What if there was nothing? No humans, no world, no solar system, no galaxy, no universe, no multi-verse, not multi-shulty-verse. Just nothing. Nothing existed. If existence were a computer program, you’re looking at an empty notepad document. it be possible for there to be nothing? Probably not. Because the very definition of ANYTHING is SOMEthing. But if there WAS nothing, it would be spectacularly plain. Or not, because even those words are something. By defining “nothing” you are defining the fact that you have the power to define, which is something. Honestly, if there was nothing, it would look like
Archive for the 'Philosophy' Category
After seeing Harry Potter 6 for a second time today, I got into a very interesting conversation with my friend Jesse and his father. It helps to be familiar with the majority of the major movie franchises of the last few decades.
Jesse’s argument is that Voldemort is a one-dimensional and unrealistic character because he has no true motive – specifically a political ideology. When comparing him to other bad guys – both real and fictional – he is a simplistic character who is only there to be the bad guy, and has nowhere near the depth of other villains, like Palpatine from Star Wars – who is strikingly similar to Hitler.
My argument is that Voldemort doesn’t need a political ideology, or any ideology for that matter. What drives him is a lust for power, specifically the power of magic – this includes everything evil that he strives to do, including mass killing and becoming immortal. These acts of magic are examples of ultimate power to him, and he is addicted to it in the same way that anyone who possesses the ring in Lord of the Rings ultimately becomes attracted to it’s power. That idea of power, of being able to control the universe exactly as one wants to is the ultimate idea behind evil.
But no! Jesse says, he just likes power, that’s it? To be a credible villain, he needs to represent something – an idea or ideology. Like Hitler and Palpatine – both do evil things in the context of upholding a dictatorship. Otherwise, he is just a devil figure – a simple and one-dimensional representation of “bad.”
BUT! I say, the only reason dictators want a dictatorship is because they think that they can rule the world/galaxy in the right way, and because if fulfills their initial lust for power. The power obsession is not caused by their ideologies, but vice versa. They believe in a certain ideology because if fits their lust for power. Even the Joker, even though he doesn’t appear to believe in anything, really believes in chaos. And him causing that chaos is him having power.
There are hints of Voldemort’s political ideology in the books. In the last book he basically infiltrates the wizard government and ultimately becomes it. This of course came after much of his evil-doing, because the government he set up fit his evil personality. This power lust creates evil in government.
When you think about it, that lust for power is a part of everything that is wrong with the world and the human condition. Power is the money that bank robbers steal from banks. Power is the crops a farmer grows on a piece of stolen land. Power is the driving force behind people in high levels of government. Capitalism encourages people to strive for power, and that power is what gives us huge corporations and their vile tactics. Power is behind the flaws of capitalism, the throne of a dictator, and the natural human need for the universe to run just the way they want it.
Power is ultimately being God. Perhaps this explains why so many people are devoted to religion – because religion tells us that the main power in the universe is out of our hands. Therefore, so is any form of evil. And who doesn’t want a world without evil?
Okay, so we talked about this in history class a while back and it always keeps coming back to me, in the back of my head. This idea keeps nagging me in different situations I find myself in and I have to let it out. First, a definition from Wikipedia:
The human condition encompasses all of the experience of being human. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events that are common to most human lives, and some that are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.
On the first day of history class this year, my teacher started by asking us what we thought the human condition was. Well, no. He really asked us what the nature of the human condition is, basically if humans are naturally “good” or “bad.” And that idea has been bugging me ever since.
Evidence that the nature of mankind is bad can be seen in war, torture, greed, and selfishness. However, evidence of the good in mankind can be seen in small day-to-day things, like sharing food, giving to charity, even just doing someone a favor that doesn’t directly benefit you. So the question is: Which are we? Are we naturally good or bad?
You may now be asking why it has to be one or the other. The idea is that one of these, either the basic good traits or the basic “bad” traits of humans is a result of the type of society they live in, and the other is what it means to be human without society. This is important because if we understand the human condition, we can make a better society and therefore live better lives.
Communism is one type of society, and it assumes that people will want to work for the better good and will trust each other. But virtually all attempts at it have failed. Capitalism encourages greed and selfishness. But it seems to work. That would imply that we are naturally “bad.” But at the same time, wouldn’t a friend of yours do something for your just because you’re friends? Doesn’t that mean that we’re also good and don’t just care about ourselves?
I’m not really sure what I think. Feel free to post what you think in the comments!
