The "children are our future" tack is trite, but it's true: kids are the cornerstone of social change. Children internalize whatever abstract ideas adults find important, then shape these ideas further based on how we teach them and how they evolve as beings. In this banal spectacle of a culture, the most valuable thing we can spend our lives on is raising a rational, empathetic, inquisitive child. I consider it a high priority to make sure that future generations suck less than this one. That's how we go from Jersey Shore fans to the badass cancer-curing space-exploring motherfuckers we are meant to be.
I find the state of discourse deplorable but I'm obviously not going to do my part to produce a better generation. I can't present a coherent philosophy to challenge the upsurge of Randian egotism that dominates the conservative side of politics. I don't plan on taking to the streets, mobilizing, dialoguing, mic-checking, or voting in a goddamned presidential election. My favorite methods of sparking discussion of social issues involve spray paint and therefore legal problems. Apathy, an enemy even greater than stupidity, is simply not an option.
So what's a frustrated armchair philosophette to do? I take to the internet like every other dickhead with an opinion. The power of our connectedness is just as crucial as the power of our spongy-brained spawn. Without even leaving the house we can gain the perspective required to question the fundamentals of everything that our spongy brains once soaked up.
As a person in the process of self-educating (read: a dropout), I'm been free to pursue whatever ideas and subjects catch my interest. I've swapped indoctrination for good ol' personal bias. Naturally, I find this pretty agreeable. For one thing, I can convince myself I'm a true Rennaissance woman with a titanic intellect, even as I expose the depths of my own ignorance.
There is no yardstick of progress here. No one is telling me what to read or what questions I should answer after I read it. It's just me, my books, and the online resources I use to decipher them. Besides the ego boost, this educational shift has brought about a slow and subtle change in my perception of the world--particularly, the things adults assured me really mattered.
To be free of Eurocentrism, and free of the underlying assumption that rational self-interest is an unquestionable principle, is crucial to the development of a good citizen. This isn't to say that being a fan of Ayn Rand, or preferring Western philosophy to Eastern, is wrong; just that once in a fucking while our kids should be exposed to the alternative. I sought out my own exposure. I decided on what made the most sense to me. It's integral to my current level of happiness, and without it, where would I be?
 |
| Liking Ayn Rand isn't wrong, per se, but really, you have bad taste. |
I read a comment on Reddit recently (in r/paleo, of all fucking places--oh Ron Paul acolytes can I never escape you): "Libertarians are most concerned about the smallest and most commonly overlooked minority, the individual."
Cough, splutter. I'm sorry, did you really just say most overlooked? Fucking hilarious.
I'm not incredibly well-traveled--maybe things are different where this commenter grew up--but I'm pretty sure that the bulk of my education emphasized nothing but the importance of the individual. I am special, I have the power to (whatever), the Bill of Rights exists to protect my individual rights, the only rights that are God-given are individual rights that are granted to me, and if anything interferes with my rights then it is wrong as fuck. There is nothing wrong with protecting the rights of the individual, except that in practice it tends to interfere with human rights, it tends to justify overconsumption, it tends to favor privileged groups. If we lived, as the individual-rights crowd seem to believe, in a world where everyone is truly on equal footing and our impact on the world around us is constructive rather than destructive, perhaps glorifying the self over all would be okay. But we don't.
Self-interest is an integral part of our sapience that crosses cultural and chronological divides. We are a well-meaning, but largely self-absorbed, species. And we should be--the ego's need to ensure its own future is one of the driving forces behind the continuation of our species.
I am, however, a believer of most things in moderation (though my bar tab will tell you i'm a non-practicing believer). The glorification of the self has taught us to consider the world to be here for us rather than the other way around. Altruism is dismissed and activism is deemed futile. What good is bettering the world you live in when you will only live in it for a comically brief window of time? Why extend a hand to a fellow human in need when there are other, less draining ways to feel good about yourself?
Because that's childish, short-sighted bullshit, that's why. We are taught that the noblest pursuit is that of individual happiness, that we are special and unique, that the world around us is something to conquer and use. This doctrine of the self is what teaches us to consider the implications of our existence and explore our minds, but our selfishness is taken to destructive extremes all throughout adulthood.
Relentless emphasis on individual liberties allows us to shirk responsibility for the state of the world and the suffering of other beings. If injustice is detected, it is some inherent and unavoidable flaw within an individual or system. We can put a Somebody Else's Problem field around us and get back to life, liberty, and the pursuit of plastic shit.
Humans are able to convince themselves that social change is only worth it if the effects are experienced in our lifetime. Altruism is only worthwhile if it eases the conscience. It's no wonder that the environmental crisis continues to spiral out of control, class divides grow deeper, and xenophobia persists.
We don't see the value in bettering the world if we may not get to experience the effects. Hell, we don't see the value of anything if we can't tie it back to our egos. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is out of the question; the only question worth asking is "Why should I care?" Sometimes, that's a totally valid question to ask. Other times, it's a stupid fucking question to ask.
Christopher Hitchens died the day before my birthday, and I had a drink for him. I did, however, take issue with a lot of the things he said. In particular:
Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish.
To annihilate the self is to recognize that what you think of as your "self" is just a collection of every moment, thought, action, interaction, etc. and that it is constantly changing. To annihilate the self is to accept growth and to shed the constant fears that hold us back: "Will I get what I want?" "Am I Doing It Right?"
And why are compassion and dignity mutually exclusive? Is it so alien to us to consider the idea that you can both respect yourself and feel sympathy or empathy toward the suffering of others? And who the fuck put self-respect on a pedestal when both are crucial to our humanity in different ways? I will never be proud to be called selfish or arrogant. Humanity does not need more selfish, arrogant people. And it's amusing to me that Hitchens, who spoke of the arrogance of organized religion, thinks it's any different when taken out of the religious context.
The other thing I find interesting to observe in children is how they act like little sociopaths. As their concept of the "self" develops, it manifests as extreme selfishness: I don't care how busy you are, what it takes to get it, or whether I even need it--I like that motherfucking toy and I want it. Louis CK illustrates it well:
This is part of our development, and part of our survival. But it's a part that we grow out of. It's not necessarily true that we have to cling to a certain percentage of that original self-absorption until we die.
Self-interest has served us in many ways, but ultimately it's a step to a higher form of rationality. In Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, self-interest is the second stage of six, most commonly found in children. Each stage is crucial to the development of, in this case, a collective consciousness. Considering the rapid growth of technology and the expansion of our global interconnectedness, the time to step up our game is now.
Bear with me here--I'm about to delve into some major hippy-dippy shit.
In order to find peace and be truly free, each of us must de-emphasize the importance of "one" and seek to understand the "all." A temporary dissolution of the self allows for a more accurate sense of scale. It's what draws us to mountaintops and ocean beaches--that brief feeling of insignificance resonates with a part of us that we do not often access. It reminds us that the universe is a big place, much bigger than we are, and we are a part of it whether we like it or not.
But these reactions are involuntary. To strip away the ego takes discipline, and to pull on the strings that connect us to our surroundings takes a lot of mental energy. But we don't really have a choice in the long run. Understanding the connection between us and our surroundings is the only way to evolve as a species. When we are offering crackheads in the street time and care instead of vitriol and punishment, we might see less crackheads in the street. We care for one another or we self-destruct, because it is very much "we" rather than just "a collection of I's." And it's doable if we are given encouragement from an early age to think critically, to argue well, to seek knowledge for its own sake, and to get the fuck over ourselves.
