THE ORDER OF THE WORLD By J. R. Wood

The passing of the millennia from, if you choose to view this as a starting point in Western thought, the Greek era, on down to our modern age has shown to us a multitude of philosophies, dealing with the same problems in so many differing cultural contexts. From Socrates to Sarte, Aristotle to Freud, Christ to Aquinas, as well as their notable eastern contemporaries we have seen so many philosophers, scientists, prophets, theologians and experts of the mind attempt to explain the various seemingly incomprehendables that we run across in our attempts to explain the universe in and out of our minds. Questions about God, morality, free will and so on. What I will attempt to show you, to the best of my ability, is the true order of the world as regards our most pressing philosophical questions. This is not a piece based on theology or religious beliefs, although you will find that various themes in much of religious thought and practice will find a welcome home here. Nor is this a piece of utopian fancy, although those of you who comprehend it will undoubtedly pull from it a utopian reality. Here we deal only with logic to the highest degree, perhaps pursuing logical thought to the point where it may seem illogical for some. But within these chapters, should you be willing to push your logical faculties farther than so many of the so called learned or unlearned are typically willing to, you will find an explanation for right and wrong, the soul, the divine and the forces that govern human destiny beyond what Kant or Nietzsche was ever able to give. I will say for the sake of giving these claims fair appraisal that you the reader should be willing at least for the duration of this book to consider the possibility that certain, erstwhile derisive fields of study might be of great importance to us in our deductions. Penultimately, this is a search for and a proclamation of no more than might be referred to as that illusive and so highly sought after ideal we call Truth. Ultimately however, it is only a work spawned as an outgrowth of, and composed as an answer to, our most basic human question, arising from our one most basic human desire…

* * *

The Question of Human Happiness

The question of human happiness is in actuality a question of simply one concrete thing: belief. It does not take an overly complex analysis of the human mind to see that this is true. Leo Tolstoy once wrote that after years of living a life of physical health, monetary prosperity and social fame and acceptance of a high order, he suddenly felt as if life had no meaning, because after examining it so closely he could not find any meaning in life which would not be destroyed by death. Rational science offered no explanation for the questions of God and the meaning of existence, and within the answers of religion he found irrational answers to which he could not reconcile himself. And yet, he could not help but to observe that those uneducated persons who had faith in the irrational, those who supposedly knew less than he and his educated cohorts, (typically peasants), were invariably untroubled by such questions as the meaning of life. They knew the answer, be it in an irrational way. And though Tolstoy had no doubt that faith in the irrational might merely be mankind’s way of coping with life’s harsh realities, he at the same time could not deny that within this probability was the truth that these people of faith had from it the strength to bare life’s pain without despair. Thus he discovered that faith, though irrational, was the answer to life’s aimlessness.

“I began to love those people. The more I penetrated into their life, the life of the men now living, and the life of men departed, of whom I had read and heard, the more did I love them, and the easier it became for me to live…What happened with me was that the life of our circle—of the rich and the learned—not only disgusted me, but even lost all its meaning. All our acts, reflections, sciences, arts—all that appeared to me in a new light. I saw that all that was mere pampering of the appetites, and that no meaning could be found in it; but the life of all the working masses, of all humanity, which created life, presented itself to me in its real significance. I say that that was life itself and that the meaning given to this life was truth, and I accepted it.”

So it is with so many who opt for faith and religion over the banal world or science and statistics, and so it is also a perfect illustration of our point. Tolstoy’s material condition had not changed; he already was in possession of the material things which so many of us associate with happiness. What changed was his belief. Now many might say that we can believe we are happy when we are not. I would not argue. Putting that aside, let us show how else belief affects the human condition. We have certain beliefs that more closely affect our level of content than others, most particularly those beliefs we hold about ourselves. We tend to believe we hold a certain amount of value often based on our social status, our acquisitions, our abilities or other such ego related things. Such it is that, whether these beliefs tend to better us or not, (and more often than not they do not), they are based on fallacy. These fallacious beliefs are what lead to the discords that plague humanity. Some are easy to discern. Let us examine a few reasonably:

1. A man should be treated with more respect than another man because he has money. Well what is money? Simply a tool by which you can purchase what can be purchased. To respect a man for his money is simply to respect his money alone. So we must inquire as to whether or not money warrants respect. Well what warrants respect in the first place? That which we admire and hold in esteem. But what qualities do we admire? Well to admire something is to praise it for some extraordinary quality. Money has many such qualities in as much as a person can do extraordinary things with enough of it. In this sense we can respect money. Can we thus make the jump to respecting the man who has it merely for having it? Not by the definition we have established, because there remains nothing extraordinary about the man himself outside of being lucrative, thus it is the money alone we respect.

But let us expand the scenario to enquire as to whether or not we might rightfully respect the same man should he have worked extraordinarily hard to, or by some other amazing feat of ability came by, the money we speak of. You will see that what might initially seem a logical conclusion might in fact be an ego-manifested fallacy.

1. This same individual of considerable finances is now an individual of considerable will power and cunning. To simplify, let us say he’s also a fighter, possessed of tremendous physical strength as well. Those are characteristics many of us covet, and hold in high regard. Clearly we often admire them, whether they are held by heroes or villains. So it would seem to follow that we would admire the man for these characteristics. But by this conclusion do we find ourselves incorrect. The meaning of words becomes murky after a certain point, so let us strive to be clear. To respect something and to admire something is to find value in it. Clearly we value will power, cunning and strength because they are useful, and also indicative of a person’s supposed strength of personality. But here we find our selves in a similar lapse of logic. This person’s abilities warrant respect, this still tells us nothing of the man. When we show a person respect, we obviously do so under the belief that the individual deserves it. So in this man’s case we must now examine the type of respect we show him. To respect a man who can fight in the sense that we would not attempt to physically impose upon him is logical and functional, just as the abilities he has, strength, will-power, cunning, are themselves functional. To generally value that person more than other people simply on account of these things is to be unreasonable. You see, to value a person as a whole is to evaluate that individual on a broader basis by which you ascribe value to his actions and intentions, warranting respect in as much as they benefit not only himself but others because, (even if it is in an abstract way if you might have benefited by this persons actions were chance different) you and or humanity benefited from the intent of his actions. I do not say simply actions because, though the fighter might do us some good by entertaining us, it is by chance and thus an attribute we may respect, while remaining unreflective of the person’s greater merit. But a person who intends to benefit others by his actions possesses a quality that positively affects our self-interest by its very essence, and is extraordinary if it is done from principle (which implies choice) and not duty (which implies compulsion). This positive intent is useful and extraordinary, just like the other attributes. But unlike them, this quality of positive intent derives from the individuals’ inner quality as he relates to us, thus we may reasonably respect him and value him for his inner quality, or rather the person he is.

That is not at all to say that we should not respect athletes, businessmen, celebrities etc, (or anyone who is not a saint or do-gooder). But it is this fallacy of reasoning that tends to lead us to adhere to false authority, like say purchasing a product or service because your favorite actor tells you to. But more importantly, one should consider when deciding whom to open doors for whether or not the honor is deserved more by the rich and famous athlete you see on TV, or the old nun you see feeding the poor and destitute out of her urge to do good for humanity. It is a deduction of ego that leads us to believe that we should respect a person’s personality for anything other than their character. It is not based on truth. What we will see now, is how a person’s real happiness is determined his or her familiarity with truth.