‘In demeanor I am not normally morose. I am often jovial and I do not take most things too seriously. Yet I am prone to occasional bouts of depression. It is partly for this reason that I find myself thinking so much of death recently. The other reason is simply that I had previously extinguished most of my natural fear of death back when I became suicidal in college. Also, a few years ago I walked away from a serious car accident that could have easily killed me. So while others do not even think of their demise I purposely turn my mind towards it. This has especially been the case over the last 6 months, following a cold day last December when I saw a motorcyclist crushed like a rag doll in a fatal crash with a car just 10 feet in front of my eyes.
But why do I purposely think on death? Because death focuses my mind. If I remain aware of my mortality, I will concentrate my energies while alive on those things that matter. And those things do not include going out to movies, watching TV, hanging out with friends, or even drinking good wine (although eating good chocolate is something that matters!). What many people seek, to leave some sort of legacy or have some effect upon the world, also seems to me trivial and meaningless. Whether in 100 years, 1000 years, or in 1 million years, any man\’s work will be destroyed by the ravages of time. Wait a billion years and the universe itself will die out and nothing created by humans will remain. If all human works are evanescent, why strive to create them? What good even world domination and universal worship if all will forget in but a few thousand years’ time?
No matter what happens after death, I cannot but conclude that the only meaning in life is to be found in goodness, not greatness. While any man can live a grand life and change the world, few can say as they lay dying that they became what they could be. Flowers and trees do not need to strive to be complete, but humans must strive and suffer if they are to hope to be truly human and truly good. And just as a plant or animal has innate qualities, so do humans. And to lead a good life one must use those qualities to the fullest.
In his trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien described death as “The One’s gift to mankind.” One of the key subplots in the trilogy is the love and eventual marriage between Arwen (an elf) and Aragon (a human). For Arwen, to choose marriage with a human means that she must renounce eternal life and become mortal. And yet she chooses it. The reason why such a choice can be rational is easier if we compare life to a game–what is more interesting and worthwhile playing: a game with no way to win or lose or a game in which winning and losing are both possible? Most would say the second kind of game. Without mortality there can be no real winning or losing–just eternal playing. It is the finite nature of the game that gives it meaning, just as with our lives.
So what does this have to do with this blog? Simply, my own mortality is the impetus behind this blog. What use working a normal job and having normal hobbies when I know what is right and what is wrong and I have the qualities to be a revolutionary? Whether I succeed or fail, I fight because the fight is just.’,
From an MSNBC interview March 29, 2007. See my earlier post [link] for reasons why you should vote for Paul, even if you don\’t think he can win. The classic American position on foreign wars is that they are not necessary and they certainly cause harm both to our finances, our image, and to the people killed or wounded in those wars. Why do we need to spend money to house troops in Germany, the Phillipines, Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia? The people of those countries do not want us there, and their resentment fuels the terrorists and gives the terrorists more recruits.
Christianity affirms the 10 Commandments of Jewish law, and among them are “Thous shalt not kill” and “Thous shalt not steal”. All our governmental officials who profess Christianity should believe these things. And keep in mind that a key teaching of Jesus is that sin has no degree–stealing is wrong whether it is a penny or a million dollars. Adultery is wrong whether it involves 37 prostitutes or simply an idle fantasy.
That being the case, it is not very hard to reach the conclusion that government is theft because it involves coerced taking of property and money. Therefore, government is wrong and perpetuating it is a sin. The statist response to this is to argue in a Locke-ian maner that the government arises by the choice of the people for a social compact that provides them with certain services at the expense of certain freedoms. This is a fallacious argument that is easily refuted by a mild reducto ad absurdum: imagine a group of people getting together and deciding by majority vote to enslave one of the group. Is this right? Of course not. So it cannot be right for the majority to take from a minority even if the theft is less severe than total slavery (which is the theft of body and freedom). For Locke’s social compact theory to be ethically tenable, individuals would have to have the ability to withdraw from the compact. Try not paying your taxes and you will quickly find out that you cannot withdraw from the social compact.
Another possible response to my argument that Christians must be anti-government is to quote Jesus when he said, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God’s.” It is important to keep in mind that this was in response to the Pharisees’ attempt to trap Jesus by asking him if it was okay to pay Roman taxes. If he had yes, he would have been seen as supporting the oppressors of Judea. If he said no, the Romans would have seen it as an act of rebellion and he would have been executed before his work was done. The most cogent explanation of this is that Jesus meant exactly what he said, but what he said is not what most people think he said. He said that you should give to the government that which belongs to it. But the key question is what belongs to the government? If it is wrong to steal then it is wrong to tax, in which case nothing belongs to Caesar. Examined from the other side we come to the same conclusion–if we give to God everything which to him belongs, then we give everything to him and nothing is left for Caesar. This explanation sense because by speaking in this manner Jesus was able to subvert the Roman order without directly seeming to oppose them.
I am not the first to interpret this passage in this way. See wikipedia for more info.
On death
June 9th, 2007 by 
admin
No Comments »