Many on the left want to destroy anything
old, historic or traditional, including statues,
buildings, governments and morality. They revel in tearing down people,
standards and ideas yet are incapable of building anything or governing
themselves…let alone anyone else. On occasion they will seek to replace what
they erase, substituting Baphomet
or Beelzebub for Jesus Christ for example.
These modern anarchists, though
anything but philosophers, ironically piggyback on the past work of white men
such as Søren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jean-Paul
Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, and other existentialists.
Sartre cleverly suggested that people are not like things
(such as rocks or can-openers), which is why he used the term “no-thing-ness”
to refer to the kind of being that people are. Unlike things, he said, humans
do not have an intrinsic essence. A can-opener, for example, has an essence
that was ascribed to it before it even existed. A designer created that object
for the sake of opening cans. In this way, we can say that its essence preceded
its existence. But according to Sartre, we are not designed by
a God, therefore we are
unlike things. Hence “no-thing-ness.”
And, since there is no designer, there
is no intrinsic essence of human life, no “human nature,” nothing that we are supposed
to be. Therefore, states Sartre, we must invent our own purpose, or “essence.” Whereas
a can-opener’s essence precedes its existence, the opposite is
true for us. We exist first and then we must create our
essence later. This “fact” led Sartre to proclaim that we are “condemned
to be free.” This freedom in turn means that we are responsible for our lives, causing
us to experience feelings of anxiety or despair.
Nietzsche graced us with his uplifting “God
is dead” message and his fixation with nihilism-- a philosophy, literally, of
Nothing. (Nihilism can be
defined as the sign of “Nothing;” pure Nothingness.)
Rather than tremble before Nietzsche’s nothingness, let’s think
this through. Is the concept of nothing itself not actually something? Are these
words nothing? If so, how are you reading them, interpreting them? How can
everything be nothing?
allegedly brilliant philosophers come up with ideas such as this?
a bull moose nothing? Punch one in the face and see if “nothing” happens.
progressives believe that nothing can be certain, correct or true. Yet,
if that statement were to be true, that statement would have to be false. Think
about it. If nothing can be correct or true or certain, then that statement
itself cannot be, either. It is a logical fallacy. It refutes itself. Which is
a hallmark of progressivism.
and prudent people don’t reflexively denigrate and dismiss the acquired
knowledge to be gleaned from all of human history. We call these folks
conservatives. Those that think they can deny, negate, or override wisdom and truth,
or reinvent them to suit their agenda, we call progressives.
destruction is not a legitimate political philosophy. And “Nothing matters…and
what if it did?!” is not a particularly good recipe for human achievement and