Paths give meaning. Reality gives reality.

I will start of this article by talking about a recent interview with David Bowie which was incredibly impactful to me. He explains how in the 20th century we began with a new slate with no direction. Through the human development of knowledge such as Einsteins discoveries of relativity and Freud's discoveries of the human mind, there was nothing set in stone. Instead there is a clean slate where a degree of uncertainty snuck in as we began to understand that we know nothing. He states that Nietzsche's prophecy that 'god is dead' had truly come to life after scientific revelations. Science has taken over religion as a determined path, yet a much more unclear and obtuse path.

It seems to me that we are back to square 1, back to the days where Socrates was preaching that 'all I know is that I know nothing'. As we get closer to the truth, we realise that the truth is too far ahead for us to reach, which sets in a Nihilist and self consumptive mentality.

You see, the difference between science as a path and religion as a path for society is night and day. Religion was an illusionary path that was clear and goal oriented. You are born evil (original sin), you must to what your told (bible) and you will have a prize at the end (heaven). Science however is a more realistic concept, yet it is not a path. You are born as a cluster of atoms that serve no purpose but to exist, there is nothing significant about your life because we are insects in the universe and there is nothing when you die. This is not a path, this is just a reality.

So how as human beings are we supposed to live a path driven life with such a lack of direction. How are we supposed to grow in life without a path, without a vision?

Between 'god is dead' and now there have been newly created illusionary paths for people to lead progressive lives but these have all been debunked to some degree. Primarily, the 'American dream', which states that we are born poor, we make money, we live a material paradise. It is essential in every path for there to be a beginning, middle and end. However, unlike religion, the 'American Dream' is an easily contestable path for two reasons:

Firstly, this is only the case if you are poor to begin with, then going from discomfort to comfort is very rewarding. However, if you are not born poor, then that transition does not exist. Hence why this path worked earlier in the 20th century when there was real, life or death, mass poverty. Where someone who was poor was riddled with illnesses and hunger, not knowing whether they will last another day. However, in todays age, with the levels of extreme poverty to this degree being minimal, there is no beginning of the path and therefore people cannot engage with it.

Secondly, because it is within our life time that we can see whether the end is truly a material paradise, the ending is also spoiled. We can see that money does not necessarily lead to happiness, because there are people who get to the end but are not happy. Unlike religion, where no one knows what happens after death, with the American Dream we can. This is shown in figure 1 as the difference between an exponential graph demonstrating the American dream and a linear graph showing religion.

(Figure 1)

Note: The red line at the end goes past the materially comfortable line because there is a degree of happiness from exceeding this line e.g. luxury etc. But this is limited, it may be more than demonstrated on the graph but I just can't be facked to redo the graph you ungrateful gimps.

Now, there are two concrete reasons why this capitalist ending has been debunked and demystified. Firstly, as mentioned before, the majority of people are born above the materially comfortable line. And secondly, the hyper-plurality of media sources has led to more sincere and realistic coverage. In the oficial and vertical sense such as sincere and research based documentaries. And in the informal and lateral sense such as personal and truthful youtube channels. There may be more but I don't care. You get the point. They show the real side of the ending, spoiling the story.

So what is the result of this broken capitalist path? The answer is a reduction in the number of people who follow this path, but instead lead alternate paths. And here we see the complete differentiation and lack of societal homogeny we see today. This lack of cohesion inevitably leads to conflict and polarisation, primarily seen through identity politics in the modern times.

Science does have the possibility of being path but it is a far more incoherent and fragile path than either the capitalist or religious path. The science path goes as follows; You are born a curious individual seeking the truth, you enter a scientific school of thought and use scientific experimental techniques to reach conclusions, you reach a glorious level of understanding. Beginning, middle and end. However, this path has many problems which make it implausible and limited.

The most important problem with this path is that it battles with the cognitive limitations of humans which make the ending inconclusive. This comes into play primarily when scientists reach a certain point in their understanding that completely destroyed previous knowledge acquired from the previous school of thought. A perfect example of this is the switch from newtonian physics to quantum physics. This sets us back and away from the utopian state of understanding at the end of the path. Each time we do reach closer to the final goal,

however, each time there is also an exponential line reaching towards infinity when we reach the limitations of that theory. In the end, we will never be able to reach a conclusion because the chances of us being physically capable to even understanding it are 0. Perhaps through artificial intelligence we will be able to get close the end, however, even if they understand it, it does not mean we can.

Furthermore, this ending of utopian enlightenment is not the most attractive ending and thus lacks its popular element for this path be fulfilling. In other words, only the nerds and the educated will clip onto this path. But even they may be discouraged by its history of rewinds and corrections that make it inherently nihilistic.

This beginning middle and end (initial, means and end) is seen in any life actions that an individual takes to progress in any way. You must have the illusionary end, the clear means and the deprived beginnings. Now as seen above, the most exceptional life path is the religious one because of its linear trajectory. This basic fact that the end is unprovable maintains its illusionary nature, its means are clear and writing in the bible and it beginnings are compulsorily deprived. Thus it made it exceptionally attractive as a path to take; obviously varying to the extent one wished to take it as a path. For example, a priest would take the path as a principle one whereas a business man would have it as a tertiary path. But it was still there and still the strongest, most dependable and adaptive path; the path that was able to sustain you when all hope is lost and thrust you when hope is regained.

Hence why it was such an abundantly inherited path by society which glued it together and created a common consensus. This common consensus leads to progress because society is working together under the same rules and connected by this common path. Having such a vastly popular path also gains the path more legitimacy because more people are in accord with it and thus the beginning, middle and end are respected more heavily; creating an auto-strengthening path.

This is not what we see today. Today there is no common path, there is no common goal or personal direction, it is only our own rational decisions that must guide us. We must invent our own beginning, middle and end; knowing it is achievable thus making it inherently broken.

A clear example of individual paths unsuited to be fulfilling is transgenderism. You are born a boy who thinks they are a girl, you go through life slowly edging towards your goal by cross dressing and acting out your gender disforia, you finally have a sex change. That individual has made a drastic decision to base their life misery on one characteristic they have and thus expect too much once that sex change occurs. What happens most of the time is that after the sex change they are still immensely dissatisfied with their lives. The only way this could be reversed is if everyone took that path to claim its legitimacy, but this of course is unrealistic as that path is strictly restricted to certain people and the ending is not fulfilling at all, which is aided by the percentage of depression and suicide of transexuals which I certainly do not wholly place on discrimination, but place on a lack of a good ending despite all the problems it took to get there. Its like walking through hell to expect a drink from the fountain of youth and instead finding a puddle of stagnated water.

But this individual path taking is seen even in the most arbitrary instances and is commonly highlighted by society how it fails. For example, the kid who wants to be cool, so he takes the necessary steps to become cool, abandons his friends and then realises that it isn't that great and he's an asshole. Him making rational decisions to reach a ending which was illusionary in his mind and once achieved with smashed to bits by the fist of reality. Then gets a few wise words from an old man who lives down the road about how he will be better off being kind and starts going back to his old ways of being a loyal follower common morality instead of this individual rationalised path.

But what occurs when this paths begins to deteriorate, when it loses its legitimacy by attempts to dismantle its grasp of the population. There is no going back to the good old days because there is no direction. There is no old man down the road giving you advice, instead there is a black mirror.

Religion was the valley that directed all paths towards a general direction, filled with vegetation and animals that lived from the trickles of water formed from the mountains beside us. But now there are no mountains, no valley, no plants or flowers, no animals, no water. Only a dry, flat desert of hopelessness, staring at us from every direction.

Religion is a consistent path because it offers both long term progress through idealistic ambition (there being an after life) and short term progress through practical methods of living life (e.g. be kind to your neighbour). We have already discussed how the long term is important for progress in society and the reduction of Nihilism, and now just a quick summary on the short term. Its broken down into two main aspects.

Firstly the communal aspects, these rules and laws placed by religion are useful in having social harmony and allowing society to function as a whole. E.g. be kind to your neighbour, turn the other cheek etc. Simply put, this allows for co-existence between people by restricting their instincts that may harm others and thus reducing the communal harmony. In effect, this allows for the further progress of a civilisation, as communities are able to progress more rapidly. Imagine a massive heard of penguins that are migrating towards a an area in the antarctic where they believe there is limitless fish to hunt and a perfect climate for reproduction. However, they must go through a long journey to this supposed land which is cold and miserable to endure. Now, if that heard of penguins sticks as a unit, with the common objective to reach that land, they are more likely to get there quicker and in a better state, as when they are larger in numbers, they are able to keep warmer when grouped together and thus able to lead with more momentum. Now, if individual penguins begin to fight and kill each other because of jealousy or any other instinctual response, then this momentum is reduced and the chances of reaching that goal is also reduced. Once again, the end goal (the idea of a prosperous land) must be strongly implemented firstly to have these rules of harmony and simultaneously these rules allow for a higher chance of reaching this end goal.

But penguins and too short sighted and stupid to understand this concept or they are too selfish to accept that they must make short term sacrifices for this long term objective. So what other aspect apart from the communal progression towards an end goal can motivate coherence in the penguin community. The individual benefits of course. This comes in two doses: 1) the obvious yet indirect prospect of short to long term security (don't do to others what you wouldn't do to yourself) and 2) the less obvious yet direct prospect of karma. The first instance is pretty self explanatory, people fear that if they act in an ill manner, this may influence others to act in this way and thus potentially endanger their security in the future. And in the second instance of karma, if an individual acts in a certain manner and manages to get away with it, he is likely to get the mentality that he can remain in this mentality of negative social impact. He/she of course does not realise that their initial negative action had adversary impacts that they are unaware of and that will impact their future downfall. This is further broken down into two paths: 1) he has an impact which he is unaware of and which directly has a negative impact on him. For example, penguin x kills penguin A who recently became intimate friends with penguin c, in 3 years, penguin C becomes a leader and banishes penguin x. 2) through having a negative recurring mentality. For example, penguin x kills penguin a and nothing happens, so penguin x kills penguin b and nothing happens, he keeps going until he kills penguin D who has a brother who kills penguin x. Again, similar to the more collective reasoning for keeping collective harmony and following rules is further incentivised by the ideal end goal of that paradise, but of course in the individual sense.

Of course, this idea of there being a need for religion and a need for a path towards salvation is not my idea at all. It has been around for centuries and is a recurrent theme in western philosophy, the primary man for this mindset is of course the genius that is Nietzsche. He was one of the first, if not the first, to clearly show how without the idea of god standing above us like an omnipotent father, we are unable to progress and to push through he daunting struggle that is life. Of course Nietzsche had two prominent limitations in his deepness and objectivity in analysing religion as a tool for civilisation and individual progression through it. Firstly, his personal history with religion and his deep connection with it which made him slightly limited in his objective view as his emotional connection made him to involved in the feeling of religion and not the rational effect of it. Even he would admit to this through his idea of how our thoughts are cursed biases remaining through personal experience. Furthermore, he simply was too much of prophet for his time, he did not have sufficient examples of large scale idealistic paths to compare with religion. Thus, he was unable to really dig deep at the essence behind religion that made it so appealing and such a powerful force in human development and civilisation. His main comparison and successor for this path at his time was science, which is still prominent and the key other path that society has taken to replace religion. However, he did not have other paths which are now a days prominent due to the lack of a strong path science has left behind. And thus, this analysis was limited by the dual comparison of science and religion brought forward by the prominence of religion at the time. Whereas now we have the capitalist path (declining), the religious path (declining), the scientific path (stable) and many other smaller scale paths (inclining) such as feminism and pseudo scientific paths.

Through this lack of comparison he was therefore unable to make the analogy I have made in this article that the strength of paths and therefore the progression of civilisation, is down to the unknown of problematic beginning, clear guide in the middle and utopianism of the ending all led by the degree of unknown elements and incremented by willingness to accept them.

I will conclude this topic by going back to the idea that David Bowie talked about in this brief interview about philosophy. Will humanity go back a primordial mentality? Is the lack of a path leading to this point? or are we so conditioned historically to have a path that we are unable to do this? If this is the case, then what path will we take? Will it be many different paths which will shatter harmony and societal coherence leading us to no end, it being utopian or not, but instead lead to auto-destruction, conflict and war? Or can we go down the Nietzschian path of idealising our selves as individuals as a god through a sort of Jungian individuation process? Where the end goal is not utopian but realistic, and each individual accepts this path to make themselves stronger, freer and better as individuals without the need for a paradise at the end? Probably death and destruction. No happy ending here sorry people.