Wednesday 30 December 2009

How Many Roads Must A Man Walk Down? (42)

Nothing overtly political or patriotic today, I'm feeling philosophical.

If I haven't mentioned it already (and I'm sure I have), I'm an atheist. I.e. religion is a load of crap, shat out of the mouths of assorted power-hungry manipulative cunts. Well, organised religion, at least. Science, however, makes sense. (And no, I'm not interested in a debate as to how compatible they are, and I accept that I'm speaking in broad, extreme terms, etc. - I'm just setting the scene.)

Science can, of course, offer a plethora of provable, reliable answers, in a way that religion, by its very nature, cannot. So let's ask the big one:

"Why are we here?"

Ah, shit, I just broke the universe.

Obviously, science, by its own very nature, cannot answer this. Because, logically, there isn't an answer.

We are here by total, random chance - and nothing more. We are born, we live, we die. Fin. We have no purpose: there is no sense in giving someone a task without telling them, and any purpose given that doesn't require this (as in Douglas Adams' brilliant Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy, where we are here to discover a question for a bunch of mice) is so individually mundane it makes no difference - in such cases there is purpose for society; what the individual does is of no real importance.

I know this may sound weird coming from a socialist, but that's an economic term, not philosophical. And besides, individuality is still important even in the most socialist of societies.

So why do we all bother, if what we're doing has no purpose? Obviously, many will give themselves their own purpose, be it from religion or simple willpower. But such purposes strike me as being just as pointless as no purpose - even if you do everything you want to do, and kick the bucket as the happiest person on Earth- or, hell, in the Universe for that matter - you're still dying, taking none of your achievements with you (not that there's anywhere to go), and no real part of you will remain in any sort of working state. In short: no matter what you do, you'll be just as dead as everyone else.

And yet we go, still motivated by meaningless goals or ideals. How anyone can actually care about anything whilst still accepting the above is beyond me, yet I'm just as guilty (for lack of a better term, I'm not calling everyone a convict) as everyone else.

My only justification (and I've got a funny feeling that I've gone on about this before) is that since we are here by such pure random chance, we might as well get as much from life as possible, otherwise it's just a waste. Death will wait, it's just another, terminal state of life, but since it's the only one that's completely inevitable, might as well leave it till last.

Other than that, however, I see no other reason to want anything, to be ambitious, or to be motivated. And even if everything gets fucked up the arse, no big disaster, since there's no real loss.

And if all that sounds morbid, and depressing, just go and watch some Monty Python, that'll cheer you up.

Friday 25 December 2009

Oi, Santa! Pass Us That Bottle, Will You...

In the words of Noddy Holder:

"IT'S CHRISTMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!"

Oh fuck off.

Any sort of lovechild from Religion and Capitalism is bound to be a disaster, and, lo and behold, it is. It's easy to simply ask, "what is the point?" but this fails on two respects: one, if there is no point to life, as I believe, then logically, there is no point to Christmas, and two, there is something much more cynical going on here.

Yes, it's a cliché, but Christmas is not a Christian festival, and never was. Any and every "primitive" culture had some sort of festival to mark the Winter Solstice, and rather than spend effort on removing it, the Church simply absorbed its own traditions into the festival, in a great big religious con.

But there was another ingredient, one that's developed over time. Corporate greed injected consumerism into the day, just as with every other half-festival, admittedly, but there seems to be more emphasis on Christmas than on any other event. We are encouraged - directly or otherwise - to spend, spend, spend on other people, and that we reap the virtuous rewards of giving - whilst giving the most to the fat cunts, of course.

I will admit that I spent all day in Cardiff's brand new Temple of Capitalism (sponsored by the DFS half price sale) buying shite for other people, simply because it's easier in the long run. To say after 18 years that I am to utterly shun Christmas in all it's forms sounds good on paper, but you try explaining that to the grandparents. It's now so ingrained into our social conscience that it's almost impossible to ignore, and even then, my suggestions that we all just chip in a tenner and call it "Christmas" fell on deaf ears.

I can accept the now secular nature of it, it's just a part of a wider culture. I can just about accept the consumerist nature; if you accept, regrettably, that we live in a Capitalistic society then, by default, it is society's fault, not "Christmas'".

But I can never lose that nagging feeling that it's all pure escapism: "Yes, I've done shit things all year and been a horrible bastard, but on Christmas Day everything's fine, and I can pretend to be this perfect person. Of course I'm a conscientious person, look how much I work with charity every Christmas, even though I can afford to give and help all year round."

Yes, escapism is good thing, and uffach, I feel escapist every other minute. It's not what actually happens itself that gets me, I always get some sort of enjoyment from the day, but there's a sinister edge here, that people aren't aware of, and that unsettles me. More unsettling, personally, is that for all my ranting and raving, I'm just as bad as the rest of them.

This has probably all been said before, and in a much clearer way than someone with half a bottle of wine attacking their liver, but fuck it. I can only end with a nice little phrase that can describe nearly every single thing in the universe:

Pathetic, isn't it?

Thursday 24 December 2009

A Pig on the Wing

Let's all ignore the past six months in a very nonchalant manner. Good, now that that's over...

Here's a thought: lesbians.

Here's an altogether, much deeper and profound thought: at what point do two seemingly compatible ideals clash?

If you completely missed the title, I am a Socialist, and all that comes with it. I'm also a Welsh Patriot, and a Liberalist. All good and fine? Here's the problem:

I try not to use the word "extreme" to describe my Socialist beliefs; I'm not about to blow myself up in the hope of getting half a million virgins to join me in the Great Gig in the Sky, so "strong" will have to do. Either way, a tenet of Socialism is the nationalisation, i.e. state control, of banks (ha!), utilities and businesses. Sounds good so far.

But Liberalism, by its very definition, means that everyone is free to think, say, and do as they please. So would I, as a hypothetical Head of State, have the right to take control of a business, and prevent it from trading, for whatever reason, for "the greater good"? And I know this idea has been milked so much that the cow resembles my bedroom floor after my 18th (and please don't throw Harry Potter at me, those books are big, and likely to hurt).

The question of a state also comes into it, though to a lesser extent: this all makes the state much more powerful, yet I would see no national boundaries, and the reduction of state power. Though please note that I can get around the whole Wales thing by pointing out the difference between, what I perceive as "patriotism" and "nationalism": I'm a patriot, not a nationalist. I think I've explained the difference, to me, somewhere on here, if not, I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point between now and the inevitable time when I see a bucket and get the uncontrollable urge to kick it.

But I digress.

This is the underlying problem with all ideals: to what extent are they compatible? I've always said that we're all hypocrites, myself included; how else can you describe a nihilist or existentialist (Sartre and Camus eat your hearts out. Oh wait, you're both dead... Moving swiftly on...) who sees absolutely no point or value in suicide?

Who wins in the battle of ideals? What is more important? Economic and Social fairness, or total freedom (which, incidentally, could lead straight to Capitalism. Argh!)? My gut says freedom, within a society with no government, or bureaucratic red tape that stopped me from expressing my opinion properly for 18 years, in a sort of Marxist/Socialist state that works properly, i.e. a Socialist Utopia, which I'll get around to defining properly one of these days, even if it is essentially unworkable.

Of course, there is a total compromise between them all, it's called "New Labour," apparently.

Oh shit.


Anyway, to end on a lighter note, tune in in approx. 24 hours for the first ever Christmas Special! That is, if I remember to write it...