Santa Land

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Rich

You wake up one day and notice that everything around you feels a little extra… Christmasy. Women around you don tiny pendants of reindeer antlers around their necks. Some cars have plastic emblems of Christmas tree ornaments on the back. There are buildings dedicated to the celebration of Saint Nick on almost every other city block.

At first it seems kind of fun. Kind of quaint. It’s Christmas every day!

But then you talk to the people around you. You start to realize that Santa isn’t just a fun story to go along with gift giving. He’s their god. They believe he is real. You notice big black billboards with black and white pictures of sad looking children that have big white block letters that say, “Have you been naughty or nice?” You rush home and turn on the news. You see reports of suicide bombings in other countries, all done in the name of the holiest of elves. You switch the channel to see a politician who believes that the world was made in a factory by elves and that this belief should be taught in schools. People knock on your door and tell you to prepare, that Santa is returning and will either bring life or death depending on whether you have been naughty or nice. Some people give up their livelihoods to live in foreign countries and spread the word of Christmas to people who have never had the chance to understand the miracle that happens on December 25th. Also the country you live in has increased security measures in order to protect you from other violent Santa loving sects. Travel is more difficult and many are put on watch lists for speaking out against the new restrictions.

Your head spins at this madness. You don’t know what to do. You look up your family and friends in this alternate reality and tell them that you do not believe in Santa Claus. Some are just amused that you would say something so naive, others become enraged. You feel alone and wonder if you are insane. Most of the world seems to believe Santa Claus, the elves and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer are all real and once lived on the North Pole. Speaking of the North Pole, it is a war torn land occupied by two different Santa Claus worshipping sects, both believing that the land there is their own. Thousands are killed every year in missile attacks, suicide bombings and brutal military beatings. You are just lucky that you ended up in part of the world where you are only laughed at or yelled at for your lack of belief.

Then you wake up from this nightmare, but nothing has really changed. Because you are an atheist. And the world seems just as insane.

Posted in Philosophy, Psychology | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Idealist Within

Posted on September 27, 2011 by Rich

I am an idealist. That’s not accurate. A part of me is an idealist. I forget that sometimes, especially when suddenly and unexpectedly that side of me has the proverbial steering wheel. It has been the most difficult part of my personality to integrate because it doesn’t want to be integrated. That side of me sees anything outside of its own conclusions as wrong and any sort of cooperation as a compromise. So I often end up just pushing it to the back seat as a result.

Today I got into the much dreaded Facebook argument. I posted a politically charged article and made fun of it. Consciously I thought I was just being funny. But deep down inside the idealist within was priming my Facebook page for a political debate. I fell right into my own trap.

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been much more politically toned down than I used to be. Most of my posts on Facebook and other social outlets are more geared towards humor or my non-politically-polarizing passions. That has been a conscious effort, mainly because I no longer find discussing politics to be enjoyable. But in that conscious effort I did stifle the idealistic part of me. So it came as no surprise today when I was easily pulled into a political debate that went nowhere.

I realized this a bit too late and after some snarky comments (a couple on my part) I decided to delete the entire thread. I did this because I was not proud of my interaction. It wasn’t a true reflection of who I am completely. It was just one voice and I did little to consult with the other parts of myself before I ran full speed ahead into the wall of politics.

To those involved I sent messages to help them understand my mindset and apologize for any behavior that I was not proud of.

So what does this mean for the future of the idealist side of myself? It’s tough to negotiate with a part of me that doesn’t want to negotiate. Because I am at an impasse, I am more prone to butt heads with other idealists. I can’t just stuff that side of me down again though, otherwise I’ll end up barreling head first into ideological discussions without being curious or pursuing the truth.

I want to see the truth of the world and an idealist is great at cutting through the bullshit. The flip side of an idealist is being not being able to accept things and people for what they currently are. It becomes extraordinarily frustrating to view the world through the lens of an idealist. No peace can ever be found because he wants the world to be perfect, and the world never will be. So I understand the virtue in having that part of my personality but I also see the problems with giving it complete control of who I am.

I’d like to end this by saying I have it figured out, but I really don’t. The idealist in me no longer has driving privileges and it has been a peaceful ride up until lately. Now he’s grasping for the wheel again and I do not know what to do. There has to be a compromise without making him cringe at the word.

Good Enough

Good enough is another theme that makes the idealistic side of me cringe. It’s a concept I have been struggling with, but is the only concept I have found that brings me peace. Another concept that goes hand in hand with idealism is perfectionism, so you perfectionists might understand what I am talking about as much as the idealists do.

I know that everyone doesn’t have the fervent passion for knowledge that I do. I try to say that without feeling condescending towards others, but even I cringe a little typing that. What I dislike about people not having that passion is the fear of my own limits. Right now for example. I am in conflict with myself and don’t know how much effort I have to put into this dilemma. This is a struggle to see reality for what it is and the idealist within feels insulted by the challenge that it is not seeing reality for what it is. I almost want to throw my hands up and give up trying for an inner reconciliation but I know that giving up would probably just make things worse.

If one good lesson is to be learned form any of this is further understanding of my own and others limits for trying to understand reality. Accepting that in myself and in others is the big challenge.

Posted in Philosophy, Psychology | Comments Off

Darmok and Jalad

Posted on July 4, 2011 by Rich

A few days after my post about the concept continuum, I remembered this episode of Star Trek.

I think it is a good way of showing how concepts are used at different parts of the continuum. Some use metaphor to communicate where others user more refined concepts.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off

Concept Continuum

Posted on June 25, 2011 by Rich

I’ve been struggling to put an idea I have into words.  I think it may be better suited as a visual representation since the very concept I am talking about is, well, concepts.

However, every time I try to draw it out I am unsatisfied.  I tried drawing it as an upside down cake and a graph on an x an y axis.  Both visuals didn’t quite encompass what I wanted to convey.  So I’ll stick to my skill set and try to describe my view on concepts using concepts.

I see concepts as a continuum.  (The following is a bit of a wild ride and may just confuse and frustrate more than further illuminate, so you may want to skip to the conclusion first and then go back to reading this.)

But before I talk about the continuum of concepts I first want to try my best to define what concepts are in simple language.  This may be a bit insulting to the ears of a philosopher, but I am not trying to speak only to philosophers.  I want most people to understand this.  A concept is an idea.  As humans we represent concepts with symbols.  For example we represent a quantity with the concept of numbers.  The symbols we use for these numbers (in English at least) are 1,2,3,4 etc…  Most of us go about our lives using these symbols and concepts in a completely automatic and natural way.  Even those who think about what concepts and symbols are continue on autopilot when using them most of the time.

I think it is important to step back and see concepts for what they are in order to understand and navigate reality better.  For the longest time I thought that what we needed to do is increase the number of concepts we use and reduce the definitions.  An example of this would be expanding a language to contain more words but each word would have a more exacting meaning.  The purpose of this would be so we can communicate reality with one another in a more efficient manner.

But then I remembered metaphor and how much I love metaphor to communicate.  Metaphor is a much more primitive form of concept making.  It takes fewer words and seemingly infinite definition to convey ideas in a more “feeling” sort of away rather than a “thinking” way.

So once again I realized I was making a false dichotomy by trying so desperately to define everything in my world with pure concepts.  Certain ideas are so huge that only metaphor can be used to convey the ideas to multiple people.

So back to the continuum of concepts.

At one side you have crude metaphors as a way of representing ideas.  Broad definitions, few words.  This shows up most in our culture as art.  Music, poetry, psychological movies, and abstract art are a few examples.

On the other end you have words that represent something perfectly in objective reality.  Infinite words, specific definitions.  I think the concept of a pure concept to be something that we can approach as humans, but never achieve due to our evolutionary limitations.  So I recognize this end of the spectrum as some form of infinity, if you were to think of it mathematically.  None-the-less I need it in order to define what I am trying to describe. The way pure(er) concepts show up in our society are as science, math and more open philosophies.

I said I was going to describe this because I couldn’t figure out a good representation but as I was writing this a graph popped into my mind that seems to explain this.

I now wish I had have paid more attention in my higher math classes because the next part of this could probably be combined with this graph in order to make even further sense of the concept continuum and why it is important to us.

As a species we use our concepts in an increasingly divergent way.  We have more and more words but we are also increasing our definitions.  I think this is changing the size of the graph but not the shape.  But that doesn’t matter as much as accepting where we can put a dot on that graph for our language as a species.  An average of course, as there are millions of points created by each concept we hold.

Now that I look at this graph I realize why it is not complete.  There is another continuum to be considered.  That’s the continuum of what is real and what is not.  I don’t know if this is a Z axis or if it can even be successfully represented graphically.

Conclusion(for now):  We have our concept continuum.  And then we have reality.  What we are trying to do with our concepts is describe and relate reality to one another.  Metaphors are useful in quickly relating reality in a “feeling” way to one another.  Pure(er) concepts are useful in relating reality in a “thinking” way to one another.  Cognitive distortion is when we think of our metaphors as pure concept and our pure concepts as metaphors.  For example, many still believe that there is a god.  I think  this concept belongs on the metaphor end of the scale where someone else puts it on the pure concept end of the scale.  From what we can detect with the devices that allow us to go beyond our own senses, there is no evidence of god as an objective concept.  So when god is assigned to a pure concept rather than a metaphor our brains are out of line with reality.  On the other end of the spectrum is taking a feeling (anger for example) and attributing it to a pure concept.  Anger can not be conveyed successfully on that end of the spectrum and is best left to the more metaphorical end of the spectrum.

I might be wrong about all of this but this is how I view reality currently.  And this will play into how I define the concept of morality.  I do not know yet when I will write more on this subject as I think more attention needs to go towards the concept continuum before I just start wildly plotting concepts on this graph.

Let me know your thoughts on this and if you have a better way of conveying what I am trying to convey, I would greatly appreciate it.

Posted in Philosophy | 2 Comments

Taboo Concepts: Determinism and free will

Posted on June 13, 2011 by Rich

I’m skipping ahead to determinism and free will because I had a bit of an epiphany on how to properly explain my views on this subject while I was out camping weekend before last. Actually multiple ways of explaining it. Also, I’m not done reading The Ethical Slut yet, so I have yet to have a satisfactory jumbling of words to explain my views on monogamy/polyamory. I guess I am supposed to cover intuition and logic too. Probably should have started with that one. Oh well, too late.

The topic of determinism is one that has utterly frustrated me since the beginning of my philosophical journey. I have flip flopped back and forth between both viewpoints for years now. Ultimately I have decided that there is a middle ground. And no, not the fluffy, vague, flowery, hippy middle ground that you all dreaded. I hope.

There is no way to determine whether we are determined beings or not. That’s it. No more need for discussion.

Ok, maybe a little. First I am taking two extreme definitions here. Define your concepts first. Thanks Rand. For only that. Sorry, off track. Free will: having complete and utter control over your actions. Determinism: actions decided completely by previous events with no choice involved in the next actions. (see causality). I know, I know, you soft determinists are pissed as hell right now. But just stay with me.

We experience free will. We see choices and we experience ourselves making choices. We are limited to what we perceive and can not step outside of our minds to figure out if we are victims of causality or have some unique way of defying physics. So ultimately all that matters is that we experience free will. Whether it be an illusion or not there is very little point claiming free will or determinism because there is no way of proving it. Either we are a) determined beings and have no way of measuring the truth value of anything due to our nature or b) we have free will but never have a way of stepping outside of our own measuring tools to prove it one way or another. It’s an axiom as far as I am concerned, because we can derive no further than the tip of our own synapses the truth of the matter.

At least that’s how I’ve come to peace with the arguments. So what am I? I accept that I experience a limited free will. I accept that I can not determine the truth value of that since I am bound by my own brain to discover that truth.

So if you can accept that I want to take it a bit deeper. I think we are mainly a machine. An extremely complex machine that has evolutionary, experiential and self written programs. It’s the latter that gives us that ounce of experienced free will. We can rewrite our programming to a limited extent through introspection. But the rest is automatic. That is why if you really start to get honest with yourself you can actually observe yourself making actions that are completely against your own thoughts and/or emotions. You can watch the evolutionary and experiential programming keep you in comfort. Sometimes completely helplessly. I take solace in knowing (how ever much I can know) how limited my free will is and recognizing where I do have control. I haven’t fully decided if that control expands as my own self awareness grows, or if it’s just a conscious realization of what programming is permanent and which programming I can change.

Let me try a metaphor if you still are a bit baffled. Our minds are a huge ship. Our perceived free will is the steering wheel. Our actual free will the rudder. We have a choice which way to crank the wheel, how hard we crank it and how much we accept that cranking the wheel is actually having an effect. But until you look under the ship and see if the rudder is responding to the wheel the way you expect it to, the size and shape of the rudder, if the rudder is broken and if the rudder is even there, you have no way of knowing what your wheel is capable of.

Thoughts? Free or not…

Posted in Philosophy | 5 Comments

Feminism and empathy

Posted on June 12, 2011 by Rich

*EDIT* I was reminded by a friend that even though I tried my best not to have any implicit or explicit “shoulds”, it can still come across that way since I am a male and have societal privilege due to this. I want to make it clear that I do not think that any feminist, male or female in sex, should or should not take this advice. I am addressing some cognitive dissonance that I see in the social media world and this is the best way I can think of expressing it. It is one of my many goals to help non-feminists understand feminists. I personally try not to dump my anger on non-feminists so I can get their ear. Is that the best way of doing things? Probably not, but it worked well on me and hope it works on others.

I wrote a quick little post on my Tumblr last night that said suggested that feminists problem with communicating their ideas effectively is that they are not empathizing with men and their behavior. How convenient that I deleted that post and I can not post from it directly, because I am sure it was a lot less clear than that. After a short discussion with a friend I realized that I was being completely unempathetic myself by posting that, so I apologize for that brief lapse of empathy. Let me start this off with a little more honesty, so I can avoid the same mistake. I feel frustrated when I read some feminists’ posts.

I came to feminism through effort of my own, but mainly effort of women who cared about me enough to be patient and help me understand their point of view. So when I see angry (and sometimes hateful) posts directed towards men, I get angry myself because I know that was the opposite of what worked on me to change my views. Just browse through some of your favorite social media sites and you will see what I am talking about. It is a minority of posts, I will admit. But those few posts that go beyond anger to hatred are the ones that stick out to me and make it hard for me to follow feminists.

Anger is a great emotion. It helps us overcome fear and do what we need to in order to make changes in our own lives to align ourselves better with what we see as positive for our own growth. I see a good amount of healthy anger amongst feminists and it has helped them to break free of mens’ programmed bullshit. Their anger helps give courage to others who are in similar situations to speak up for themselves and against the oppression they have experienced.

But what about the men that are still heavily embedded in their bad programming? I can still see through their eyes and through their bad programming. Even though I have made a concerted effort to rid myself of that programming. I still remember what it feels like to be a man who thinks of women as less than men (hard to admit, but true). When I was still entrenched in that attitude the anger filled comments about men only embedded me further in my position. I felt a lot of fear and very few were willing to help me work through that fear and look at my programming. I am extremely thankful to those few women who did empathize with me.

Am I suggesting it is feminists responsibility to pull men out of their bad programming? Absolutely not. No group of people who has been oppressed ever, ever, ever has that obligation. That said if it is your goal to create a society where both sexes start on equal footing, I think posting angry and unempathetic comments about men will not help you.

That is where my frustration lies with the expression of any set of ideals (including my own). I am prone to writing of someone as evil, much quicker than I am willing to empathize with and try to understand why that person is against my own ideals. So I completely understand the urge to rage against the machine. I just suggest sitting with those feelings and make sure they don’t come across as hate.

Posted in Psychology | 3 Comments

Taboo Concepts: Morality and Amoralism

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Rich

This topic is the one that got me tumbling down the philosophical rabbit hole.  My first encounter with this subject was religion.  Once I realized that religion did not have the answers I transitioned into the realm of moral relativism.  Since I could still not accept that force could be OK for one person and not another I joined the ranks of moral objectivists and absolutists.  Now I’m at a new crossroads.  I wonder if the concept of morality is so flawed that it needs to be thrown out.  That is why moral nihilism has caught my attention lately.  My extremely base understanding of it is that morality is a concept completely of our species invention.  I have to agree with that and I think most moral objectivists/absolutists would agree too.  It goes on to say that this concept is rooted in subjugation and is thus a false concept and the exploration of ethics needs to be scrapped.  Again, hard for me to disagree.  When I think of morality I think of religion.  I think of someone telling me what I should and shouldn’t do, purely to keep me in control.  On the flip side this is why I have held onto the concept of morality so dearly.  I am afraid that if I abandon it that ultimately I will have no control over other peoples behavior and they may harm me.

So that is why I challenge this concept.  I do not accept my fear as a reason not to explore a subject in depth.  Taboos are all about fear and often that fear is used to control behavior.

In my brief dip into moral nihilism I see that there is less to fear than I originally thought.  Just like anarchism, nihilism has been unfairly stereotyped as the land of the despairing and self destructive.  The nihilistic philosophers that end up getting the most attention are the ones who ideas bloomed into something that hurt people.  I think this can happen with any incomplete philosophy.  Anarchists suffer from this too as most are seen as Molotov cocktail throwing maniacs.

Most of what I have read so far is not the bleak landscape that I was expecting.  Many moral nihilists recognize that humans have a general nature that is gravitating towards peace and away from violence.  What is interesting about this is that there is no need for moral “shoulds” and “shouldn’ts”.  It is just understanding what we are as a species and how concepts like morality had their roots in tribal survival, but are no longer necessary for our genetic well being.  It’s very similar to ideas like atheism and anarchism and how they are rooted in tribal concepts that helped to protect the species but now we have outgrown them.

In this exploration of taboo concepts I think looking at the etymology of the concept is key.  If it is rooted in an idea that humans no longer have a need for, then I think the concept needs to be abandoned.  This is a discussion all in itself, but without understanding these roots I do not think these ideas can be discussed effectively.

For now I think morality and the study of it (ethics) are far too rooted in subjugation and tribal control to be a valid concept.  I think the entire study needs to be reconsidered and redefined.

Does that mean I am going to accept murder and force?  Of course not.  I still think there is a good reason that humans are shifting away from violence as a solution towards voluntary cooperation as a better solution.  I am just hesitant to call it morality.  And I am hesitant to write off people who still adhere to the old ideas as just evil.  Otherwise I’d be celebrating Osama’s death along with most others.

What are your thoughts on these concepts?  Most importantly, how does it make you feel to explore them?

I am extremely resistant to even post this because I know that those who do not agree with me may question if they want to associate with me.  But again, I am doing my best to not let fear control my questions and exploration of those questions.

Posted in Philosophy | 6 Comments

Taboo Concepts

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Rich

I’ve been slowly organizing a list in my mind of ideas that are still pretty taboo, even amongst the philosophical. In an attempt to keep myself from falling into dogma, I am going to explore each of these topics over time on my blog. I could try to set a goal for myself to explore one topic a week, but I know myself well enough to avoid that.  Setting strict goals usually ends in me abandoning a project.

Here’s my primary list. I will expand on it as new subjects arise spontaneously. This list is purely from my own observation of extremely contentious subjects.  Personally these are all subjects that are not a “closed case” in my mind, which is really my main reason for opening up this discussion.

  1. Morality and amoralism (some of the subjects below are heavily rooted in these opposing concepts, which is why I put them first on the list)
  2. Monogamy and polyamory
  3. Intuition and logic
  4. Determinism and free will
  5. You versus me
  6. Forgiveness

There are many other subjects I want to cover but these are the most pressing for me.  I encourage you to reply to these posts with your thoughts.  I encourage you to use other mediums, such as Tumblr, to respond.

My goal here is to come to a better understanding of these concepts and maybe even throw the concepts out and start over.  If they make you too nervous to respond in a meaningful way, first question why.  If you are able to process that, feel free to respond.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off

Rage and the alternatives to hate and violence

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Rich

My friends got me thinking about rage (and hate) and what to do with it. When I assert that violence is not a healthy path for rage, I do think that I have some responsibility to present an alternative path.

I want to start by addressing rage for what it is. It is a human reaction to some form of extreme danger that threatens life or limb. Like any emotion, it has its function and is not something just to be written off as “evil”. In its primitive form, violence (fight) was the reaction to the emotion of rage. The flip-side reaction is flight.

As an evolved species (one able to form concepts) we humans have a unique opportunity to understand rage and direct it in such a way that does not perpetuate violence. I think that it is ideal to our evolution to move away from violence since we have come up with such massively destructive ways of eliminating one another. In fact I would say it is essential for our long term survival as a species since we do have the means to destroy ourselves completely.

That is why I do not accept violence as an acceptable action to rage and want to figure out as many alternatives to violence as I can before resorting to violence.

It has taken me decades to do but now when I feel rage I sit with it rather than react. I may sometimes react immediately through some threatening act such as violent language or shaming others, but so far I have been lucky enough to avoid outright physical violence in my adult life. This has not been an easy feat. Often I want violence and demand it. As mentioned in my previous post, I initially supported violent action when Osama Bin Laden was able to instruct others to carry out his violent thoughts. It has taken a decade of self reflection to slow down that automatic response and try my best to understand it when I feel it, rather than act on the violence that it desires.

A side effect of this is that I feel a lot of anger when I see other people supporting violence. First it reminds me of my own potential for rage, hate and violence. It also reminds me that we have a long way to go as a species and that it is like pulling teeth (forgive the violent language) to guide others towards accepting that violence is never a solution to problems.

So my suggestion for an alternative to hate and violence when you feel rage is to sit with it a bit and try to understand why you are feeling what you do. For me I often find that I am deeply afraid of something. Sometimes it can be something as deep as a dark desire that I have and want to act on. Others it is simply self preservation. The problem with self reflection is that it is often more difficult and a more frustrating formula than violence. So far I have found the long term benefit to be more satisfying than a violent encounter.

Please let me know if you have any other alternatives to rage, hate and violence. I know that most people want an alternative, but few have ever been presented with one.

HUGE DISCLAIMER: If you ever feel rage in a situation where your life is immediately threatened, act on it without pause. It will probably save you, as it has evolved to do.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Rich

“If Osama is dead…” showed up in my Twitter feed shortly after an announcement that President Barack Obama was going to make an unscheduled announcement. I felt a wave of relief and anger well up in me and the thought, “fucking finally, I sure hope this is true” floated through my head.

9/11/2001 had a permanent effect on me. In that moment last night I had almost the exact same feeling I had when I saw the planes plunge into the twin towers nearly 10 years ago. I remembered climbing my way up my parents’ flagpole to untangle old glory. I remember wanting vengeance and George W. Bush was saying all of the words that part of me wanted to hear. We were going to get Osama. I felt immense pride in my country and made sure to display it with as many mini American flags that I could get my hands on.

I never thought I’d feel that way again, but for a split second I did. Over the past 10 years my patriotism has died along with the concepts of government and god. What I witnessed the government do after 9/11 fundamentally shifted the way I look at humanity. I no longer accept violence as a solution to anything. Not even a mass murdering terrorist. So that split second of being transported back to 9/11/2001 last night only lasted a split second. My mind quickly reminded me of the path of bodies and blood that led up to this moment.

If you don’t know the body count, it is in the hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of people died to avenge a few thousand. Even if you could justify it as the ethics of a life for a life it is horrific. But I can’t even do that. I think the past decade proves that violence is not a solution to problems like these. It only creates more.

Immediately after Barack Obama’s speech concluded I started shaking with rage. I knew what was going to happen next. I was going to see people who live in the same country as me celebrating and being joyus. I couldn’t get my mind out of the perspective of those who live in the middle east who have had family members slaughtered at the hands of The United States military and its allies. I was sickened by the immediate panning shots of crowds in D.C. jumping up and down and screaming with joy. I turned off the news and reacted. I made an angry post on my Facebook page, chatted with some sympathetic friends and became further enraged as I saw some of my other Facebook and Twitter friends celebrating. I had to shut my computer off and lie in bed trying to calm myself down. The feelings of being in the shoes of a mother, father, sister, brother or friend of someone who had experienced violence as a reaction to 9/11 were too much to even try to be curious as to why people were celebrating.

I woke up the next morning feeling peaceful. I even sat up in bed pretty quickly to start the day, which is rare for me. I had temporarily forgotten about the night before. I can only imagine it was my minds way of giving me a moment of protection from the wave of emotions to come. The night before suddenly came rushing back to me and I slumped back into my bed and thought about calling in sick. Somehow I got going and tried my best not to engage in any conversations about Osama at work. That was pretty difficult since it was what a few people were immediately talking about at the office and just about every news story and Twitter post that I saw had the word Osama in it.

I’ve learned something important in the past couple of years. If I am feeling this angry there must be something I am afraid of. So I started to explore that rather than lash out at others. I quickly realized it wasn’t one thing I was afraid of but many things. First I was afraid of how my opposing opinion would be perceived amongst my friends. To be the only one at a party experiencing rage at the party goers when everyone else is experiencing joy is a lonely feeling. Second I was afraid that my friends would never come to see that this was not an occasion to celebrate. The horrors we have all witnessed with the wars over the past decade are something I am not prepared to witness again, and I truly think this marks the beginning of more violence. I mostly fear becoming the victim of retaliatory violence or witnessing those I care about becoming victims.

Osama is now a martyr. He is a symbol for both sides. For the U.S. he is a symbol for all of the pain and suffering we all felt when the twin towers fell. For those in the Middle East he is a different symbol. He is a religious symbol for the extreme. History shows us that martyrs propel movements into the stratosphere. Without the story of the crucifiction of Jesus, Christianity would not be as rampant as it is today. Without the recent martyrs in Egypt, Iran and other Middle East countries the revolutions would have not had the impact on others. Martyrs give people a symbol to project all of their strong emotions onto and this moves people to die for these symbols. The United States has been fairly terrorist attack free since 9/11. The rest of the world has certainly suffered for the government’s violent actions overseas but now there is a catalyst that will bring that violence back to the United States.

This also gives many Americans a reason to support violence once again. I saw many people last night turn from questioning Obama’s continued use of force to unquestioningly supporting him. It was a well played move by Obama as many have been wondering why the U.S. is still in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria, why Guantanamo Bay is still open and why people like Bradley Manning are being prosecuted. Now suddenly violence is acceptable again because it got Osama, that symbol for all of the collective American hatred.

It took awhile for me to refocus my anger. I was truly angry at everyone who was celebrating. But then I remembered I had that flicker of celebration in my mind. It took a huge amount of effort over the past decade for me to see past my hate and realize that accepting violence as a solution to a problem was never going to help humanity. So I do not blame people who celebrated. I get it and I don’t find it to be shameful (even though I REALLY wanted to shame those who were celebrating). It’s natural to want a psychopath who killed thousands to be eliminated from our world. It’s natural to feel joy and relief when a murder is made impotent through death. It’s deep in our primal nature and used to protect us as a species.

But I want to remind everyone who had that feeling last night that the revenge wasn’t worth it. I am hated by people I have never met because of what some violent men in this country have decided to bomb and bomb and bomb people that are outside of our direct experience. And I don’t get off that easy. At first I supported the violence. I was completely behind Bush when he bombed Afghanistan and Iraq. And now I am doing my best to make up for that initial support of violence against others. It is one of the biggest goals in my life to help others see that violence is not a solution to problems. Ever. I encourage you not to make the mistake I made and think twice about supporting further violence.

I hope I have been able to convince some to think twice about their blood lust. For the rest that are not convinced, please take a minute and try to comprehend how a middle easterner feels. One that had nothing to do with a terrorist organization. One that just wanted to live their lives like you or me. One who watched their families brutally and violently killed by men wearing the American Flag. Think if that happened to you, and your family, and then you saw people celebrating.

*EDIT* After a discussion with some friends, I wrote a followup post about hate and the alternatives to violence.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , | 1 Comment