Reading about existentialism, I’m once again made highly conscious of the absurdity of most theories and philosophies about life, what it means, and how to live it. I’m glad there are philosophers to question these things, although that emotion—gladness—is probably unrelated to philosophy or even thought.

Being pleased that there are people treating something important that I also think might be important is just the recognition of other people being like what I think people should be like: me. It’s disingenuous. It hinges on a doubt: as if there was a possibility that there aren’t people like me in the world, that there is a chance that I am unique and alone. A stupid fear that, like the essence of paranoia, is a disguise for the fact that I want to be unique.

Human nature, or the nature of the human mind or self, is absurd. Not the world, at least, not the natural world. Only ideas can be absurd or non-sensical, and even then, only collections of ideas: world views, belief systems, and philosophies. They become absurd by being self-contradictory. Their contradictions arise from making contradictory assertions, generalizations about the value of things or, more importantly, behaviours and the codes of conduct by which we evaluate them.

There is no true guide to how to live properly, justly, correctly, or rightly. While religious scholars and atheistic philosophers both work towards the same goal of how to avoid making mistakes, the goal is absurd. You cannot describe a right way to live. You cannot write a set of laws which describe what is permissible and have it actually achieve a world of perfect order, even if everyone followed it. You cannot describe the limits of human behaviour in a finite set of written rules or guidelines, no matter how large.

You cannot categorize unbounded possibility. It is a fool’s errand. And so, you cannot tell me what I should or should not do. At best, you can tell me what you’ll do if I don’t do what you tell me to do (or not do), and I can try to evaluate the probability that you will be true to your word, inasmuch as that is even possible, and inasmuch as it can be pinned down, and inasmuch as we share the same understanding of what your words mean. Think of all the possible ways your words can be considered, if you can’t be trusted.

You are bluffing. You are playing games with words. Your resolve will not hold. You have or have not considered the consequences of your actions in response to my actions. You or I or both of us are insane: schizophrenic, compulsive liars, amnesiacs, or simply equivocating cowards. You will carry out your threats even if I follow your rules.

What if the world cannot be trusted. One or the other of us will die or run away before you can carry out your threats. Our relationship will change. You will lose the power to exact your revenge, due to illness or other change of circumstance. Other outside forces will change your attitude. After you see the results of my actions, you will re-interpret them and change your course of action.

I question the fundamental purpose of describing right and wrong. I submit it is a threat which is made to be economically prudent. It is a way to cow people into doing what you want them to do which is less costly than making examples of people, or taking more direct preventative actions. You can prevent murder (of a kind), by removing the ability to cause it, though you could never be comprehensive about it, except by isolating every person from every other person. So it would be the end of civilization. Some would no doubt say that they would prefer that. There is no shortage of people praying for God to end the world, after all. At times, I’ve long for it myself. But the baby with the bath water and all that.

The world is an unequal place. The human understanding of the world is worsened when you try to completely deny that fact. A sane approach to the world is to accept it as it is, but to work within its limits to get what you want. An insane approach is to try to change it, or, worse, pretend it is something else. To cling to absurd ideals which are impossible, and try to find virtue in such futility. To wish for a world that is not the world. With reality, if you pay attention to it, if you work to understand it, at least you have some chance of accomplishing something.

I have to be careful to avoid walking over the line I myself am drawing. I have my own rules for myself and others. There is no universal right or wrong in them. They are just what I think I will do in response to what someone else does. Often, and more realistically, because of what I’ve written above, these rules cannot themselves be presented with any confidence in advance, or in some kind of general case. Every response to every action is unique. Every case is different. And every day were are each a different person. We do what we want, and are free to do so until someone takes that freedom away. We are not bound to one another. Human society is by definition made up of free choice. Compulsion is not society; it is enslavement.

Enslavement, too, is part of life, part of the world. Your will may be your own, but your body is yours only as long as someone else doesn’t take it away from you (or you from it, as the case may be). More realistically, its less your body these days that is in danger than your attention. The most common sort of enslavement is that found when one person forces others to acknowledge them, to give them time which is not theirs to take. If that time was promised, certainly there is a likelihood of reprisal if that promise is broken, but if not, who has a right?

Each person’s time is his own. Even a promise is enslavement. Every promise is an enslavement made, either coerced with threats or reciprocal promises, or by single choice of the promiser. Every promise is an attempt to enslave he to whom the promise was made. Beware all promises, and make none, lest you make yourself a liar or a slave, or be deceived or an enslaver of others. Enslavement exists. It may even be mandatory. It may even be desirable. But we should not pretend it is anything other than a necessary compromise. A means to an end. And there is no god-given justice in it, whether it be called marriage, family, employment or ownership.

Justice is the most nonsensical idea invented in the history of thought. Life is the story of power and its exercise, including the powers to associate and collaborate, and the freedom to be alone. Power and freedom are different forms of the same thing.

All people would be better off with a more equal distribution of power, although a true equal distribution is impossible. Those who think power is better to be centralized or concentrated are simply wrong, and most likely insane. But be careful in making assumptions about who thinks what, let alone in actually believing what they say. Everyone has the power to lie, and it’s impossible to refrain from exercising that power.