In his critique of pure reason, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant concludes, to paraphrase, that the things are only done out of necessity. Is this true? Let’s find out.
The basic function for many of us is to go to work. Regardless of the job, we all have the same basic needs- that is shelter and sustenance. And without an occupation these things cannot be and we would die. Regardless of the task it is necessity that drives us. ‘Ah!’, you might very cleverly argue, ‘what about the whole invention of the stock market and business, you, yourself have argued that these are pointless, so surely there is no necessity there?’. To your clever retort I would have no reply, but the great Greek philosopher Plato would say, do not forget, those best suited for power etc. are those who desire it less. From this one could argue, based on Plato’s words, that needs are not only external and experiential (such as hunger) but also internal. Surely, if we take Plato’s word we could say that those who try to succeed by becoming very rich and powerful are acting out of a desire for such things they do not inherently possess, and therefore it is necessity for them which drives them onwards. Don’t forget the gods do not desire that which they already possess. Your reply to this would be even more brilliant, you would say ‘ok, sure, but what about interrelationships? Yes people have families to continue their name and to find people who they can disagree with but never be shot of, but what about those who enjoy the intoxication of alcohol and the company of fine women (or men). Surely sexual intercourse, done for fun, is not a necessity, is it? One cannot live without food but one can live without sex’. Your clever comments here would give me pause until I utter, is it not possible, if those who long for power and prestige act from a necessity which is internal, then is it not possible that there may be a spiritual reason or psychological that people feel the cold, feel empty and through ‘fun’ they can placate these feelings for a moment, after all Nietzsche said that the Greeks used to think what is fun and how can I do more whereas we modern folk (he was in the 19th Century) think what is bad and how can we relieve our suffering slightly. ‘Ah, but you have just undone your own argument,’ you will joyfully exclaim, ‘is not theology proof of things coming from unnecessity?’ to which Voltaire would leap in and cry ‘If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him’ and then go into a long spiel about how God may be necessary as sexual intercourse is and so on and so forth. At this point you would explain ‘it is irrefutable, your boy Plato said that artist were unnecessary, therefore we win!’ to which I would reply, could it not be that they wish to show the world as being beautiful, a beauty rarely seen, or like lovers who engage in the act to displace energy so do artists displace emotion etc. etc.
This we would continue ad nauseum until you would fall down, dead bored, and raise your hands and say, ‘ok, you win, you clearly need this discussion, therefore we will leave you to it’. And as you leave and I revel in my victory, you will turn to me and say ‘was it really necessary to write all of this down for your audience, our pitiful conversation of tedium which will not make the sun rise or black holes suck less?’, to which I would fall down to my backside and stare at the sky, lost is fevered thoughts, was any of this really necessary or have I just undone my whole argument?
‘till next time
thegreaterfool2016 