagreed immediately when I spoke of my own life as not being shit. As for the meaning which he injected into “shit”, it is made clear by his claim that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. Life, it seems, is not an experience worth living; the pleasure we experience is not worth the suffering; we live merely because some force within most prevents us from following the rational course of action (suicide). He spoke of this experience as the only reality, rather than choosing modesty by speaking only of his experiences with life, leaving others to share with him their own.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I tend to believe that philosophical differences boil down to differences in terms of values, of which none is better than the other since they are essentially assumptions about the nature of our world. The conflict between primitivism and liberalism serves as a fine example:

When I speak as a liberal, one of the most wonderful things about this world is the number of choices we have. In this modern world, our economy is so advanced that millions of people can live within the same, relatively small, area. These technological advances are the natural product of a liberal economy and one of the advantages is that I, as an individual, have access to so many different people that I can easily find specific types of people and thus associate with a human subculture of my choice. This allows me more freedom to shape my life how I want it to be shaped. Yes, we are all limited by external factors, some of which are imposed by our society, some of which are imposed by reality, but, in the end, we have greater control over our lives than we have ever had. We are not limited to a few sources of food, to the people in our village and to “survival” as our main job.

However, this perspective conflicts with another: yes, it is true that we can now shape our social surroundings with more ease than before, but this may destroy the natural balance of personalities that we may find in villages. In the past, just like we do not choose our family today, we did not choose anything about our social surroundings. We were born in a random village and that’s where we grew up and died. Even nomads would usually remain with the same group of humans. What happens in a modern, liberal society is that — if I am to use such crude language to describe people — “intelligent” people will leave the “village” to form a subculture with like-minded people, leaving the village without “intelligent” people. The same goes for different personality types. Thus, while this may be of benefit to “intelligent” people who crave interactions of a certain level, the village gets deprived of its share of “intelligent” people. The same goes for its natural chiefs, natural shamans, natural strongmen etc and it is, in the end, wholly abandoned as we are all stratified by liberalism and its efficiency. People who work in factories tend to frequent people who work at jobs of a similar nature. The same goes for people who work in law, in the arts, in farming and so forth.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

It seems quite clear to me that humans are not designed for “happiness”. There are many aspects of how our mind functions that seem to suggest that the priority in our “design” was focused on something other than happiness, certainly other than happiness per day lived.

Sometimes there’s a clear, long-term use for our suffering. When you put your hand on something hot, it’s good for you to feel pain. But sometimes, we’re just left to wonder: why do we suffer? We have mental illnesses, as well as less severe, but equally real, psychological problems that affect just about everyone.

Perhaps it is as silly to wonder why we suffer as to wonder why there’s disease, as to why we need to eat, sleep and love. It’s just how life is. Suffering seems to be an inherent part of life. It does not always need to make sense.

PS:  Even though there’s something perhaps sombre in the content of this post, I’m in a rather excellent mood!

-Dussault