Ideas can arise from the most unexpected places and the most peculiar times. As I sit under the warmth of my halogen desk lamp, reading endlessly to study for an AMS midterm, I was hit by the revelation whose description will follow. This quote from "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Toqueville is the ignition of this sudden explosion of thought:
“The chief object and one of the principal advantages of religion is to provide answers to each of these primordial questions; these answers must be clear, precise, intelligible to the crowd, and very durable.”
Ironically, it immediately follows a dismissal of philosophy as being "contradictory...without ever firmly grasping the truth or even finding mistakes that are new." I conversely have found his argument to be rather stimulating philosophically, and will now elaborate.
Now, as I and masses of others before me have established, religions are largely, as de Tocqueville states, "...very false and very ridiculous." We see them as placebos for nonexistent drugs. They explain everything, which we know to be impossible. As I have continually attacked the institution of religion, however, I have been selfish. I did not commit to bizarre, contradictory, nonsensical voodoo for my own means. I thought they should be abolished. But what if, perhaps, society needed such things to survive?
Continue. The French Statesman refers to the decidedly undecided as "penetrating, subtle, and trained to think," and "far above the average capacities of men." He acknowledges their higher capability of thought, their ability to exceed the limits of understanding, or want of understanding, that has been imposed on humanity. He then accuses them of spending too much time with these abilities. He suggests that "Only minds singularly free from the ordinary preoccupations of life," can explore these deep thoughts, and "even if most men were capable to such inquiries, they clearly would not have time for them." I do beg to differ to these points--I seem to have found time to analyze his analysis in the midst of studying for an exam as I strive to get a degree in an entirely unrelated subject. Any rational man can question, albeit not to this level.
In order to buffer this concussion of arrogance, I will remind the religious that we who analyze from this perspective are not atheist, nor do we lean so far as Thomas Paine. No; we may not be categorized as biased because our ideas are derived not from anti-belief, but rather lack of belief entirely. Belief is inevitably inclined to a position or another--an metaphorical switch, as opposed to the neutrality of agnosticism. I can contest to the agnostic experience as being a pleasantly cool and fresh water stuffed between the sharp acidity of religions and baseness of atheism, both of which burn with equal strength.
But onward. The fact of the matter is, religion is a product of the common man (by which I mean the incalculable majority of mankind.) The common man must have morals, he must have structure to live by. This structure is not the truth. Truth is an invisible wall, an analogy described in detail elsewhere in my writing. But this is not that structure--this is social structure. Man must have social structure. Anarchy will fail in the world of man. Because he must have structure, there must be some material to build the structure from; be it straw or sticks, mud or bricks, religion. Religion defines society. It instates morals, and patterns, and commonality, and truths. False truths, really, and false morals, since even the most amateur of philosophers knows that morals are simply ghosts floating in bottomless pits. But religion inevitably contributes to the creation and sustenance of society. As de Tocqueville pointed out, church and state were formally separated by the Constitution, but the indirect influence is absolutely inevitable.
My revelation is this: religion is necessary. It is necessary for that majority of mankind to exist. Without it, society would collapse and men would fall to "anarchy and impotence." Says de Tocqueville, "One must recognize, whether or not (religions) save men's souls in the next world, that they greatly contribute to their happiness and dignity in this." They must have something to lead them. They are terrified of "limitless independence."
What is good for a man is not necessarily good for society as a whole. There are the few that strive to understand more, who salivate for knowledge and enjoy pondering "contradictory ideas on which the mind of man has been ceaselessly tossed for thousands of years..." They may not find it, but they are closer to the truth. However, the majority of man does not yearn for such a truth; he yearns for comfort in this world and security of the next. This is the basis of social structure. It maintains order, and, in rare instances, establishes peace. The philosophers are the tormented yet privileged few.
This is the sole instance in any analysis I have yet produced for which I cannot conjure an analogical situation. It must simply be understood, and perhaps may only be understood by one who can propose it. This is the eternal dilemma of the philosopher.
Current Mood: Exhausted
Listening To: Red Noise
No comments:
Post a Comment