I got into a philosophical argument over Skype and wrote a wall of text. It’s essentially a “short” summary on my very generic philosophy, but it gives a… sort of rough outline of what my philosophies are, and a rough argument to support it.
Philosophy has little practicality. I’m a moral relativist philosophically, but I’m a moral absolutist in practice.
In other words, my theoretical philosophy actually goes against many communistic ideas since it presupposes humanity is not the reason why the universe exists and that we’re just bags of chemical reactions that interact with other bags of chemical reactions and there is no objective law that dictates they should behave in any other way other than the physics and chemistry behind those chemical reactions. In practice, I’m far different, as my philosophies are very, very, very communistic in nature, and in fact, were always such, long before I even knew what communism was.
It also analyzes what we can technically be doing (i.e. Sartre’s “radical freedom” idea) while still holding to a deterministic idea (we are bags of chemicals that obey physical laws–there is no reason we should be able to control the way these chemicals behave since we are those chemicals and they behave according to physics), and why those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, nor are they contradictory.
Then I use such to argue that such isn’t incompatible with “believing” in other philosophies, for one could argue that the chemical determinism has programmed us to believe in this philosophy, and as such, believe we can act in different ways. Such can lead to humanity creating rules that we can abide to in order to get a certain thing done. I shall not refer to the chemicals for now as such is implied for the rest of my argument. Humanity can “decide” to agree upon certain principles, of which I shall call the Axioms of Humanity. We start with the initial Axiom: The prime goal of humanity is to preserve humanity. From there, we must extrapolate what is best for humanity.
What will cause humanity to survive?
[and since they complained about a short paragraph being a wall of text, I gave them a real wall of text]
How do we make humanity survive? First of all, we make sure we have the resources for humanity’s basic needs are met. If human needs are not met, then humanity will not survive. Thus this is a necessity. We do have such resources on Earth. Next off, we make sure such happens–everyone’s basic needs are met. Next we make sure that there is no aggression between humans. Since the biggest cause of aggression i.e. wars, is nationalism, and since wars boil down to the concept of borders and government, we must abolish such in order to prevent wars from happening. Religion as anything but philosophical pondering also causes wars, and pollutes the mind with false ideologies (for this goes against physics and science)–excluding the belief in a deistic god–and as such must be eliminated, as there is more evil created by religion than is solved by religion. Humanity realizes that greed is a vice, and recognizes other vices. Because there are humans that can give up vice–and they are no different than other humans psychologically, all humans can give up vice. They can realize that greed is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and can and should change themselves, as greed is another construct that is destructive to humanity, as are hatred, bigotry, and other such evils. So now we have made sure humanity’s basic needs are met and there are no borders/religion/greed/hatred/etc. to cause wars. But in the elimination of such bigotry, we also eliminate the human desire for one to preside over another, as presidence over another would be a form of bigotry. Thus humanity works together in harmony, as in the workplace (i.e. the workers own the means of production.) Humanity also realizes that we share the earth with other species, and the very concept of “owning” land is absurd, and the destruction of the ecosystem would be destruction of other species. As such, environmentalism is deemed important. Humans also realize that the progress of humanity is primarily determined by the progress of science, and works towards a science-oriented future. Humans also recognizes that humanity is widespread across the world, and the equable transfer of goods from one to another would be difficult without some level of facilitation, as well as realizing that a certain set of laws are required in order for there to be a clear understanding between people and regulations. As such, small governments would be necessary, but they’d be more along the lines of facilitators as opposed to governments. And this leads there to being no borders, no bigotry, no greed, no worker abuse, no poverty, eternal happiness, and such. Under this world, the next issue is not that the sun will soon expand and engulf the earth, since that won’t happen for another five billion years, and life on earth has only existed for a billion, and life on earth will be radically different if it at all still exists–although within a billion years, the sun will have become large and hot enough to cause global warming to run rampant and cause earth to become even more hostile than Venus. It’s the idea that humanity is ready to become a space-borne species. It needs to focus on building technologies that allow us to colonize other planets/moons in our solar system, mine asteroids, harvest Helium-3 from Jupiter, or form some other mode of propulsion that’ll take us to the stars and beyond. We are well-capable of becoming a space-faring species, far more than we already are, but we need to focus on ordering humanity on Earth first–it must be ordered in order to reach further in the stars, lest humanity destroy itself on earth or during the voyage to the stars. Then, the focus of humanity becomes to edge further into unexplored territories, into the final frontier of space, to quote a cliché. This was roughly my thought process during middle school and high school, and is how I was a communist before I knew what communism actually was. This is why I consider myself an Eco-Marxist-Leninist-Futurist with slight Anarchist tendencies, as I believe that is what humanity must work towards in order to be a successful species.
[Now THIS, THIS is a wall of text]
Again, despite the length, it isn’t a full manifesto of my philosophies (I guess this wall of text is largely The Communist Manifesto, and I’m just providing a very rough argument as to why I support it), so don’t take this as such. It is largely incomplete and is merely a quick argument on Skype. But since I put in effort to write something somewhat intellectual, I might as well post it here.