Thoughts On Things

Entry 31

I think I'd like to be some aristocrat or other member of high society. Of course, the money and large house and land would be nice, they'd allow me to hire servants to cook and clean and give me time to rest and do nothing for my whole life; that, of course, is the dream. But, even in this dream of nobility, there are of course those unwanted social situations, those forced meetings ordained by some unwritten rules, "Thou shalt meet or be guilty," "Thou shalt laugh or die," "Thou shalt nod along to his words," and other such guidelines for conversation. However, one key upside of those interactions, which would, of course, be between myself and some other nobility as I wouldn't speak to anyone of lower class (being a noble, of course), is that I'd surely enjoy it much more as I would know that both the other party and I hate each other and hate the conversation, for what else do nobles do than hate yet still go along with things out of consideration for the aforementioned rules. "I heard you've been feeling down lately, and that's why you haven't been able to get much work done, is there anything I can do to help?" The other person would sneak in their passive aggressive remark like that, and I'd respond, after ordering my servants to get some drinks for the guest, not the expensive ones but not the cheap ones, "Oh yes yes, thank you for coming to my aid, but I can't ask anything of you, no, that would be far too rude. Just your presence is enough; your soothing voice and calming aura, your pleasant face and your smell." I'd respond to their silly comment with my own passive aggressive one, and we'd both know it and continue doing it for the entire conversation, without ever resorting to violence or shouting, for neither of us particularly care enough despite our hatred of each other. And that would happen every month or so, and the rest of the time, I'd sit around playing games or watching some shows and other such pastimes. I really dislike the high-brow attitude of some people, likely because I often catch myself carrying that same attitude; "You foul thing, you can't waste your time on something like television or video games! There's simply no intellect, no wit in it! No, you must read this, learn this language, understand this philosopher." I tend to follow the path of least resistance, and I feel no resistance when I sit around watching something without a thought in my mind. 

Perhaps if I believed in a God or afterlife or soul or some such thing I'd feel more inclined to educate myself or purify my soul with heavenly knowledge ready for metempsychosis or some other such thing. I did try to believe in some God, but despite my logical arguments I made to myself, "You have no proof that there isn't a God, or Gods, or Goddesses, so why not remain, at the very least, in a state of eternal agnosticism?" "I've no proof that invisible horses aren't running around in my stomach, yet I shan't keep an open mind about that." Other such rebuttals usually work against my mind, and, although I'd like to be agnostic, I simply find myself an atheist, a complete non-believer in Gods or souls or invisible horses. And why should the atheist be good in this life? I'm a good person, though not if you ask Kant or someone similar, but that is due to my upbringing, nature, and fear of legal and social sanctions. But if I were not such a good person, innately, and raised to be one, why would I be good? I have no real answer, and am not sure how I could rebuke the bad-natured person for doing what pleases them most. Though of course, this is a complex question, for morality, good, bad, etcetera, are ever-changing constructs; the holiest of Christians were called so for burning people at the stake and torturing them in the past (supposedly, Pope Innocent authorized the use of torture in Inquisitions); the heroes of countries were those who slaughtered the most enemies; pillaging and plundering was seen as the right of the victors. I suppose "might makes right" might be more informative than its simplicity lets on. Ah, I suppose the views of morality I've mentioned may be similar to those of Crowley, though I know little of his work or views; but mainly "Do what thou wilt." Follow the path of least resistance, the one that is easiest; for some, doing the hardest thing will be the easiest; for others, murder the easiest; or martyrdom; or economics; or philosophy; or healing; or preaching; or praying; or reading; or watching; or writing. 

Oh, though I do think there is a certain kind of beauty in true and pure good. And, though I know not why, beauty is a thing to aspire to become one with, in my eyes, in my mind; eyes, senses, all of them, are not adequate enough to see beauty - they see and hear and smell the human body. Instead, look not with your senses at a person, but with your mind; you see their acts and words and thoughts, shining or dim, ugly or beautiful, and thus you know your opinion of them; though this is still influenced by senses, it is the best I can come up with... I also do not like the view that a good person must be good - I suppose I like Kant in this regard, for it seems to me that by his philosophy, even some terrible, incompetent, evil man can be good if he acts with a good will. And, if we are doomed to be sinners, each and every one of us, and for those of us who cannot repent for we have nothing to repent to, try to be Kandata, and take faith in good. This, of course, all goes against what I was saying moments ago... but I am a fickle man, like a reed of grass, so easily blown this way and the other by the wind, or, in my case, a sudden thought or experience.