If there's a philosophical school of thought I most align with it would be existentialism. I consider myself a philosophical anarchist, but anarchism addresses the normative question of what should be. In terms of a positive, what is, value-free philosophy, the other side of the coin would be existentialism. Existentialism is a belief in extreme free will that says that knowledge starts with the individual actor and that all actions (or non-actions) are a person's own choice. As the name implies, existentialism begins with existence and says that each individual chooses to exist. While "I didn't choose to be born" is a famous rallying call to parents everywhere, the reality is that a person chooses to continue to exist. Each individual has it within his or her power to commit suicide and cease to exist. The fact that a person doesn't end his life means he chooses to continue living and be alive. This demonstrates to others that such a person values life and that harming his life in anyway makes him worse off. If a person didn't value their life they would take steps to end it.
Existentialism says that existence precedes essence, which means that a person is an individual first. The individual exists and the essence of who he is is one of his own choosing. Unlike most philosophical schools of thought that says that the nature of a thing is more important than its existence, existentialism says that a person creates his own values and who he is. A person decides who they are, their values, and their role in the world, and act accordingly. Existentialism says that a person is an individual first and only later a part of a group, and such group identity is one of his own choosing. Much like Austrian economics, existentialism begins with methodological individualism as its starting point. While Ludwig von Mises did say that, "only the individual acts, only the individual thinks, only the individual feels," he was stating the crux of existentialist thought.
Existentialism besides being a free-will, individualistic philosophy is also a moral one that discourages people to be a victim since existentialism says that a person chooses to be a victim. For example, I choose to pay taxes. True, this is a coerced choice made under duress, but the fact remains that no individual has to pay taxes. Irwin Schiff died in a prison cell for not paying taxes. Irwin Schiff chose to not give into the bullies. As someone who does not want to die in a prison cell, I choose differently so I give into the threats, but it is still a choice I make nevertheless.
Suppose someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Sing the alphabet or I'll kill you," according to existentialism, is the person forced to sing the alphabet? The answer is clearly no. He is always free to say, "Fuck you. Pull the trigger. You can't make me do anything I don't want to do." Perhaps this is not a decision most people would make, but the fact remains it is a decision that is always possible.
Existentialism does not encourage victimization, but the realization that if a person becomes oppressed it's because he lets himself be so. He views resistance as being futile and so gives into the threats made against him, but he could resist anytime. Plenty of people are in prison for not following political orders. Anyone of us is free to do likewise. The state can't arrest everyone and if enough people resist the state would be powerless. The state only is able to intimidate people because the masses view the state as inevitable.
The state wants your subservience and the way to get it is to encourage victimization and to not resist. "Don't resist" is the rallying call of statists. "The only sure thing in life is death and taxes" is another one. Statists want to convince people that even if they don't morally approve of the state, the state is powerful and not going away so you might as well just give in. Existentialism challenges such notions by pointing out that one chooses every action one takes. The fact remains that I choose to live on my knees as a slave instead of dying without groveling. Existentialism does not say what action one should choose, but it does point out that however one acts he chooses to act that way.
If a person applies for a job that was his choice. If a person was given an immoral order, he chooses to obey them. A man chooses to volunteer for the army. If a man gets drafted he chooses to not be a conscientious objector or get thrown in the brig. If a person is told to hurt someone or else he gets shot, he chooses to kill a stranger in order so he can live. True, a person who says, "Kill a stranger or I kill your family," is still the aggressor. And existentialism does not say that one must not kill the stranger, but the fact remains that a choice is still there. You can let the person kill your family and refuse to be a battery of evil or you can claim victimization by killing the stranger. However unpleasant, the choice is yours.
Existentialism is the philosophy of moral responsibility since it says that "morality does not end when a gun begins," because even then one can choose to follow one's own moral code, if he's willing to give up his life to achieve it. Existentialism, though it might sound a bit grim, also is the way towards freedom since it says, "you let yourself be oppressed. There is no order you have to obey." As long as enough people have that mentality then resistance is not futile. Remember, your enemies want to give you false choices. They want to present government as a necessary evil, or at least an inevitable one. But the state is only inevitable if enough people feel that way. Once enough people understand that they choose to submit and that they are free to stop at anytime, the end result doesn't necessary have to be a bullet in the brain because the state has only so many guns, only so many bullets, and only so many hands. The state is able to do the damage is does because most people have betrayed themselves and give their hands to the state by being willing pawns to allow the state to do evil. But as existentialism makes clear, this can stop at anytime.
In the existentialist words of Étienne de La Boétie: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."
Everything that favors the existence of life is moral, and everything that harms it is immoral.
"Life wants to live"
How do you know? Smoking is antithetical to health/life. If a person is not free to smoke, then you're saying that you have greater claim to their body/life than they do, which cannot be universalized. As long as they are not forcing others to smoke, they can smoke and the behavior is amoral despite being antithetical to life/health. The measure of morality is whether it is binding upon another or not and if so, was consent secured?
Morality goes beyond consent. For example, you may well be immoral with yourself. That is a possibility.
That's an awesome saying I want to put that on a shirt
I agree.
Here here!
In psychological terms this relates well to the idea of Internal Locus of Control.
This, in my opinion, is a more productive idea to invest our time on promoting. I think anarchists waste a lot of resources in trying to convince everyone that the state is evil, but we could spend that time teaching people how to think from first principles and how to take ownership of themselves. If everyone would develope an internal locus of control and take complete responsibilty for themselves, the justifications for the state would soon evaporate.
I really like this post Daniel. Kudos!
(This is Cody Limbaugh btw. I didn't realize that I would be stuck with this user name for life when I chose it. )
Thanks. Yeah I wish I knew about not being able to change your username. They should have mentioned that. I'm not sure why that is.
Dude, I love this. You're kicking ass, and building your rep here. :) Look at the love rolling in!
Keep it up, Daniel, keep being inspired.
Thanks for your words of encouragement. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I like seeing you here as well. Now let's chew bubble gum and kick ass!
I think you only left out one thing. Most people seem to crave security over freedom. They choose to be slaves. So what can be done about that?
change their minds : )
"The fact that a person doesn't end his life means he chooses to continue living and be alive." This is to say that the absence of one thing is presence of another. Specifically that inaction equals action. This cannot be true. Especially when you consider that self-preservation is a biological imperative, which precedes conscious thought.
People have committed suicide. So yes, I stand by my statement. Each individual, by refraining from suicide, chooses to go on living and be alive.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot
Good post. Upvoted, followed.
I tend to agree with most of it, and I agree with many other philosophical models, but I never tend to agree 100%. I am more of a mix and mash of many things that I can verify as accurate.
I just have a semantic issue with the term itself.
Existence, being. You can persist your existence, by supplanting your values and free will choice to submit to authority in order to survive. As you say. But then it's not simply existence itself, just being, as the most important. There is more to it. The physical aspect of being is primary in causality. Existence is first. But consciousness is the power, the secondary being of existence that emerges from the basic first level physicality. Free will, choice, accepting principles and values into our core being of who we are as a consciousness, seems to be more important than simply a physical existence.
So I am more bringing up semantic clarity of definition, more than I am disagreeing with the position. There are two existences of being, the physical, survival, and the second the being of consciousness, where we can become something else as we choose, as we learn, as we grow, to change, etc. Being and becoming is the power of consciousness and our core essence of existence to evolve and learn principles of truth, morality, etc. While the physical existence is a basic aspect that can't change like consciousness can.
The importance is indeed in existence, but which one is up to us to choose. Like you say, to choose to refuse to pay taxes and stand for our principles and truth, or to agree to submit to the tyranny because we also favor the importance of our physical existence.
Just wanted to mention those two distinctions of how existence can be applied. We can choose the physical "lower" survival focus, and we certainly do to survive in this messed up world. And then there is the higher consciousness, higher existence, to accept and live up to principles of truth and morality. I deal with similar issues to explain in my studying of existence and consciousness in my own work.
Thanks for an interesting post. Take care. Peace.
thanks so much, you explained existentialism in a way I can finally understand.