10/30/2021
Living in a Crisis Age, published in the most recent issue of the annual magazine Informed Reading. This essay was originally published in 2020 in response to current events, and is now making a comeback in 2021 for compelling reasons. In some ways, we overestimate the epidemic. "Are We Living in a Decade of Crisis?" Why, as you would have lived in the 16th century, when the plague visited London almost annually, or as you would have lived in the Viking Age, when Scandinavian raiders could land and cut your throat in the night, or indeed, as you already live in an age of cancer, syphilis, paralysis, air aids, railway accidents, and motor accidents. In other words, let us refrain from exaggerating our singularity. Believe me, dear Sir or Madam, you were sentenced to death prior to the pandemic, and a significant portion of those sentenced to death would die in less than honorable ways.
We had one significant advantage over our forefathers, which we have retained: aesthetics. It is ridiculous to go around sobbing and making long faces, because scientists have added another possibility of painful and premature death to a world already brimming with them, in which death is not a possibility, but a certainty. This is the first point to make. And the first step is to reassemble. If a pandemic will wipe us all out, let it strike when it does. Discover how we behave rationally and humanly. Instead of huddling together like fearful sheep and obsessing over the virus, we should pray, work, teach, read, listen to music, praising the children, and converse with our friends over a pint of beer while playing darts. They do not have to take over our thinking. Your response, on the other hand, indicates that we are unconcerned about death, even painful and premature death. Of course, this is not a novel possibility. What is novel is the possibility that a pandemic could eventually destroy civilization entirely. It is possible to turn off the lights indefinitely. This brings us much closer to the true point. Permit me, however, to attempt to express precisely what I believe is the point.
Prior to the advent of Coronavirus, what were your views on civilization's ultimate fate? What did you believe would be the ultimate outcome of humanity's efforts? Almost anyone with even a passing familiarity with science knows the correct answer. Surprisingly, it receives scant attention. And virtually without a doubt, the true answer is that the entire drama will end in oblivion, with or without global pandemics. Astronomers are pessimistic about this planet ever becoming habitable. Organic life, according to physicists, will always be possible in any region of the material world. So depleted. Nature is on the verge of collapsing, and world leaders continue to discuss the life force as if it could continue unabated. This, however, is due to an exclusive focus on biology and a disregard for other sciences. In reality, such hope does not exist. Nature, in the long run, is hostile to life. If nature is all that exists. In other words, if there is no God and no life beyond nature, all stories will end in the same way. In a universe without life. Without the possibility of return, it will have been an accidental flicker that no one will remember. Without a doubt, a pandemic may have cut their time on earth short. Even if it lasted billions of years, it must have been so brief compared to the seas of dead time that preceded and followed it that it's difficult to be optimistic about its conclusion.
War, weather, another of those cyclical Ice Ages, and the pandemic have all starkly reminded us of the world we lived in prior to 2020. We had fallen into a state of forgetfulness. And, in that regard, this reminder is advantageous. We've awoken from a beautiful dream. And now, having been awakened to the idea that the critical question is not whether a virus will destroy civilization, but rather what kind of civilization it will be, we can begin discussing instantaneous realities. The critical question is whether science's subject, nature, is the sole thing that exists. Because if the second question is affirmative, the first question examines whether the inevitable frustrations associated with all human endeavors can be accelerated through our own efforts, rather than occurring naturally. Naturally, this is a significant issue for us.
Even if you are on a ship almost certain to sink, anyone could miss the news that the boiler could blow up at any moment. Individuals who knew the ship was sinking, on the other hand, would be less enthusiastic than those who had forgotten and hoped it would make it somewhere. We must decide solely on the second question. And let us begin by assuming that nature is all that exists. Apart from this pointless dance of atoms in space and time, I assume nothing has ever existed or will ever exist. This accounts for the fact that there are hundreds of possibilities. Unfortunately, it has resulted in things like us, conscious beings who now recognize that their own consciousness is an unintended consequence of the entire meaningless process, and thus so meaningless to us. Unfortunately, it has a sense of significance. In this case, there are, in my opinion, three possible outcomes. One, you could commit su***de; and two, nature has inadvertently bestowed your agony on me. This consciousness, which seeks meaning and value in an otherwise meaningless universe, has fortunately provided me with the means to eliminate it. I returned the unwelcome gift. I will no longer be deceived. You might simply want to have a good time.
Although the universe is absurd, make the most of your time here. Unfortunately, there is still much to seize, most notably sensual pleasure. You are unable to do so, except in the most rudimentary animal sense. If you know a girl, fall in love with her, but keep in mind that all the beauty in her person and character is the result of momentary and accidental patterns created by colliding atoms, and that your own response to them is merely a sort of psychic phosphorescence caused by your genes' behavior. You can no longer derive genuine pleasure from music. If you understand and remember that each area of significance is an illusion, that you enjoy it only because your nervous system has been trained to enjoy it, you may still have a pleasant time. However, only to the extent that it becomes apparent, only to the extent that it threatens to draw you away from icy sensuality and toward genuine warmth, excitement, and delight. Thus far, you'll have encountered the unavoidable dissonance between your own emotions and the universe in which you truly exist. By declaring, "Let the universe be insane," you can defy the cosmos. I am not being opportunistic. I will be pardoned. Regardless of the strange tones it has elicited in me now that I am here, I will live according to human ideals. I am confident that in the end, the universe will triumph. What does that mean to me? I will perish in the midst of this squandering. I will not surrender. In the midst of all this rivalry. I will make sacrifices, but ultimately, the universe will decide. I'm guessing that most of us, while remaining materialists, oscillate between the second and third positions in an unsatisfactory manner. And, while the third is unquestionably the best, it also has a significantly higher probability of retaining civilization than those shipwrecked on the same rock at Rock. The second exemplifies the conflict that exists between our own souls and nature. The third appears to avoid a stumbling block by admitting and defying discord from the start, but this will not work. You employ it to contrast our own human standards with the universe's idiocy. That is, we speak as if our personal standards are distinct from and comparable to the universe. As if some fictitious standard could judge the universe. If, on the other hand, we assume that nature's space-time matter system is the only thing that exists, then our standard cannot come from any other source. They, like everything else, must be the unintended and meaningless result of blind forces far from being nature's judge. They are simply the sensations felt by our species' anthropoids when the atoms beneath our own skulls attain certain states. Cause-induced states are illogical, inconsistent with human nature, and immoral. That is the basis for our definition of nature, and it is collapsing beneath our feet. Our gold standard is tainted at the source. If we base our standards on this meaningless reality, they must also be meaningless. I believe such concepts must be considered before giving the opposing viewpoint an honest hearing. Naturalism will always bring us to this final and hopeless disjunction between what our thoughts assert and what they must be. If naturalism is genuine, they assert they are spirits capable of comprehending universal intellectual truths and moral standards, as well as exercising free will. If naturalism is correct, however, they must be essentially atomic configurations created by irrational causality in skulls. We never believe something solely on the basis of its truthfulness. We contemplate it only because nature's blindness compels us to do so. We never act in an altruistic manner. We do so only due to our blind nature. After confronting this absurd conclusion, one is finally prepared to listen to the whispering voice, "I believe we are spirits." Assume we are not nature's offspring. Indeed, the naturalistic conclusion is implausible.
To begin, it is only possible if we have faith in our own minds. If nature appears to teach us, that is, if the sciences teach us that our own thoughts are random configurations of atoms, then there must have been an error, or else the sciences would be called into question. There is no reason for us to believe in them. We should have no reason to believe in them. arrangement of atoms, and we should have no reason to believe in them. There is only one way to escape this stalemate. We must return to a much more primitive state of mind. We must simply acknowledge that we are spirits, rational, autonomous beings trapped in an irrational reality. And let us conclude that we are not its descendants. We are visitors to this country. We originate in a different location. Nature is not the only way to exist. There exists a parallel universe. That is where we came from. Which explains why we feel as if we're not at home here. A fish is at ease in the water. We were supposed to be in this location. We should feel at ease in this location. All that we say about nature, red in tooth and claw, about death, time, and mutability, all our half-amused, half-bashful attitudes toward our own bodies, all our half-amused, half-bashful attitudes toward our own bodies, are unintelligible on the assumption that we are fundamentally natural animals. If this is the entire world, why do its laws strike us as frightening or amusing? If no other straight line exists, why not? How did we discover that the straight line of nature is crooked? However, what then is nature? And how did we end up imprisoned in such an alien system? Surprisingly, the question takes on a much less sinister tone. When one understands that not all of nature is our mother. She is an awe-inspiring, if not repulsive figure. However, if she is simply our sister, if we share a common creator, if she is simply our sparring partner, the situation is bearable. Perhaps we are not captives, but colonizers, given our treatment of the dog, horse, and daffodil. Indeed, this is an arduous job. committed to her. There are elements of evil in this that date back to powers and principalities, and everything appears fantastical to a modern reader. This is not the appropriate forum for these inquiries, and they should not be prioritized. It is sufficient to emphasize that nature, like humans, is profoundly estranged from her Creator. As was the case in the United States, however, assertions of ancient beauty persisted. They do however exist, and their purpose is to be enjoyed, not revered. It instructs us in nothing. It is our responsibility, not hers, to live by our own code, to follow the law of love and temperance in private and public life, even when they appear suicidal, rather than the law of rivalry and grab, even when they are necessary for our survival, because this is part of our spiritual law. Never put survival first, not even the survival of our species. We must actively train ourselves to believe that man's survival on this planet, let alone within our own nation or cultural class, is unworthy of pursuit, even if it can be accomplished in noble and humanitarian ways. The price is not as prohibitively high as it appears. Nothing more than an insatiable desire to survive at all costs is more likely to result in the extinction of a species or nation. Those who value civilization above all else are the only ones likely to preserve it. Those who have the greatest desire for heaven have been the most beneficial to us. Those who despise man more than God make the greatest sacrifices on his behalf.
