display | more...
The meaning, or purpose of life is an elusive question that mankind has pondered over since its capacity to do so arose. We ask "What is the meaning of Life? Why am I here?". If we apply Occam's Razor while answering this question, we can say that there probably is no meaning to life; there doesn't appear to be anything that would mandate the existence of such a meaning. The common response to this then is, "Why bother then? Why continue existing", and the wonderfully simple response is "Why not?". So to summarize the first step: There is no meaning to life, so one may as well live life to its fullest. From here we arrive at the first aspect of the term, Hedo, the greek as hedonism. So we correlate this to the doctrine of hedonism: that all things which feel good, or bring about pleasurable consequences are intrinsically good. This, however, does not imply that everyone should commence with massive binges; we look at the second part of the doctrine: ...bring about pleasurable consequences, are intrinsically good. Thus maintaining a healthy lifestyle could be considered hedonistic. Perhaps the person in question just enjoys feeling healthy. It is a matter of judgment for said person to determine what exactly he enjoys.

"What if one person's pursuit of enjoyment encroaches on another's?" Well if there were some form of intrinsic social stratification, saying one person has more rights than another. But again applying Occam's razor, there doesn't appear to be any reason for this to be the case. Therefore no person holds rights or authority over another, and we apply the adjective anarchic to to the accumulating belief structure. The doctrine of anarchism says that no one person has right to hold dominion over another. "But won't chaos arise from such a situation?" Well yes but chaos is not necessarily a bad thing. Human's have the capacity to form organizational structures, and if the desires of all human's in a certain group are similar, then they can combine their efforts to achieve said goal.

A common problem however is the misinterpretation of anarchism. Most people assume it to mean no order at all, when it means merely no one person has dominion over another. "But won't violence arise out of this?" Violence? but Violence is the most supreme and primitive dictation of authority. From this we come to Pacifism; ideally violence cannot exist if we wish to live in a free society. Naturally certain problems arise when we begin to question the limits of dictation of authority, but still this is a good foundation. I personally have a great deal of trouble with maintaining the pacifism aspect of this in my execution of it. And I came up with the damn thing.

Admittedly this is a very idealistic philosophy and could never be executed properly, and as with any 'ism' is prone to contradiction. Still I've found that my application of this does help in a lot of situations.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.