the legacy of philosophy lies in its denial of that we have arrived. is this not the perverse promise of idealism? that one day in the future all time will cease to exist and in that moment some sort of perfected harmony will matieralize and all of humanity will magically work together? – i am not a cynic in the traditional sense when relating to this enquiry, i do however have my reservations toward the notion of idealism. any ‘ism’ for that matter.
the ‘isms’ exist so we would have some illusion of purpose. for isn’t that what makes us human, purpose? that ever-illusive silhouette hiding behind the curtain. i think that silhouette wants us to find it and discover that it, like the wizard of oz is a fraud. don’t get me wrong, i believe purpose exists, but its so much more than we think it is.
we must see the joke of the gods here, that purpose, is the narcotic that keeps us alive. but why do we need purpose to justify our existence? why isn’t existence/being enough? jacques lacan called this insistent desire for purpose the ‘objet petit a’, the object that we desire and keep desiring and can never obtain. which to me is partially true, but also partially something i think we have constructed as humanity to give us a reason to not only endorse systems (i.e., consumerism and etc.) – but the ability to turn life into an ‘ism’ (in this case, the narcisstic notion of existentialism; why me? why am i here? who am i? and etc.). this is much like the horse who has the carrot dangline in front of them but can never get it and is violently ‘run into the ground’ by its master to win the race, which in reality, the winning horse gets nothing, but the master gets everything!!but what if this system is part of baudrillard’s hyperreal, or a mere construct to keep us away from the reality that not only are we naive slaves to an illusion, but rather that we are people who are upholding this illusion by not asking questions, but not seeking out other options than the one’s in front of us?
isn’t this the game of sisyphus? the man who was cursed to roll the rock up the hill and back again? the story ends not with rolling credits and his victorious push up the hill, but with the cycle never ending. the cycle never ends because sisyphus thinks this is his lot in life. i think this is the sarcasm of the gods. that we too easily accept what is in front of us. much like the generic characters in the movie ‘the adjustment bureau’ with matt damon; he plays a guy who is too restless not to ask questions. he pushes the boundaries so far that he realizes those boundaries never existed. it was a construct of a master that wasn’t there in the first place.
so maybe this is the real truth, we have created the very boundaries we think we need to maintain some sort of pseudo-illusion of either peace or sanity. and as admirable as those pursuits are, they are the carrots that keep us from realizing that we are slaves to a master that does not exist (i.e., reality). this is not some silly claim that reality does not exist, but is rather the proclamation that without what we call current reality intact that we still exist. that we need not provide ourselves with empirical information to prove our existence, which is what most people spend their whole lives attempting to do, and all the while are serving something to give themselves an illusion of purpose.