philosophical assumptions of ours

[Peter Kropotkin]

At this moment, I am reading a book by Isaiah Berlin...
''The crooked Timber of Humanity'' which is, as usual for
Berlin, a series of essays... and the particular essay I am
reading is "The Apotheosis of the Romantic Will'' and he himself says,
that he has done an ''almost unpardonable degree of simplification
generalization'' and came up with the ''central core of intellectual
tradition in the West has, since Plato..... rested upon three
unquestioned dogmas''

A: ''that to all genuine questions there is but one answer and one only.....
thus any other answer is deviations from the truth and therefore
false'' thus any answer that deviates from that ''set'' answer in
regards values, truth, conduct and feelings are wrong... 

B: ''that the true answers to such questions are in principle
knowable''

C: that these true answers cannot clash with each other, for the one true
proposition cannot be incompatible with another... that together these answers
must form a harmonious whole and thus form a logical and coherent system
that compliments each other...

and let us look at each answer... that there is but one answer to the
questions asked...what is the meaning of life? and there is but one
true answer to this question.. be it god, or life itself or finding love,
there is still but one correct answer to this question and all other
answers are by definition, wrong...so if my answer clashes with
your ''truth'' it is by definition, wrong.. regardless of any other
possibilities... and we see many on this site that take this
as the gospel truth... I would say both Age and Wizard hold to this,
the one single truth proposition.... and all other answers are wrong...

B. that the one true answer is, in principle, knowable...
but that too is an assumption... it is quite possible, and indeed probably,
we cannot know, in principle or in real life, know all the necessary answers...
''what is the meaning of life"" it is probably true that we will never find the
answer to that question... that there are huge gaps in our knowledge that
can't be replaced with the ''truth'' or the reality of the situation...
we simply don't know enough to answer dozens if not more questions...

C: that there cannot be a contradiction within these truths..
for any sort of contradiction, means it can't be the truth...
that each truth creates a harmonious whole that forms a coherent
and complete and logical system.. that complements the whole
system...from end to end of the system, the whole backs up the
parts and the parts back up the whole.... systems builders like Hegel
and Kant believe that their systems and their parts, are coherent and
logically connected to each other.

and yet, in looking at their systems, we can see holes and cracks in
their philosophical systems...parts that are not logically connected...
nor coherent... both Kant and Hegel fail in bringing forth
logical and coherent arguments for their respective systems....

and so, it is conceivable that we cannot know the ''truth'',
in knowing the one answer to every question...
for there may not be an answer, in fact, there might be dozens
of correct answers to every single question... and each and every
one of them, both right and wrong... that the point of these questions is
not to create a logical, coherent, with no contradiction's answers....
for I believe that there is no such thing as a system that is logical,
coherent and not contradictory... for every single answer we have, is also
on some level, incoherent, illogical and has contradictions...

there is no set and definitive answer to philosophical questions...
for every single answer creates its own problems in being coherent
and logical.. without contradictions... that is the nature of philosophy...
because it isn't universal/communal with set answers...

for what worked with the Greeks won't work for because we live in a
different, a vastly different set of conditions, environments, and possibilities....
for example, in the Greek world, there were only so many job possibilities.....
but today, today we have literarily millions of job/career possibilities...
that didn't even exist or was even imagined by the Greeks... people
who make a living by going into space, for example...and with so many
vastly different possibilities, we cannot hold to a set series of answers...
for that limits us to only a few set answers that don't always match the
conditions on the ground... we have to have both questions and answers that
are flexible and elastic and malleable because of our ever changing conditions...

we can no longer hold to answers that bind us to a set series of actions...
we must be flexible in both our questions and answers....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

a line from this previously mentioned essay caught my eye...

"Once men's true interests can be made clear"

and this ''true interests'' is supposed to be universal, for everyone...
and yet, what is one person's universal ''true interests'' is not
necessarily another ''true interest''.... my ''true interest''
is philosophy.. and another might be searching for god, or
as many around here do, having ''found'' god, they spend their
time defending god.. their ''true interest'' is god.....
and there can be as many ''true interests'' as they are people....
some devote their lives to sports and others to travel and others
to making money....and who can say, with certainty, that
others ''true interests'' is wrong and my own ''true interests'' is the
right one? I don't have the ''ego'' to make that claim... the claim
of being god....

and what of those who have the ''wrong true interests"...
are they sinners or fools or what? the fact is there is no
such thing as having a ''wrong true interests''
the religious believe that those with the ''wrong true interests''
are somehow, never explained exactly how, but somehow are
a danger to the community... that somehow gays or trans people
are somehow a danger to the community... and must be removed,
eliminated.... that one's ''true interests'' may in fact be in gender,
I cannot dismiss that... but that isn't a danger to the community...
just a difference in opinion... to hold that one's needs are a danger
to the community is to hold that we can declare all needs to be
a danger to the community... not just the one need.. the need for
love is both a biological and a psychological need cannot be denied...
a child deprived of love, dies within the first year of life... love is
essential to our very existence.... and condemning someone because they
love someone you, YOU, disapprove of, isn't something that we
want to engage in or make permanent.... for example, I read a lot,
but it could be decided that I could be more ''productive'' to the society
and thus, my reading could be described as being a ''danger''' and taken
away from... the study of abstract material could be said to be not
productive... to take the idea that only by doing material things is
being productive, is almost the Soviet Union way of thinking about
being productive.... if it isn't ''improving'' the society/state in some
observable fashion, set and material fashion, it is to be discouraged...
but that is someone else deciding on my own ''true interests'' not me...
and are we prepared to allow others to decide what is my own
''true interests?''... the path to hell on earth lies in that direction....
which is why we cannot, cannot dictate to others, such as gays or trans people,
that their own ''true interests'' is not in the societies/state best interest....
if you allow that, then you allow any state/society to dictate our
thoughts, actions and beliefs, as not being in the ''true interests'' of
the state/society....you put the state/society as being the arbiter
of all our actions, behaviors and beliefs... and there is no freedom
or liberty in that state/society....

so, the question becomes, who is to decide what one's ''true interests'' is,
the state/society or ourselves?

Kropotkin

[Alexiev]

At this moment, I am reading a book by Isaiah Berlin...
''The crooked Timber of Humanity'' which is, as usual for
Berlin, a series of essays... and the particular essay I am
reading is "The Apotheosis of the Romantic Will'' and he himself says,
that he has done an ''almost unpardonable degree of simplification
generalization'' and came up with the ''central core of intellectual
tradition in the West has, since Plato..... rested upon three
unquestioned dogmas''

A: ''that to all genuine questions there is but one answer and one only.....
thus any other answer is deviations from the truth and therefore
false'' thus any answer that deviates from that ''set'' answer in
regards values, truth, conduct and feelings are wrong... 

B: ''that the true answers to such questions are in principle
knowable''

C: that these true answers cannot clash with each other, for the one true
proposition cannot be incompatible with another... that together these answers
must form a harmonious whole and thus form a logical and coherent system
that compliments each other...

and let us look at each answer... that there is but one answer to the
questions asked...what is the meaning of life? and there is but one
true answer to this question.. be it god, or life itself or finding love,
there is still but one correct answer to this question and all other
answers are by definition, wrong...so if my answer clashes with
your ''truth'' it is by definition, wrong.. regardless of any other
possibilities... and we see many on this site that take this
as the gospel truth... I would say both Age and Wizard hold to this,
the one single truth proposition.... and all other answers are wrong...

B. that the one true answer is, in principle, knowable...
but that too is an assumption... it is quite possible, and indeed probably,
we cannot know, in principle or in real life, know all the necessary answers...
''what is the meaning of life"" it is probably true that we will never find the
answer to that question... that there are huge gaps in our knowledge that
can't be replaced with the ''truth'' or the reality of the situation...
we simply don't know enough to answer dozens if not more questions...

C: that there cannot be a contradiction within these truths..
for any sort of contradiction, means it can't be the truth...
that each truth creates a harmonious whole that forms a coherent
and complete and logical system.. that complements the whole
system...from end to end of the system, the whole backs up the
parts and the parts back up the whole.... systems builders like Hegel
and Kant believe that their systems and their parts, are coherent and
logically connected to each other.

This seems dated. These assumptions are typical of Modernism. Postmodernism has called them into question. Postmodernism has not been fertile (as far as I can see) in coming up with answers, but its critiques of Modernism have been trenchant. Modernism rested on the assumption that there is one true answer, that the whole can be explained by the parts, and that the universe is harmonious and understandable.

Post modernists see that the whole is often more than the parts (emergence), that truths are not universal or consistent, and that we can reject the master narratives of human history and culture in favor of multiple narratives. Berlin, who died in 1997, is referring to a modernism that has lost some of its cachet.

[Peter Kropotkin]

and yet, there are quite a few people around here who shout about
the ''TRUTH''.. the ''irrefutable Truth'' and if we only listened to them,
we, all of us, would be the wisest people ever... and as far as
this modernism vs postmodernism... I really am not that interested
in that conversation... the very topic leaves me cold...

that there is one truth vs a million truths, has been a topic of
debate for literally centuries... but they do refer to this discussion
as a ''perennial philosophy'' debate... and we should understand it as such...

Kropotkin

[jesse99]

I totally agree. There might not be just one answer to life's biggest questions. Different experiences, contexts, and perspectives can lead to valid and meaningful answers, even if they contradict each other. Buckshot Roulette

[Peter Kropotkin]

let us take this part seriously...

that life has no point, no reason, no meaning....
now what?

that the only option left is suicide?

that we have no logical or livable reason to live... in other words,
that we try to hold life as being worth it if we hold to such
ideals as god, religions, fate, or some other ism that becomes
our reason for living....

the reason I stay alive is because of my belief in god or state, or
capitalism or communism or Hinduism or some other ism or ideology
that give me meaning and purpose....

now note that these isms and ideologies are outside of us...
they don't reside in us... that isms and beliefs such as god
and religions don't exist inside of us, they are beliefs
that we, during the course of a life, have inherited...for
we are not born with isms or ideologies... at some point in time,
we adopt philosophies and isms... we make them our own...
but we aren't born with them... and this is important to note...
that the isms and ideologies that seem to make our lives worth
living don't come from ourselves... we inherit them and make them
our own... which is to say, just as easily we inherit idea's and ism to
live our life, they can just as easily leave us... there is no
permanent or eternal belief/values that stays with us from birth to death...
all values/beliefs are temporary, ''ad hoc'', limited... transitory....

and given the nature of our modern society/state, what values beliefs should
we engage with, hold to? To me anyway, the best myth and idea of
modern society/state is the ''Myth of Sisyphus... of spending our lifetime,
rolling the rock uphill and seeing it then rolling back downhill.. and evermore
our lives is full of drudgery, of rolling that rock uphill and then watching it
go back downhill... our entire life.. is just another form of the hamster
wheel... all our lives...... both of those imagery works for us....
and what are we to do to reclaim our lives as having value and meaning?

the state/society has tried to fill the void by creating the myths of the
value of work and the importance of being a good citizen... of creating
such myths as god and religion and faith and the creation of profits...
all of these are attempts by the state/society to create meaning and
purpose in our lives...

and by their very continuous attempt to create meaning and purpose
in lives, that tells us that life doesn't have any sort of meaning or
purpose, or why would the state/society try so hard to create
this meaning and purpose?

what if the ''Myth of Sisyphus'' was the reality of our lives?

Now what?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

in my last post, I asked, what if our lives were the ''Myth of Sisyphus"
the constant busyness of life without any sort of meaning or purpose
that we associate with it, with life....

Now the question becomes, how do we get/achieve meaning or purpose
in a life that is, for all intent and purpose, is meaningless?

that laying out in the sun has just as meaning as creating the
theory of relativity... what are we to do with that?

it suggests, and nothing more than suggests, that
we are wrong in both our assumptions of what life is
AND what is the meaning and purpose of life...

recall there are two paths to take.. one path is the individual
path and the second path is the collective path.. ''I seek out'',
as opposed to ''we seek out'' for each question, the ''I'' and ''the we'',
offers us different spheres to work in.. the ''I'' is an individual question
offering us our own individual path of exploration and the ''we'' offers
us a collective path of exploration...
part of the problem that I see is that to two, ''I'' and the ''we''
are not the same question... nor do they lend themselves to
the same answers... and maybe that is part of the problem,
that our own individual ''I"' should be part of or including the ''we''...

I would say that part of the frustration we feel as Americans,
is the fact that we don't have a ''we'' side of the equation.....
WE have an "I'' which is to say, we have ''I want to become Rich''
or ""I want to be famous'' or ''I want to buy several houses'"

but in those private and individual ''I"" there is no space for ''we''..
but has been noted in many times and in many ways, that we
are a social creatures... we cannot however hard we try, we cannot
accomplish our individual goals, our needs, without the help
and aid of the state/society.... as long we put our own needs
and desires before the state/society, we will continue to flounder
and be adrift.....or said another way, we will not have meaning or
purpose unless we include others in that meaning and purpose....

we can no longer say, "I'' am without saying ''We are''... and I
suspect that is why we are alone, separated, alienated from
each other... we take the ''I'' as being our goal, meaning, when
we should be talking about the ''we'' of existence....

and that is why, perhaps, that we feel we have no meaning or
purpose in our life... because meaning and purpose is found
in the ''we'', not in the ''I''....

So, the busyness of our existence, the ongoing task of pushing that
boulder up that hill and then the despair of watching that have no
meaning, or purpose... that is, right now anyway, the essential
myth of our times... for no other myth captures the essence
of our times better than the Myth of Sisyphus....

and the question becomes, how do we overcome that myth to
return our lives into lives of meaning and purpose?

we can see that the answer seems to be to include the
collective ''we''... I have been married for 27 years,
the day in and day out of our lives is a perfect example
of rolling that boulder up the hill and watching it go downhill
every single night.. for the work we do, never ends, never slows
down.. it is just an ongoing meaningless of existence that is our
lives... I spend my days, helping people check out their groceries...
(I am permanently at self checkout these days, so I don't scan the items
myself anymore.. I did that for 13 or 14 years)
and where is the end of the line in checking out groceries?
there is none.. it never ends... every single day, I watch hundreds
of people check out their stuff.. some days are slower than others,
but it never ends or stops... the ongoing process of this daily grind,
doesn't end.... so, how am I going to find meaning or purpose in
this ongoing activity? I do what everyone does when they find themselves
in an endless process that never slows down or changes... I simply ''forget''
the daily grind and focus on the moment... I see each person trying to
get though the day as quickly as they can... to move onto ''more'' important
stuff.... there is no other meaning in their buying good other than fulfilling their
needs... all the way around, this business of selling groceries and buying
groceries, has no point or meaning outside of filling our basic needs of
the moment...is that enough? I guess it has to be....
for what other meaning or purpose can we give to this ongoing Sisyphean
actions of the grocery business?

and I return to work tomorrow, after a couple of days off and what will I do for
the next 5 hours I work? three guesses and the first two don't count....
where can I find meaning and purpose in those hours of pushing that
rock uphill?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

in this post I intend to write about the rationalist and
the fool.. for they are often the same person....

we have rationalists who proclaim the ultimate virtue of rationalism...
and we have ''fool's'' who proclaim the ultimate virtue of illogical/emotionalism..
and heaven forbid the two shall ever meet... but the irrational exists..
in Hamlet soliloquy of ''To be or not to be'' that is not a rationalists speech...
that is a speech of the heart, not of the head...and the very act of falling
in love, that is not rationalism... but we also have rationalism...
where reason and logic rule the day.... but how do we reconcile these two
opposing forces?

by the ''knowing'' their purpose and place...and to ''know''
when to give rationalism its due and ''knowing'' when to give
irrationalism its due...the very point of point requires that
we know what end we are trying to achieve...

if I were to fall in love... would I operate with rationalism and logic and
reasoning? no, a thousand times no.... for falling in love is irrational
and illogical and makes no sense at all... and yet, that is the very thing
all human beings, whether they realize it or not....
one of the primary needs of human beings is love.. it is as important
as food and water and shelter...along with other psychological needs of
belonging and safety/security.. and having the esteem of others....

in a very real sense, life without meeting these psychological needs
is empty and pointless...certainly not worth living....

but Kropotkin, how do we ''know'' when it's time for irrationalism
and how do we know it's time for rationalism?

the moment declares itself when we find out the goal of the moment...
we can know by the difference of the goal.. in rationalism, I am
discovering what the world is, in irrationalism, I already know
what the world is, I am trying to be in love, and I don't need to know
what that is... I am simply trying to live within it.. nothing more...
quite often in irrationalism, we are ''fuzzy''.. for what is the goal in being
in love? being more in love.. if that is possible... we don't want to lose
that hot spotlight of love..... like performers on stage...we want that
spotlight on us at all times... the spotlight of love...with the other
of our passion.....

at different times, we need that passion and drive to be with the one we love...
and other times, we need to be logical and rational and reasoning...
for the moment calls for that.. and other moments call for the extreme
emotionalism of love... and sometimes we need to be in between the two...
in the middle between rationalism and irrationalism...

at times, emotionalism and irrationalism gives us truths that we
can't find any other way... for example, rationalism will not give
us any truths about love or being in love...

we cannot depend on either rationalism or irrationalism to find the answer...
sometime one or the other is the answer... and we often times must
depend on that part which is not our strength to find our answers....
I am not strong on emotionalism or irrationalism....
but my wife is... and so, quite often I depend on her to guide
me in illogical, irrational situations... and I help her in logical,
rational situations..... combined, our strength and weaknesses
equal out... and her strength are my weaknesses and her weakness
is my strength...... and that quite often is the beauty of a relationship...

what are your strengths and what are your weaknesses?
and how do you overcome those weaknesses?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and now we connect this question of the ''Myth of Sisyphus''
and this question of us being in a ''god-world'' or a ''no-god world?''

as we spend our time understanding the ''human condition'' is
this in a ''god or a no-god world?''

as an atheist, I must admit to some frustration with this idea
of if its good, that is god, and if it is not good, that is because
of human beings... god gets all the credit, but never the blame...
and so for me, if god gets the credit and then he gets the blame,
or he doesn't, then he doesn't get anything...no credit and no blame....

anyway, that is my own personal beef.... back at the ranch...
how do we reconcile the ''Myth of Sisyphus'' in a god or no god world?

now one may claim that this world is not a world within a ''Sisyphus''
world... that god himself gives this world meaning...if that is true,
then no matter what we do, it is irrelevant... because only god matters...
and here we hit the entire medieval point of view... we are irrelevant...

we are a possession, no different than cattle or sheep...Perhaps a more
valued possession, but a possession, nevertheless.... and that is our only
function in a ''god world''...and if we are simply a possession, then our lives,
our ''Sisyphean'' world is a punishment of human beings....and all of human existence
is simply one variation or another, of the ''myth of Sisyphus''
and we have to find salvation as best we can...

In a ''no-god'' world... we are the creators of our ''Myth of Sisyphus''..
and we are punishing ourselves.. but ask yourself, what is our crime then?
what did we do that was so terrible, that we had to enable this
''Myth of Sisyphus'' on human beings, including ourselves?
Who is being punished and why?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

In rereading Camus, I had forgotten a major point of his,
or perhaps I am just reading into Camus a major point...

that it is absurd to spend our lives literally killing ourselves over
work, when whatever benefits we get from that work, ends at death....
Life is ridiculous/absurd, (depending on one's point of view)
considering we gain absolutely nothing in our lives because
everything is taken away at death...

We are told we must be good citizens and good consumers and good
producers and workers.. but to what end? to be able to buy a
56-inch TV set, that will break down in a couple of years?
or buy that truck that will make us sexier to the ladies,
and trade in that truck a few years later?

we live in a state of ''forgetting'' or perhaps amnesia might be a better word,
that at the end of our lives is death... perhaps it was Shakespear said it best
about life:

''Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his
hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told
by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing''

and today is my hour on the stage... and soon I will be no more,
leaving nothing behind except for thousands of books...which my wife,
assuming she still lives, will simply give away or dump them into some
dumpster... and what will remain of Kropotkin? Vague memories that
soon turned not being able to remember what I looked like...
and my words, my millions of words that I have posted on various
philosophy websites? not only forgotten but as they have no
physical presence, they have no permanent place... they too
are forgotten..

and what does this mean for our very busy lives? the notion
that we should ''stop and smell the roses'' has greater meaning
because there is no other possibility because no matter how fast
we go, we cannot escape our final fate... so, you may as well slow
down... why go fast when the ending is exactly the same,
speed is irrelevant to the final outcome...

what are the things one remembers on that final day?
will you remember spending your life working on various
work projects? or will you remember spending time with your
loved ones? it is the meaningful things that matter in our
day to day lives? and work ain't it... work is simply to put
food on the table and a roof over our head... and does that
give us meaning and value in our lives? I don't see how.....

work in a very real sense, is anti-life... it prevents us from
having a life that has some meaning and purpose... even if we
define life as simply allowing us moments of beauty...
which counts as much as spending 40 years killing ourselves
at work... a beautiful moment has as much value as anything else
we do.... so why not seek out those moments of beauty?
forsake work for seeking out even a moment of beauty..

Do you wonder why the recent solar eclipse was so talked about
on the news and in our lives? Because our lives are so empty, that
it gave us something to engage with, in working,
we may as well spend our lives shuffling around pieces of paper
and then calling it a ''well spent life".....

it is absurd or ridiculous, whatever word you wish to use,
that we spend our lives working instead of just looking for
beautiful moments because at least one of them,
has some modest value of giving us pleasure...
and the other? Is just wasting our lives...


Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and where is my failure in all of this?

I failed in the basic precepts of philosophy..
I failed to examined life...
recall our Socratic Motto:

The unexamined life isn't worth living...

and I failed to follow that precept...I failed to examined
the costs, and there were termendious cost to my
failure to examine the American path of being a ''good citizen''
being a ''good consumer'' of being a ''good producer''...
and the cost of my failure is having a broken down body...
I can barely walk and I am in pain all the time...
and that comes from my constant working since I was 17...

my failure also arises from my failure to practice the basic
''reevaluation of values'' I was indoctrinated with a strong work
ethic.. to be a ''good worker'' instead of an examination of
those values of being a ''good worker'' being a ''good producer''
being a ''good consumer''... had I engaged with a ''reevaluation
of values'' when I was young, I could have avoided my 45 plus years
of worthless effort..

What does it mean to be human, is connected up with the Kantian
idea of ''what am I to do?" is being human really about spending decades
on producing wealth or creating profits? and all of these thoughts
must be tied up into the knowing that no matter what we do,
the final act is death... and in death, we have nothing to show
for our decades of work... death takes away any meaning or
purpose we might have... but Kropotkin, why are you taking
people's reason to live? Why are taking that away from them?

Because the American dream is an lie... meant to make us waste our
lives in trivial matters like making money/profits...when seeking our
moments of beauty have just as much value, and one could argue
has a greater value in our lives than work...

the point here is to question what is the point of spending 40 years, or more,
in working for wealth when that wealth after 40 years of slavery is
barely enough to have 10 years of retirement...Most Americans report
having little or no retirement saved up... and some might blame
those people, but the American way of life is, by design, is to leave
people broke throughout their lives...when the point of existence is
to make money/profits, then that is literally the only point/reason for existence...

our happiness, as promised by the Declaration of Independence, in which it
says:

''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness''

and if I am seeking wealth/profits my whole life, what about my
own life and my own pursuit of happiness? Corporations, indeed
the entire system of capitalism has no problems sacrificing any or
all of its workers in order to make profits.. for that is the proclaimed
value of capitalism, not the workers or their values, but profits...
profits first, everything second including the lives of the workers...

and my failure lies in the failure to understand that capitalism
will easily and happily sacrifice me for greater profits....
there is no benefit to spend our entire lives working for profits,
as we will only see a very small portion of that wealth..
just enough to lead lives barely above being destitute...
and having no money to retire on.... what is the value of
spending our lives working? I failed to examine that when I
was young and now, now I am paying the cost... I have, maybe
enough money to retire for 4 years, possibly 5 years of retirement..
and I am not alone, not by any means....

and one might say, but Kropotkin, I have plenty of money to retire on,
and that is missing the point... how much of your life did you
have to sacrifice to gain that wealth? there is nothing to be gained
from working all your life... so, Kropotkin, what is the alternative?

that indeed is the question....and that is what we should be examining...
what we should be engaged in philosophy about....

''What am I to do?'' ''What are we to do?"
in leu of working? What is left?

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

I have to aks myself 'what are my values', keter.

[Peter Kropotkin]

and the question of ''What are my values'' is not just
about our own values, but the values given to us by the society,
the state... legally, politically, socially, economically,
and philosophically... what values does the state/society
actually hold and are those my own values?

for most of us, we have just accepted our indoctrinated values..
values given to us by family, education, media, the state,
religion, and yes, even those economic values like capitalism...
is pursing profits really a value we need or want in our own personal
AND within our society, state values?

we have to look at all values, not just ours.. but all values
that are indoctrinated into us...what values, within a community,
social context, are really my own values?

and do those values advance what it means to be human?
capitalism devalues us, dehumanizes us and so, I reject
capitalism as a value system... which leads to, or should lead us
to examining what system should we have that doesn't devalue us,
but brings us to becoming more human? that is the values
and system we should be engaged with....

Kropotkin

[promethean75]

Even my anti-conformism is fake, keter. I can't even be a rebel today becuz it's already a trend, a commodity, and I'm just conforming to another spook, playing another role as Anarchist or Nihilist rather than an individual anarchist or nihilist.