The Admiration

“And men go abroad to admire the heights of mountains, the mighty waves of the sea, the broad tides of rivers, the compass of the ocean and the circuits of the stars yet pass over the mystery of themselves without a thought.” –Saint Augustine, Confessions

(1) The special marking of humanity is their individuality. For it is due to such that any two persons are distinguishable. In their individuality are present a set of experiences, which the human is composed of. Each qualia separates any two given persons further, making them stand apart drastically. Person X and Person Y, distinguished in themselves. Rightfully so, for the term: the essence of all things is that all things become an essence, must hold true always. Everything that exists, tangible and intangible, is characterized and thereby defined, therefore is distinguishable. The very term “existence” explains all that is, yet all things that are (or all things which exist) have a particular nature (though all share a common nature: Existing). The Stars and their Jewels, that which we call planets, all are deemed to exist. However, the Sun is defined as a ball of plasma which illuminates, serving its purpose. Planets are commonly said to be those celestial bodies which, often, surround a star–orbiting it. Whether gaseous or rocky, they too serve their purpose. As shown above, each (Sun and Planet) has a particular nature, hence the distinction whereby all with characteristics of planet fall into such a category. Likewise, those with characteristics of stars are said to be part of that category.

(2) Even among planets and stars there are great variations, thus, further distinguishable bodies. Each is classified, individually, given a specific name, it's very unique nature. Therefore, the fulfillment of the earlier term, an essence of itself. There is a regressive aspect to that term. For EVERYTHING is to be an essence of themselves, even to the most minute makeup of everything. As shown, though there is a group that we call planets, there needs to be further classification, for each individual planet within such a system is to be an essence. As Aristotle once stated, “A whole is that which has beginning, middle and end,” This can be interpreted as, a whole is that which is composed of parts. Each part put together culminates into a whole. Let us take for example our solar system, which is a whole, yet it contains parts: The Sun, various planets, asteroids etc. To regress further, even the very planet being a whole has parts which in themselves are an essence, the outer core, inner core, core etc. Further we can go on, regressing until we have arrived at the basic essence of all, that being the atom, which itself is a whole composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons.

(3) The celestial objects: (1) Are given a name and are deemed special (2) Each with a role in the Universe’s orchestra. As Immanuel Kant says, “the eccentric paths of the planets.” Eccentric they may seem but somehow, “go toward a natural but to each of them unknown goal.” Hence the creation of Johannes Kepler (As Kant continues) who explained the laws which govern the path of the planets, and further Isaac Newton who explained these laws as best possible. What does this tell us? Even in the near infinite expansion of space, where the number of stars and planets seem ever abundant, each is accounted for—cared for, monitored and marveled at. Partially by the human, yet fully by their creator. While humanity estimates the number of stars and planets in existence, their creator knows them all by name.

What is to say of Humanity?

(4) The human is conscious, fully alive. With awareness and observation, questions arise from what is seen. In looking at the night sky comes in scenic view a near infinite number of majesties, of which the person is insignificant when compared to these. Then he asks—or rather, is asked, “Who are you in this vast multiverse Mr. Strange” (The Ancient One, Doctor Strange). Strange man! Yes, the person is strange, for who is he among these? What is he compared to these? Strange much, for it seems as if he compares not to these, nor does he come close to their splendor. Who are we truly in this vast expanse of marvelous–complexities, fascinating–strangeness, and captivating–perplexities? We stand baffled…silence fills the air. Silencio! He cannot stay silent for long, for he has a natural response, one at the ready to be said and one that seems true—The person replies, “An infinite speck of dust in an indifferent universe” (Doctor Strange). Oh, how seemingly true that is! For truly who are we? Who is he that he should think mighty of himself? He is nothing, he seems like nothing. In the face of his creator he exclaims, “What is man that you are mindful of him” (Psalms 8:4). Compare a given human to the vastness of space, and they surely shrink in size. The universe itself is 92 billion light years across occupied by piquant sights, an uncountable number—yet here is a man, measly 5 '10 compared to 92 billion light years. A few feet of awe versus billions of miles of awesomeness. Truly it seems so that man is insignificant. Rightfully so for him to answer as he does, a mere speck of dust in an indifferent universe. Easily reducible. Common.

(5) Alas! The human is often glossed over, they who are precious thinks that not of themselves. Does not recognize the beauty within—yet sees beauty in all around, in everyone (apart from themselves) something admirable, yet of the self all things abominable, a mere pile of atoms. He devotes his life to admiring all in existence, he speaks daily of them—ponders daily on them, yet for some odd reason, he forgets himself. Whenever and wherever the thought of himself comes to mind, it is often negative, self-destructive. Hilarious even! To other people he seems to be fascinated with them; but such seems not so, for if he fully deprives himself of being, how can he fully admire others? He does so partially, for there are some he admires and sees good, and others he deprives of their being, calling them worthless. Showing favoritism and partiality. To himself he views in depravity, to those other humans he sees in partiality.

(6) The person would rather punish himself than stay in solitary, to ponder on his being—to think of his state of being, “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalms 139: 14). Oh, how melancholic! Yet completely understandable, for instead of putting an emphasis on the self and its wonders there is a regard fixed on other created things and their magnificence. One then pummels the self. Not realizing that these in existence are made for humans, made for them to enjoy. Enjoy as one king enjoys a show put on by jesters. In such who is much more fascinating, The King or the Jester? For without humans who could understand nor enjoy these complexities?

On Abundance

“Even the smallest shift in perspective can bring about the greatest healing.” ―Joshua Kai

(7) In the world of economics, the more abundant a resource is, the less value it has. For how valuable a thing is when it is common—there is no high price on such. Of the humans I wonder if that case applies; the abundance of humankind depreciates their value. This could explain how the life of a person seems to be worthless–where many, without a moment’s notice, would be willing and at times do, end human life. Such could explain war–why governments are willing to exterminate another country at the expense of lives, both foreign and domestic. It could very well be the case why no one thinks of the destructive nature of war and what it means for a life to end. For human life is not valuable, it is too abundant, so not precious.

(8) Let us imagine a world where the human species is not abundant, where each life lost negatively impacts society. Could then the lives of individuals be seen as precious? Yes! I believe it would, for in scarcity one holds truly to it. In countries where resources are scarce, take for example clean and drinkable water, the possession of a single drop is valuable. Not one drop is lost, each is accounted for. Yet in those where such is abundant, little care is put into conserving even a gallon worth of water, for such a resource is abundant, too common, easily replaceable. In a time where 8 billion people inhabit earth, a time deemed ‘too many people occupy earth’ —very well it is no surprise when a nation treats its citizens as paperweights and bullet bags. So too is it not at all strange when a single man views himself as having no value. Not at all strange for people to exclaim “we are nothing, for everyone is; if everyone be then I be, what value is there in being?” There seems to be no mark of individuality in such, so it seems. Very well he is an individual, but there are many individuals. Again, we ask, what value is there to that?

Why is that such? Well, it is because we have a destructive view of life. There is a mixture between objects and humans. Hence, the human too is treated as a commodity. Hence the term, abundance of a thing depreciates its value. For in the larger sense, it may seem to be reality—that much of a man equates to less value. Such a belief as I've analyzed, rests on these two pillars:

(1) The man is seen solely as a means

(2) The man is simplified and characterized.

On Means

“So, act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” —Immanuel Kant

(9) In pondering the world there comes to mind questions pertaining to the nature of all things, Moreso, these questions revolve around the function of everything that exists. For it is known that all things in existence have a function. The real question rests on what the function of any given thing is. Aristotle seemed to have pondered and traveled down such a road, with his famous function argument. There are three understandings of his function argument. 1) Why a thing do what it does? That means what is the use of a given thing. 2) How a thing does what it does, which refers here to its mechanism, that which allows a thing to do what it does. Yet, just like X, I'm convinced that Aristotle’s function can better be understood as what a thing does. For the interest is in what characterizes x, y, and z, in their respective doing. In terms of what a thing does, there is an activity–one unique to it. That which we can say, “X does this, and Y does that.” Therefore, as stated, each characterized due to their function. The Sun which exists, following the logic above MUST have a function. It illuminates heat, that's the activity it partakes in. It may have many purposes, as Elliot Roland claims about things with function–he speaks of a sculptor’s function is to sculpt for customers, that's its characteristic activity. Regardless of if they are “communicating and haggling with particular customers, resting and reflecting, learning and practicing techniques, buying supplies, designing statues, and sculpting this or that particular statue” The end result is an activity that encompasses them all, sculpting. Therefore, the sun may have many purposes: aids in photosynthesis, provides vitamin D, helps in cooking–yet its overarching activity (its function) rests in illuminating rays on planet Earth. We can thus declare (As Roland continues), “The characteristic activity of an X is the activity it necessarily engages in so far it is an X.” To better simplify, insofar a thing is, that's what it does. Though the sun has various purposes, yet all it does draws from its function, as stated above.

(10) From the nature of X (a given thing) there comes about a function. Since all things in existence have a particular nature (are an essence in themselves) then it follows that all things indeed have a purpose. Although there is a tailored purpose for all things existent, there can be an overarching or group function. It follows as such, there are many tools in the human arsenal: the screwdriver, the hammer, bolt, etc. All these have a purpose, as shown. Yet all together have a common function. Since these are tools, that is the group they fall into. It can thus be said that the function of a tool rests on its usage. Further, we can argue a tool is useful in that it serves (1) a purpose (2) an immediate purpose, both intertwined. For their purpose rests on its characteristic function, and on its ability to be used in the immediate. Though a hammer has a unique ability, if not needed in the immediate, it serves no use. It is then cast aside. If one needs a screwdriver, the hammer to the person serves no use. It simply is. Such is the nature of a tool, and its function, in a categorical sense. Yet individually the hammer, like the screw and others, retain their characteristic function even when not needed. What is its immediate use? If it has none, it serves none. Likewise, if a tool is damaged it too has no function, it is therefore cast away. Does that mean it loses its intrinsic purpose? I argue it does not, for it can be refurbished, made well. Yet its function when damaged, is degraded, for it performs it not well. The hammer is still a blunt force object, it simply does not do it well. As a tool, it serves no immediate purpose, for one must be effective. We can further exclaim that, in the nature of tools, natural and reasonable it is for a tool to be forgotten once its purpose has been served.

(11) Apart from a characteristic purpose and an overarching function of all things existent. There is also the nature of an object. All things have a particular use, yet the distinction thus rests on two pillars; used either as a means, or a means to an end, drawing on Kantian concepts. In the case of tools, humans use such solely as a means. For what further can a tool be described as? It can be said that a tool is an object by which a person accomplishes his/her will, irrespective of the tool’s. A tool has no will in and of itself. On the contrary, it’s will resides in the hands of its master. We can say that its will is to serve the purpose of its master, for its function (as a tool) rests on having an immediate and effective use, thus is called upon (or chosen) to perform such a task. Therefore, it logically follows that a tool is to be used solely as a means and only as a means it's able to be used, for that is its nature. It moreover is an inanimate object, with no soul, no reasoning ability, no ability to experience pain, therefore free humankind is to use such in whichever way they will. Imposing their will on such an object as they see fit.

(12) If a tool is to be used as a means due to: (1) Being an inanimate object, (2) incapable of a will, then the opposite must be true. That being, animated objects and those capable of a will, ability to reason and ability to feel pain, are to be used not solely as a means, again drawing from Kantian concepts, are to be used as “means to an end.” In our goings, we encounter both animate and inanimate objects, for existence is composed of the two: on planet earth we find tables, rocks, chairs and likewise we find humans and animals; inanimate and animate. Therefore, in our encounters with these there are two acts we partake in, either we use them solely as a means, or a means to an end.

The Man as a means

(13) The nature of humankind, I am convinced, is marred with many defects, or rather, let us say it is corrupted beyond measure. For I hold onto a religious view that man was once a noble and virtuous creature, yet such is not the topic of this essay. One such corruption rests on their nature of being competitive. Immanuel Kant once stated, “The means employed by nature to bring about the development of all the capacities of men is their antagonism in society.” I reject the view that it is nature that gives us the antagonism to bring about development. For I'm convinced that antagonism here refers to an excess of competition, an extreme which can be referred to as "antagonism.” Thus, what seems “natural” is a vice, which I would argue, is unnatural. For the state of nature is of balance, hence why there is a night and a day, rainy and sunny days, etc. There however exists civil competition and barbarous competition. Of the civil we can include sports, at times, though there is competition, there is a code, a level of decency, or what we can call “sportsmanship.” Where team A loses, but it is fueled to work hard and win, because it has the desire to prevail over its opponent. That is natural. It does not seek to murder the members of team B, nor cheat in order to win. Yet there is also the barbarous competition which I believe Kant refers to as “antagonism,” which happens to be prominent when one observes the dealings of man. And even in sports it sips in, where a team cheats and willfully harms their opponent to be victorious. However, I agree that there is in man a disposition which bends toward antagonism, or barbarous competition. Which expresses itself in society frequently, as Kant calls, “the unsocial sociability of men.” A state of “mutual opposition” that poses a threat to society. It is commonly seen in wars, fights (at the highest level) and on the lowest, arguments and utterances of pejoratives, among others. It seems as if all men have drawn their weapons, ready to war against one another, naturally then for he is “inclined to oppose others.”

(14) Thomas Hobbes once said, “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is a war of every man against every man” (Leviathan). (Before continuing, unlike Hobbes I believe this state of war to be the case irrespective of a common power, as stated earlier). Yet one must ponder, why is that such? Though humans have a tendency to be antagonistic, there must be a raison detre. Due to man being equal in ability, as Hobbes exclaimed, to which I agree, there further is equality in the use of ability to achieve an end. That which we call a purpose, or a will to. All have a purpose, and at times conflict with that of others. Suppose You're in line, you wish to be first, yet it so happens that others will the same thing. There is then, one may argue, a clash of wills. Because as it stands, not everyone can be at the front of the line. All then seek to be first in line. In society this too expresses itself, from the individual case to the national stage, each has their own will, which inevitably will conflict with the will of another person, or another nation. This will must be satisfied, it must be satisfied at all costs, regardless of lives gained or lost. Hence where (speaking of humankind) “they become enemies” (Thomas Hobbes). Where each is wary of the other, constantly aware of the other – constantly plans, seeking to overthrow his enemies. It follows then that history, both past and present, has shown that in the manifesting of the will, many have been used as solely a means. How frequent is it for a man of great might to overpower another, and bids him to do his will, then casts him aside when he has been depleted. How prevalent then is a person greater in mind, gifted in intellect to subjugate the mind and spirit of another. How frequently in history do we see a nation with great might overpower and enslave a lesser one? Likewise with a nation who has maximized its intellectual ability to hold captive the mind and spirit of another.

(15) Antebellum slavery, when one ponders it, is the highest degree to which a given person can be both used and viewed as a tool. Slaves were used for a myriad of tasks: cooking, cleaning, hunting, clothing, breeding, etc. For in the nature of a tool they have an immediate purpose, yet once they have a defect or old age, an inability to produce, they are cut off from this world, or replaced yet by another. They also were used as property of another, used to enact the will of a master–forced to work arduous hours, in terrible conditions, in unsanitary living quarters and dealt with whatever way the master saw fit, either by daily beatings, starving or various other forms of punishment. The will of the master reigns supreme, it is natural law. It is then the slave's function to obey the will of the master, which only tools have. Like beasts they were slaughtered, they though are animate creatures with ability to reason and capacity to feel pain, they nevertheless were viewed as less than creatures, less than animates. Stripped of human qualities, used solely as means they were for, they are in abundance, as new slaves could be transported with the blink of an eye, thus their lives were worth nothing, with no distinction between them and tools, as they are inseparable.

(16) One might exclaim that long gone are the days of slavery. Far behind are the times where one nation, or a person, is used solely as a means. However, as the expression goes, there is nothing new under the sun. We can find in society instances where many are used simply as a means. Most notably one can use the case of veterans. Those who sacrifice their lives, whose function is to protect, are often cast aside after being used. Of veterans it is stated that, “67,000 veterans are homeless on any given night…1.5 million are considered at risk of homelessness” (Cornel West). Useful they are inasmuch as they uphold the peace, bring a nation a period of pax Romana. After, they are discarded, rejected, and left to their own demise. As well as in times of war they are used to protect, even in such a state, the statement, useful in as much as it serves an immediate purpose, holds true. For in whichever state, war, or peace, they are once done with their duty, left on the side of the road, or put back into the toolbox, ignored. Hence why veterans claim to feel abandoned by the very nation they protect. Thus, on Memorial Day for a nation which prides itself on being patriotic while ignoring its veterans, I ask you, as Cornel West, “How patriotic is a nation where veterans are more likely than non-veterans to be homeless?”

(17) What of the common worker in the 21st century capitalist society? Who are used by corporations to maximize profit? People are not seen as humans, but rather as wallets, and dollar signs. Like a vampire they suck the blood of a person and thereafter drops the corpse, walks away while it rots, so too it is with corporations, who deplete the human of time and energy. And when incapable of giving more, is rejected, despised, and cast aside. While another tool takes its place, one that is sharpened and effective, and the cycle continues. So it is with consumers, who are robbed of hard-earned money. Where advertisements entice many to spend money on unnecessary items, where corporations seek by all means, investing in the art of marketing to take from the masses. And do they give back? No, for their only matter concerning them is the money added to their bank account, using worker and consumer to inflate the already large amount of money they possess.

(18) Only objects are to be used as means solely. Therefore, it is morally wrong to do such a thing to a human being. It is likened to stripping one of humanity, to degrade one to a status as that of slaves. For in such, one is not treated adequately nor with dignity. One is perceived to be of a lower class, be it intellectually, physically, or economically. In cases where humans are treated in a despicable manner, the root cause is status. If of the same status or higher, then one is given the respect and honor naturally deserved. Hence why men flock to celebrities, presidents and the well-spoken. The rich and many others, while ignoring and debasing the common folk, the poor and mentally destitute. For they see other humans in partiality. Seeing the good and admirable only in those he views of a certain status, while those of a lower class are rejected.

The Spirit of The Man Used as a Means (19) There was once a man, brilliant and kind –salt of the earth, unlimited in potential and overflowing with talent. It is said that he is rare like gold, and thus, must not be used much for he is precious –oh how wondrous was that man, how precious he truly is. For in his being he stands alone, not that he is special, for he is but a speck of dust in this indifferent multiverse. Yet, in his generation it could be said that he is truly a wonder, a weird –fascinating thing. A person that no one knows of, yet all seem to gravitate to. As he grew, he was never nourished, he waited…and waited…and waited more to be fed, yet such happened not. He was battered and bruised, ignored. He was cast away, yet only approached when wanted, or rather when those needed a thing. Thus, as he grew, he slowly realized what existence truly was and is –kind as he was, slowly saw him lose his shine. Yet, mistaken not, he is still as precious as gold. When he speaks, he is ignored yet ALAS what he speaks of is beneficial to those willing to listen. His words are like honey –satisfying those willing to listen. His words uplift the spirits of all those he speaks to and make no mistake of that. Yet still he was rejected, deposed and unappreciated. He still sought to be poured into, to be built and sharpened by those around him, by those he calls family and friends, by those his mates, yet still despised and discarded. What then does he do? He slowly withers away, overtime he starts to become bitter–realizing that none are willing to listen to him; none genuinely appreciates him. Thus, he who was discarded and rejected, now reciprocates, he now begins to discard and reject society. As rare gold is, so too is his presence –or rather the words he utters, for if none are willing to listen, then to none he will speak to. If all discard him, then likewise he shall discard all. This man, brilliant in his ways, began to falter—oh alas, he is extraordinarily strong. One kind word, or rather a few ignites in him flames, he perseveres; though he falls seven times many, he still manages to rise. Yet with every rise he changes, not becoming duller, but rather rarer and more precious–thus then we can say of that man that once he has achieved that state which is near-perfection, would he have given up on people? Perhaps so, or perhaps not. We cannot say because we know not this man. I know not this man, yet he knows me. All I can say of this man is that he truly is a gem, a hidden one, and when he has been refined by fire, and let loose, he will bring everyone down with him–oh no, not like Samson, rather like he will do for I know not this man. This man will topple down all, for it truly sickens him what he sees. (20) What says the Fire Marshall? As Soren Kierkegaard would say. On a normal day, the Fire Marshall is an easy going fellow, kind, and appreciative, a gem to humankind in his generation. Yet, once there is a fire he will at once arm himself, and rush to it. He will not be the same kind and appreciative man, oh no, oh no…how terrible that man would be, for he will utter words of affliction—or rather harsh words. In the same way the Fire-Marshall screams “GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY” to a group of well-meaning bystanders, hoping to put out a fire –so too, this man will yell “GET OUT OF MY WAY AND LET ME DEAL WITH THIS, YOU UNAPPRECIATIVE PEOPLE.” For when he was needed most he was ignored and cast away, yet in a time where he sees fit to act, he will regard this crowd as a nuisance. This very same crowd, when he is done with his work, will see him rarely, for he will seclude himself, confined to his abode, his mind. There he will work, not for the present but for later. For if he is not appreciated and loved now, he will be appreciated in the distant future. At last, he will sit on a chair overlooking waters, there he will work; and when those who need him approach him, he will surely feel appreciated and wanted, for they notice in him a special thing –they will have made him realize who he is, who he truly is –for they will say to him, “You're like gold. We do not want to use too much of you because you're expensive, a rare person” and furthermore they might utter, “you make all who listen feel good when you speak, it's as if from your mind stems milk and honey, which is poured from your lips.” So then, we shall await that man. For that man cometh…or is he here already? Oh, what can't I say–or rather what can I say? I know not, yet I do; I shall remain silent and wait for this man.

On Characterization

(21) What shall we say of characterization? It can be defined as a summation of a complex thing. It is the simplification of a diverse branch of knowable information of a thing, and it is the case due to the infinitude of knowledge of X; for no matter how much is known, there will always be a thing to know. Let us take our Sun as an example, when one is asked to describe it and its function, the answer given hovers around, it being a ball of plasma which illuminates the earth. Such is the common summation of the sun. However, there is much more that can be known about the Sun. For example, what makes up the sun? Its chemical compositions, that being helium and hydrogen. What causes the sun to emit its heat? Which occurs due to nuclear fusion. Which itself is defined as a reaction where two nuclei form a single heavier nucleus. Yet even this definition is a simplification. The point being, simply because one knows the definition of nuclear fusion does not equate to a full understanding of the process–so too with the sun. Simplification is the human need to have the illusion of knowing and the drive to understand the nature of existence, though cognizant that like Socrates we live daily exclaiming, “I know one thing that I know nothing.” We have only scratched the surface of what could be known. So much so that I propose that what the human knows is X<1% of what can be known. That number will never exceed 1%. It gets smaller with every discovery, from o.001% to 0.0001% and further. Returning to the Sun, the same principle applies, there is much more to know about it. Were we to write books of it, which already exist in numerosity, there still would be more to write about. Though we have cloaked the complex with simplicity, there remains the fact that we know nothing, that there can always be more information to learn.

(22) The effect of such is as follows, the man glosses over that which has been simplified. However, even in this grand delusion that humanity is under, that we are knowledgeable about the celestial bodies–which again is erroneous for these are wholes which contain parts, and it goes that to know the whole one must know all parts. Likewise, to be familiar with a whole, one must indeed be familiar with all parts–humankind marvels daily and seeks daily to study the complex which they’ve made simple. Many have dedicated their lives to studying these things in existence, thus the creation of various fields: Astronomy, Cosmology, Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics and many more. Even the common person who has accepted the simplicities of the sun as knowledge of the whole, on a conscious basis that is. Yet it is a wonder that somehow and some way his soul is driven, that which is not conscious fixes its regard on things far above. In this case both the knowledgeable and common person join hands, seeking to comprehend the universe. The collective attention to a solar or lunar eclipse, the collective awe towards a meteor shower, the awe at a blood moon and the sight of distant galaxies drives all to seek in studying the universe. Its complex nature fascinates man, hence why we marvel at it, for it compels us to without ever uttering a single word.

(23) Long it has been recognized that humans are creatures with a complex nature. From his physical makeup, his body is recognized as being irreducibly complex. Like the universe, it is also composed of parts, which in themselves require their own field of study. To that nature which cannot be explained by physics, that we call the soul. That nature which religions understand partially, and which philosophers seek so passionately to comprehend in totality. Leaving the field of ontology stunned when it ponders the nature of being human. Prevalent it is to find many who have fallen into the trap of summing the man into a superficial whole, and thereby treating him merely as that. As if he has been dissected both physically and metaphysically, and a profile has been created for him, full of everything knowable. The championed view of man is that he is utterly depraved of goodness, utterly evil, that all we see and should see are degradable beings. This notion stems from the belief that “NATURALLY” the man is rid of all goodness, that he is barbaric and ruthless. Even Immanuel Kant fell into such a notion, as refuted earlier, when he exclaimed that it is nature which imbued in man antagonism, nature which forms humankind with vice. When it is our nature, which is corrupt, and of corruption it equates to a degradation of a thing once complete, once virtuous, and noble.

We can conclude that though the human is a complex creature, due to characterization it seems to be worthless, repugnant, and repelling. As a result, much less seems to be known of man, and there is a decrease in the drive to know of the nature human, for it seems to be fully understood. Worthless refers to being in abundance and attached to that, belief of evil and unpleasantness. That which has no worth. Thus, concludes what it means for one to harbor the nature “human.” However, one question remains, why when we juxtapose humans and the universe, one is viewed in higher regard than the other. I've come to see two categories that allow one to be venerated and the other desecrated. They are complexly–depraved and complexly–marveling.

(24) Complexly depraved. As stated, there is knowledge far and wide of their nature, which has been summed into depravity and dissolute. Therefore, the human is not at all interesting, nor is he a captivating sight, and therefore must be guarded against. It's as if many see humankind as a creature loathsome and selfish. Hence, he must be avoided and be monitored. Ironically, this very thought fuels the war between man and man. Due to introspection all seem to understand fully their fellows, and thus as well are acquainted with others sharing the same nature. As Terence exclaims, “whatever is human is not alien to me.” With acquaintance many have regarded all humankind as totally evil. Yet it's in this acquaintance that many have fooled themselves to believe human nature to be easily defined. There is much more to man than evil, far more than that fallible cloak. More can be found than vileness and avarice. For even in the pigsty of humans there is in all, there is in the race something resplendent. We are more than evil and much good can be said of humanity. Drawing from the words of Terence, in the race are found things that are not foreign to us. Therefore, if there can be good in the race, so too there can be good in the individual. Nothing in the race indeed is not foreign to us. For if we are able to admire others, even partially, then there in ourselves can be found even one thing admirable.

(25) Complexly marveling. In terms of the universe, there comes to memory thoughts galore of marvelous sights, and pleasantness. Natural then it is to man, or rather, for a person to exclaim to know nothing about the universe. Its summation rests on (1) Inability to fully know and (2) fascination or drive to know. Even those who extensively study the universe, who seem acquainted with it, summarize it on this basis: we know nothing of the universe, it is far more unknowable than we could conceive in thought. Everything we know of the universe is either/or: questionable or minute; complex or incomprehensible. Thus, humankind, unlike in their dealings with their compatriots, claim to know nothing of the universe and rightfully so they argue. All due to the nature of summation of either a thing categorized as repelling or captivating; pleasant or unpleasant. Naturally, it is for man to avoid the unpleasant and opt for the pleasant. Are we then surprised when those who are characterized as unpleasant are cast aside? For those labeled as unpleasant to be further stated to be common, innumerable thus not at all special. Which leads to a stripping of humanity and the imputation of the nature of tools? The answer given is no, it is not surprising.

ON REPLACED AND FORGOTTEN

“No! No one who was great in the world will be forgotten, but everyone was great in his own way, and everyone in proportion to the greatness of that which he loved.” —Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

(26) With such a belief in humankind arises a grim reality, that due to his common and useless nature, which stems from being in abundance, he shall one day be forgotten. Such is the breeding ground for existential nihilism. For if man is to one day be forgotten and harbors a worthless nature. It must follow that the life he lives must as well reflect such. Life is then meaningless for all work to what end? What is the point of living if all toiling and tears, all striving and victories amount to nothing. Such as I’ve observed is the philosophy of many. We at times see ourselves as smoke, once here and then always neither here nor there; once thought of then always forgotten. All this stems from one point, which, being the individual, will not be known, that he will be forgotten. That we have no part in life’s orchestra. This fear is reasonable for who wish to disappear from the annals of existence. To supplement such thoughts, as a remedy of some sort, men like Epicurus have said, “if I Am death is not, if death is then I Am not.” One must then wonder why toil If death is inevitable, that all human action, inaction, and desires are worthless. Yet I propose that even in the state of not being, one still never wishes to be forgotten. There is what I call a transcendence of desire; a desire that transcends death. All seek to leave an imprint, a fossil by which they might be recognized by. True death happens when one’s contribution in life, when one’s part, one’s unique story is all cast away permanently. This is the nothingness that all truly fear; that no memory nor stint of their existence remains, such truly is a fate all work hard to escape from, all grasp by any means to avoid. Drawing from Epicurus, if death is truly, I Am not. Yet if Iam, if I truly cement myself and contribute to life, then death surely is not.

(27) We can further argue that the absence of purpose is the presence of worthlessness—along with such is present deprivation of being, which further entails lack of motivation, inability to act and think, and the inability to build one’s Rome. All these culminate in a dullness of being. For one is not sharpened, sets no store for his qualities nor maximizes his/her abilities. Therefore, the very fate one seeks to escape, in this state, is inevitable. All are given gifts and talents; all can teach their fellows a certain thing. In adopting a mindset of worthlessness there is a hole not filled. A book not placed in the grand library of life, from which others may read and strengthen the self. It is our duty to fulfill our role, to do what we ought because we can. In all are extremities of a given thing: singing, intelligence, humor etc. (of the extremities I speak of a unique endowment). It is in the extremity of a thing that we ought to do. That we ought to operate and cultivate. Then I say, pick yourself up my friend. Worthless? That you are not. Ignored? That is what you are. Yet it does not negate your precious nature. For at times even that which is precious is often ignored, often cast aside. Yet it owes not its characteristic nature. Populous man is on the earth, that is certainly true. Common? Certainly not, for there is but one you. No one else bears your fingerprint, so how can you be common? There is a job for me and certainly one tailored for you. We will never be forgotten; we are remembered in accordance with what we love. To him who feels worthless he will be remembered as such, and greatly remembered he will be. Thus, you are of value, yet to what extent and in what? That is certainly up to you.

Working towards an end

“Each according to his own inclination, follows his own purpose, often in opposition to others; yet each individual and people, as if following some guiding thread, go toward a natural but to each of them an unknown goal; all work toward furthering it, even if they would set little store by it if they did know it.” Immanuel Kant

(28) It must then be asked how then do humans who fear being forgotten be revitalized? I say in realizing what one naturally does or is capable of. I speak here of the natural inclinations of a given person. The philosophies we hold dear to, those that shape our being and thereby act. Thus, as Kant says (drawing on his concept to create mine) by some guiding thread we all add onto the world. This guiding thread all follows, be it consciously or not, willingly, or not, pleasingly, or not. However, the guiding thread chooses not what we produce for the world. It simply is a road all walk on, and at the end is deposited all of one’s work. Of being great in one’s way, or as Kierkegaard said, “In proportion to the greatness of that which he loved.” It can be argued that the thoughts of one in shaping their acts produces a harvest, from which others benefit from. With humankind being a social creature, learning thus Is able to occur in communities, either through osmosis or conscious energy expanded. For a given child whose parent adheres to a certain ideology, often, that very child will harbor such and transmit it to the following generation. The greatness to which we believe is the greatness we will express, inevitably to the greatness we will be remembered. But we will be remembered, for we played our part in shaping mankind, all of us. Though some played it well and others not so much. Let us not fool ourselves, for though all will be remembered yet we must ask to what end? Remembered as a hero? Or a villain? Merciful or wrathful? These we must constantly be aware of.

TO CONTRIBUTION

”Each is endowed with limitations—but also gifts. If we refine the gifts with which we are blessed, we will discover something unique to contribute.” Norman Finkelstein

(30) Some are given greater gifts than others, however, the usefulness of such gifts rests on production, not mere ability. The goal of life is not one of yearning for a higher ability by which we can produce, or that will allow us to produce. It’s in maximizing and sharpening the tools we have been given—for the work we have shaped for. Our existence is justified by how much we contributed (a concept taken from Norman Finkelstein) not how much ability we have. At times we encounter individuals who have a greater ability than us, such is natural. There is always one more intelligent, eloquent, fascinating, and human than us. Is that a reason to debase the self? To limit your worth? To strip yourself of whatever makes you special? I say no, for it is all a matter of production. Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Einstein, Descartes, Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Max Planck, Isaac Newton, Aristophanes, Marcus Aurelius, and many more existed. Each fascinating. Yet after them came another, one more intelligent and remarkable, one more esteemed. As Voltaire once said,'' la génie n'a qu' un siècle après quoi il faut degenerate.” The genius has but one century, then he must degenerate. What goes is his intellect, yet what remains is what the intellect produced; it matters not if it was great or small, its value is its impact. Their lives were worth more than their ability, for they are remembered for their contribution. What has impacted mankind.

As for the fear of the worthlessness of life. I have stumbled upon an antidote: if life is meaningless then I too am meaningless, for I am merely an extension of it—thus sharing its nature. If life is meaningful and I’m meaningless then life is likewise, for I live it. If I live life being meaningless there is to me no meaning to life. Therefore, it remains meaningless. If life is meaningless and I am meaningful then life is likewise, for it follows the principle that I live life and make sense of it. If I’m meaningful and life is likewise, then life remains for the taking, therefore onwards I go to do just that!