My previous post concerning the riots got me thinking of a fundamental aspect of how I view the world, and how that view differs from most everyone else's. I toss around the word "materialist" quite a bit, not to signify greediness but rather the modern belief that only matter exists. This philosophical materialism is my point of total departure.
For me, the existence of truth, ideals, and principles is no less real or palpable than the existence of matter -- in older parlance, these intangibles are "reified" in my eyes. When I witness someone lie, break an oath, or flout the rules we all have agreed to live by, I feel it in physical terms as an act of vandalism. It's the same to me as any number of physical affronts would be to someone else, whether it be a slap in the face, a brick through a window, or feces smeared in a church. My entire life I have witnessed intangible vandalism of this sort -- both to myself and to others -- and it has enraged me, all the more so because my contemporaries act as if it doesn't matter. Civilization is built on a vision of ideals; the civilized man today is surrounded by barbarians who perceive nothing but what their senses convey. Hilariously, my discontent is what people view with confusion or suspicion, ignoring the society collapsing all around them (that is, until the collapse became physical, as mentioned in my earlier post).
A side effect of my worldview is that I often wind up advocating for causes that seem "unfair" or inconsistent, at least from the perspective of someone to whom ideals do not exist. Everyone else cares about the tangible outcome; I care about purity of process regardless of outcome. "Let justice be done or the heavens fall," the saying goes, and I fully agree. If doing the right thing creates havoc, so be it, for the ideal is more important and thus remains preserved. If you don't catch my drift, here are a few examples:
For me, the existence of truth, ideals, and principles is no less real or palpable than the existence of matter -- in older parlance, these intangibles are "reified" in my eyes. When I witness someone lie, break an oath, or flout the rules we all have agreed to live by, I feel it in physical terms as an act of vandalism. It's the same to me as any number of physical affronts would be to someone else, whether it be a slap in the face, a brick through a window, or feces smeared in a church. My entire life I have witnessed intangible vandalism of this sort -- both to myself and to others -- and it has enraged me, all the more so because my contemporaries act as if it doesn't matter. Civilization is built on a vision of ideals; the civilized man today is surrounded by barbarians who perceive nothing but what their senses convey. Hilariously, my discontent is what people view with confusion or suspicion, ignoring the society collapsing all around them (that is, until the collapse became physical, as mentioned in my earlier post).
A side effect of my worldview is that I often wind up advocating for causes that seem "unfair" or inconsistent, at least from the perspective of someone to whom ideals do not exist. Everyone else cares about the tangible outcome; I care about purity of process regardless of outcome. "Let justice be done or the heavens fall," the saying goes, and I fully agree. If doing the right thing creates havoc, so be it, for the ideal is more important and thus remains preserved. If you don't catch my drift, here are a few examples:
- I witness a close family member commit a crime. I am called to the witness stand and take an oath to tell the truth, and I am then asked what I saw. There are only two options: either remain silent and go to prison for contempt, or tell the unvarnished truth. Lying is not an option. For cold-blooded murder or other mala in se, I would talk, and I would expect no less from anyone testifying against me. For tax evasion, insider trading, or other mala prohibita, I would remain silent and face the consequences.
- Here's one that actually happened to me. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and have no desire to, since I consider it a filthy habit and even potentially dangerous to standers-by. A man approaches me outside the gym and asks me to sign a petition for a smoking ban in restaurants and other businesses catering to the general public. While I would love a smoke-free environment wherever I go, I flatly refuse to sign, explaining that it's the business owner's right to decide whether to allow smoking on his property. If you don't like the smoke, be an adult and take your business elsewhere. The same goes for employees, who should look for work elsewhere if they dislike smoke.
- The Supreme Court strikes down a state law that caps damages in various types of civil lawsuits, ensuring that my work as a lawyer (for the defense or the plaintiff, mind you) will remain far more valuable and thus profitable. I immediately denounce the decision as another abuse of the 14th Amendment and a further menace to the 10th Amendment that preserves state sovereignty over all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government, since I know that American liberty requires competition among many governments rather than occasional "wise" decisions handed down from a single, all-powerful one.
- A man files a lawsuit against a females-only gym, claiming gender discrimination of a type that many females have alleged in lawsuits against male-only businesses and institutions. Though I feel turnabout is fair play, I oppose the lawsuit because it likely again invites federal intervention into local matters, and also because of the basic principle that a property owner can exclude whomever she wishes.
- A homeowners' association fines a World War II veteran for flying the American flag in violation of the community's rules, and the veteran vows to fight back while gathering popular support from others in the community and around the entire nation. I deeply respect the veteran for his sacrifice and his patriotism, but I absolutely oppose him because he is going back on his word. Contracts are exercises of freedom, not infringements on them, and he chose to live by the very rules that he now seeks to evade. Cowing the homeowners' association into submission damages liberty far more than it preserves it.
No comments:
Post a Comment