Modern Philosophy

There is a great deal of nonsense being talked about the lack of humour in the modern age. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The problem with these critics is that they understand only half of the equation. They might (perhaps) know what good humour is but they certainly donot know where to look for it. This is like a researcher trying to look for a honest man in the parliament and then decreeing the startling and sensational fact that honest men are extinct. There can be humour in such statements about the extinction of honesty but there is no honesty in statements about extinction of humour. Somebody said that a rose in any other name would smell as sweet. Humour in any other name is humorous, even if that new name is as grotesque as Modern Philosophy. By Modern Philosophy, I donot mean the unquestionably practical and excellent philosophy that the modern Get-To-The-Top-At-Any-Cost school has given. The type I am talking about is that which claims to address the question of "How to live" as well as "Why to live".

First, I would like to inform the world that I am not opposed to philosophy. On the contrary, I have always believed that every man must have a philosophy to escape being misguided by the appearance of radical and dangerous new ideas. "Nationalism" and "The War On Terror" are two such ideas that have succeeded solely due to the lack of philosophy in the common man. It is due to this deficiency that we have been swindled by godmen and governments. But, the restrictive condition is that a man is to treat his philosophy as a miser treats his gold. He must not flaunt it in the society and must certainly not seek to distribute it like a maudlin philanthropist. Even if he were to do so, the people ought to take the whole issue as a joke. If one were to find thirteen gold coins lying unattended on the road, he would adopt it. Nobody would go into paroxysms of fear at the sight of the devil's number. It is understandable to see a man watching the "Live proceedings of the parliament" show on TV as he could not get tickets for the circus. No intelligent person would see the show for illumination. Similarly, it is stupid to look at modern philosophy for enlightenment when it is a collection of jokes.

One of the good things about philosophy, or rather the philosophers is that they readily lend themselves to classification. The first type were those from the ancient ages who were well fed and well off. They directed their intelligence towards the subject when their poorer neighbors were thinking of the next meal. These were the fathers of the religions of today and as they worked without any personal motives, their work was tolerably sane. Unfortunately, this class has vanished completely as the honest poor are fully occupied in filling their stomachs with grass and water as the dishonest rich are in filling it with cakes and wine. The new class of superficial intellects is entirely responsible for the existing mess. The pagans worshipped the sun as it gave them light and energy. The religions gave men not only strong gods to worship but terrible devils to fear. Man was warned that if he did not follow the dictates of the religious philosophy, he would be cursed to reincarnate as a donkey or would be roasted by devils over a slow flame. If his house went up in flames or if he lost a leg, he was promptly informed that this was due to his sins in another birth. He was kept in fear of a force that was beyond his comprehension and consequently beyond his questioning.

Therin lies the great absurdity of modern philosophy. It abuses a system built on an incomprehensible and sacrosanct basis and provides a system with no basis. While philosophy ought to give man a reason to smile and live, modern philosophy gives him reasons to cry and die. This is usually the work of otherwise jobless prigs who, owing to lack of any useful intellectual capacity or willingness to work seek to fill their stomachs with bread and meat by filling the minds of the populance with dirt and slime. For instance let us take the case of food. Ancient philosophy asserted that it was the gift of god to a honest man's labour. This is at once both a simple and effective explanation. It is natural for men to like food and it is natural for gifts to be things we like. Nobody privately gifts a huge python to a child on his birthday in the hope that the recepient will appreciate his sense of selection, for in this particular case it will be the python who may appreciate the sense of selection of his dinner. On the other hand, the modern philosopher stops the hungry man from eating and (pocketing his bread) says " Fall not into this imbecility my friend! this is not real food. It is the tool of evil pleasure in keeping you in bondage. But despair not, rejoice- for I shall sacrifice my pleasures in consuming this wretched stuff instead" and quotes unanswerable statistics to prove that what we usually consider to be pleasure is actually torture. The Nihilist says " Human!, life itself is a dream. How does it matter whether you starve or gorge in your dream? Throw away this piece of illusion (preferably into my plate) and wait for the waking moment". Even if the Nihilist is right and we can set fire to ourselves in the belief that halfway through the act, we will be woken up to reality, it is quite incomprehensible why he does not do the same. Perhaps he has no time for such childish pastimes. But the real reason, I fancy is that he is a fake Nihilist and a real blackguard.

Or take the case of a man having cut himself. Religion says that the suffering is the punishment given by god for some unacceptable act. This is a sensible explanation. Pain is inflicted in punishment to a misdeed. Courts donot sentence cutthroats and terrorists to all expenses paid life sentences in holiday resorts. Neither are freedom fighters combating invading barbarians dragged off to gallows and stakes by their own governments as a reward. But ask one of the more scientific modern philosophers and he will say "Why is there a hue and cry over an injury? A healthy man is nothing but a particular arrangement of protons, neutrons and electrons. A man with a bullet through his ear is a different arrangement. Why do you moan and cry when you actually have to exult in the beauty of this modification? realize the magnificence of this event. REJOICE!!!". All this is very well but one often does wonder why so few "scientific" philosophers offer their ears as targets to bullets. Perhaps it is because there will be no difference to their atomic structures, the bullet exiting through the other ear for want of obstructing material inbetween.

Many pleasures of life are small but very real. The smile of a child ,the gentle shade of a tree, the setting sun or the sight of a green meadow flanked by verdant groves and a clear lake may be subjects for romance but are certainly pleasing. But this detestable and repulsive brood of creatures will protest. "Enjoy not the child's smile - it is evanescent" the neo-ascetics will advise . The scientists will warn, tossing about sheets of paper like confetti and waving their arms like windmills "Sit not under the tree - according to our computations (taking into account the rotation of the earth around the centre of the galaxy and the effect of the sixty four collapsed dimensions) there is a probability that the tree will fall down on your head". "The radiations from the setting sun will burn the optic cells and cause irreparable loss of vision after ninety nine years" the Biologists will inform. Wild men rampaging the streets will come to me and condemn me for enjoying sitting on the earth which murderously consumes all men in the end. I would rather be a troglodyte enjoying the sights I like rather than a gentleman consuming this nonsense.

Amusingly again, many "rationalists" try to attack the baseless ritualistic elements in religion ferociously asserting that religion has no business to persuade a man to do something without a practical reason. Rituals were to keep the common man in awe of the religion. It is the mysticism that maintains the greatest human organisations in order, the present governments for instance. The man on the streets is to be in awe of the Minister. If the students were allowed to treat their schoolmasters as equals, there would be no schools as all schoolmasters would go to their graves pelted by stones. Religion is certainly not the perfect philosophy but it is certainly the best we have right now. There is no sense in snatching away a piece of bread from a man and asking him to starve as bread is not good enough for him. Those who accuse religion of dividing mankind would do well to remember that religion has never sought to do so. One can strike a plough into the soil to grow food or strike it into another man's breast to kill him. Religeon is the plough and intellect, the hand.

Finally, it is instructive to compare the modern philosophers with monkeys. Both sit in unreachable places and chatter among themselves in an incomprehensible language. But should anyone consider this statement to be an unforgivable slight to the latter community, I withdraw it with apologies.