I was profoundly struck, in a manner
most philosophical and existential, upon reading an article
criticising the people who looted London in 2011. The criticism
attacked them for not having a clear motive for their actions.
Although the destructive event was a few years ago, the impact of it
only truly occurred to me years later...
Irrational Creatures All -
The foundation of Man is, sadly,
irrational. The days of the rational self, who through mighty
philosophy could access Reason to guide himself to truth, are well
and truly over. The rationalist philosopher no longer has the final
word on what truth is. The objective eye of science is likewise
proven to be inadequate; no eye can perceive independently of it's
personal, cultural and political biases. The observations of science
are made by subjective consciousness, and can only be tested and
observed by other subjective consciousnesses. It can only produce
subjective outcomes; a part of the picture. Science is great at
producing reliable technologies, and reliable theories about what
nature is made up of, but this is still not truth with a capital 'T';
this is not meaning. To put it bluntly, no one has the ability to
grasp the non-existent absolute truth, and so no one can claim to be
absolutely correct in their motives to act. This leaves us in an
uncomfortable place.
Human beings are irrational, empty
vessels, in an irrational, empty cosmos. We have only one thing
binding us together, filling us up with meaning, and that is society.
Our notions of progress and worth are dictated to us by this society,
this natural gathering of individuals. The Individual (with a capital
'I') is a rare creature, and more often than not is forced into
isolated individuality for being too strange for normality. The rest
are not truly individual, relying on society a little bit more than
society relies on them.
As we are primarily creatures of
society, we must look to it as the producer of our values and motives
to act. And the most important value of all, is progress. The
irrational creature that is Man desires progress and purpose more
than anything. These are the two things which cast us into motion,
and give us strength. All life is a flight from boredom! The means by
which we make progress is generated for us by our society. In our
particular part of the world this is discovered in bourgeois ideas of
self-worth and an abstract individualism. In short; accumulating
property and earning status whilst having more fun than your next
door neighbour! Whilst these values are superior to the feudal and
religious nonsense which preceded them, they are nonetheless
antiquated. Yet I will not waste article space in idle dreaming! The
bourgeois values are here, in the now, and we are all affected by
them.
Here then is the question: are these
values rational? Are these values the product of rational thought?
The answer is a resounding nay. The desire to accumulate is just that
- a desire; a driving force encouraged by capitalist indoctrination.
This is not rationality with a capital 'R'. In our world, rationality
is reduced to a means to acquire the things we are told we need to be
purposeful, successful people. Accumulation and status are the idols
we have moulded from the natural clay of purpose and progress. The
moulding was not carried out in the name of rationality, but the
simple, base drives of natural desire.
The motive of Man is the advancement of
his self and kin, dictated to him by the authoratative commands of
his society. He is a wind-up toy set to 'leech', and the great hand
winding him up is the hand of custom. He is, in short, a parasite who
will happily feed on his fellow man for the warmth of blood in his
belly. However, in our polite and civilized society, this parasitism
is subject to certain rules; and it most certainly is not discussed
at the dinner table! We are more advanced than societies elsewhere in
the world insofar as we do not resort to violence to destroy those
different to us. We tolerate alternating viewpoints, and find other
more democratic means to screw each other over.
So we can but imagine the shock to the
system when energetic, violent youths in sportswear start to tear
down the boundaries and accumulate outside of the accepted boundaries
of social etiquette. The obvious, physical violence of the London
riots and the temporary collapse of order was far more emotionally
frightening than the slow creeping rise of energy bills or a loss of
hours at the Tesco garage. The irrational consumerism of the people
who looted London did not involve cueing up, wasting hours of time in
unsatisfying, mechanical labour whilst making amoral, undemocratic,
internationally-reaching corporations rich in the process. This made
the people who rioted different from the average leech, and as such,
liable to be sneered down at with all the more ferocity. In short,
their violence and parasitism was of the socially-unacceptible
variety and that is the only reason why they were held in contempt.
Looting one's environment -
We have to be careful in lumping all
'London looters' into one category, as I may have unwillingly done so
earlier in this article. The initial motive was sensible enough; a
protest against police mistreatment against a community, summarized
by the police illegally and illicit shooting a man, and later trying
to cover it up. Once the rioting kicked off, the message was drowned
in a deluge of frustration and opportunism. Yet we cannot blame the
average, directionless person for looting - anymore than we can blame
anyone else for being who they are.
From the interests of a hopeless,
under-educated, bored teenager, to cause a bit of mayhem is the
'right' thing to do under such circumstances. This 'right' has been
given to them by their environmental surroundings and circumstances:
namely the inability to fulfil the natural command to progress and
find purpose. The 'right' thing to do from the dogmatic ideology of a
conservative government is to punish such 'chaotic' behaviour as
severely as possible, to prove that they are on the side of Order and
the people. Either way, the motives for both sides are the result of
their environment, and not some higher-order of logic or rationality
(with a capital 'R'). The individual actors within their environments
are given their motives by their surroundings - what we might call
'soft determinism'. Whether they choose to act on those motives is up
to them, but the motive itself is not the product of free-choice, and
we have to remember that the motive feels right to them.
The difference between environment and
person is far closer than we may feel comfortable admitting to
ourselves. Our personalities are moulded over time by our environment
and our character can be shaken by traumatic experiences which effect
us suddenly. But character can also be moulded slowly, as dust might
gather upon a mantle top, or limescale collect on the filament of a
kettle. If anything, the slow absorption of one's environment is the
more subtle of the two, and harder to pin down. How am I to tell you
what my motive is when it has been building up slowly inside me for
so long?
The true motive for the London riots
was a feeling of worthlessness and inability. These feelings were not
chosen by each individual actor. How can an actor choose to thrust
himself into emotional and existential turmoil of his own will? How
can such self-doubt and hatred originate from inside an actor's
character? Whether there is a will to deal with one's unfavourable
surroundings is immaterial - the emotional state of being downtrodden
should not exist in the first place. The way to prevent people from
looting and rioting is not to punish them, but to extend a hand and
allow them to become fully fledged parasites in the bosom of our
'democratic' society. Then they might get their fill of blood and
power in a socially acceptible, and suitably polite, manner.
Alternatively, our value system needs to change.
But the next time you think about
criticising the lack of a motives in a person, or even an 'uprising',
ask yourself: where did my motive come from? You may find that it
came from the same place.
St. Zagarus
Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 63
Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 63
