This is a wonderful book in many ways and I am in total agreement with the author that we should help human beings live long, healthy and happy lives. Our views on how that might best be accomplished differ. My view on how to achieve that goal looks to the ultimately long run, while MacAskill’s is aimed more at the immediate satisfaction of those needs. His method will continue the maximizing of population growth in the immediate future, and mine will maximize the total number of human years lived as measured from the infinitely distant future when humanity no longer exists. In general we both want to maximize human happiness, but it is an abstract question that we are addressing. We will never know the 7.3 billion human beings now living, nor the potentially hundreds of billions to come, so it is not a personal involvement with people that’s the problem we are engaged in, but a humane one, of helping humanity.
My thoughts, efforts and blogs have been aimed at potentially doable projects, such as The Earth Ark Project, The Life Haven Project, and presently I am trying to create an organizational structure that would help humans develop a relationship with reality that would have each person help every other person they encounter to live, and live more abundantly in the long run. Each of these ideas is aimed at the same thing, to maximize the total number of hours of happy human living. There are a lot of assumptions in these ideas, as to what each of these words really mean, but if we remember that the ultimate goal is human happiness, and that happiness requires free, living human beings, the spins on the exact qualities of the words remain focused.
MacAskill supports finding your “personal fit” rather than “following your heart” and that is well covered by your personally exploring what your real talents are, as opposed to what you find interesting at the moment. Times change and your interests will change, but your basic talents are less flexible, so it becomes important to build those skills and credentials that will get you the jobs that you can do well to achieve lasting success.
Ultimately where there is a Black Swan payoff for success in your chosen field it is worthwhile to take the associated risks.
Some of my friends were born in 1925 when the population of the Earth was 2 billion people. Since that time it has grown to 7 billion and that’s 3½ times bigger. But, what if instead of having that huge population increase we had experienced a proportionate decrease? What if the human population had gone down by 3½ times to only 570 million during these friends lifetimes. Would people still be as happy and contented as they presently are or would they be feeling absolutely devastated by unrelenting disasters? Even the worst human tragedy of historical times, the Black Death, reduced population from 450 million to 350 which is only 22% of the people gone not 71%. What my friends experienced in their long lifetimes, and they are still going strong, was vastly more significant for humanity than the Black Death but in reverse. For all of the people who presently exist the other species of the world had to make adjustments and many simply died. That is their equivalent to the Black Death because we ate their food.
Bubonic plague called The Black Death ravaged Europe 1346-1351
The human species from the long term perspective is in a very unusual population condition. Population explosions happen to other species occasionally when they have an abundance of food and for some reason an absence of predators but then they invariably have a population crash. Either there is a crash in food supplies or their predators reproduce and eat them. The explosion that the current human population grew up with we now believe is a normal world but trippiling a population in a single lifetime isn’t normal and a crash is inevitable. We have access to ancient but temporary energy sources like coal, oil, gas and uranium which give a huge but one time boost to our food supply which is also incredibly unusual but it won’t last forever.
When these various unique supports for the ongoing human population boom run their course and are exhausted the population must drop back to a smaller number. How can we know or even speculate what that new number will be? One way to estimate what that new number will be is to estimate the population back when people lived wholly by their own bodily effort. We can easily think back to Roman times when the world population at the year 1AD was about one hundred million people. They were living solely on sustainable energy sources created mostly through humanly mediated farming. It was dependent upon their own human muscular effort aided by some draft animals.
Unfortunately, because of the present permanent degradation of natural resources if those ancient people were forced to live that same life style here and now on our present planet the new complications would probably reduced them to half of what the population number was during their lifetime. The situation might be even worse than that because not only has the soil been striped of its nutrients much of it has been washed away into the sea. The best farmland soil in the world is now under salt water at the mouths of rivers. The situation might be a little better in some ways because modern technology has created new ways to get permanently available energy from the sun using photo-voltaics and from more sophisticated windmills. This electrical energy can be made to run a high tech societies toys but it can also be converted into food. The process is similar to the fossil energy of oil being pumped from wells which is being used to run tractors which ultimately gets a lot more food out of a plot of farmable ground. The day may come when wind and solar energy are used to charge batteries which power the tractors of the future. Or perhaps there could be power lines like trolley lines strung over fields to power the electric tractors. This is obviously doable at present but while we still have gasoline it isn’t economically practicable. It would be interesting if the people at Tesla automotive would build a farm tractor instead of just sports cars to demonstrate that it could be done.
I don’t like the idea of lowering the Earth’s human population to a sustainable number but if we don’t do it voluntarily using human intelligence and ingenuity, with some consideration for human feelings, nature will do it for us. Nature will supply the “responsibility” perhaps with a human war but in a way which will be very brutal. We could be much kinder than unfeeling and uncaring nature but it is doubtful that humans could muster the political courage to take responsibility.
I have no interest in making any particular group relatively larger or more powerful than any other my ambition with this is human population proposal is only that a substantial number of humans survive for a very long time and in what we would presently consider descent living conditions. I want to maximize human happiness.
One would think this new book by Spencer Wells —Pandora’s Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization,would be an update of these ideas but it isn’t. Wells takes a more politically current tack into the big problems facing humanity today — obesity, information overload, human crowding. Those are the unforeseen costs of civilization and now he claims we are questing for a retreat from science and attempting to learn how to return to a life style more similar to what our ancestral DNA adapted us to.
This is a beautifully written book and full of good information but it is dipped in the publisher’s National Geographic style of honey coating everything. This style is appealing to many people and has earned that publisher an enduring place in Americana but I don’t think it is where modern decision makers should go for their core data or world views.
— ( A tiny quibble, the sources for this book are listed by chapter at the back and appear to be accurate but are difficult to trace back into the text because there are no page numbers. Pandora’s Seed is a transitional book in its documentation technique and has some web site links but the trend at present for the foreseeable future is clearly to have many more links and precise locations documented. (Actually, the future is already here online in text form and also live in-video. That is where the growing edge of intellectual debate is trending. The paper trail style of documentation may be slipping into mobile-books like Kindle and the documentation for references and quotations may get much better and quicker but at the same time harder to keep track of. The problem with that web tracking style of documentary proof is that with the online information overload there is a loss of time/space/subject orientation. Hopefully we will soon have a technical fix to help keep us oriented. (For example: Have a time line for everything you do, such as is being developed at ChronoZoom. With a program such as that you can zoom into a time, place or subject in your personal world and find, in detail, what you only generally remember.) —
The Human population almost goes extinct from the Mt. Toba eruption.
Pandora’s Seed starts off with a historical discussion of human population since our obscure beginnings. On page 15 there is a graph showing human population at about 80,000 individual people at 100,000 years ago and then a gradual drop off to 2,000 people starting at 80,000 and ending 70,000 years ago. I added the line and text colored red. The cause of this population crash, he says, was the super eruption of a volcano named Toba located in Sumatra which erupted about 71,000 years ago. But, his timing is backward and absurd. The population doesn’t drop off in expectation of a volcanic eruption ten thousand years in the future; it drops off sharply when the problem occurs and shortly after because of habitat disruptions. Once the habitat is restored the re-population to previous levels or some new stable level will begin. Which it did. But, he has the population dying off before the disaster which is absurd.
On rereading parts of this book trying to write a comprehensible post about it I find myself getting annoyed because this type of illogical reasoning keeps cropping up. But what is worse, this book isn’t about anything in particular! It is a wandering through the most prominent people and articles on several subjects and skimming material off of the top of some of their ideas and then presenting them as if they are supporting his thesis. But, there is no thesis – at least not much of one. So, I go once again to the end of the book to see where he ended up in an attempt to find out what he was talking about.
At the present critical point in human history, where we have the tools to begin to solve some of the problems set in motion by the Neolithic Revolution, saving ourselves will mean accepting human nature, not suppressing it. It will mean reassessing our cultural emphasis on expansion, acquisition, and perfectibility. It will mean learning from peoples that retain a link back to the way we lived for virtually our entire evolutionary history. And it might allow us to stick around for the next two million years.
That’s the concluding couple of sentences and they sound nice and read well but it really doesn’t say anything more than we should live more like our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors. Nuts! Our current human population of 7 billion is a million times bigger than their 7 thousand. They were living in ecological balance with their habitat way back then. If we were to live as they did, all but 7 thousand of us would have to die. I am not enthusiastic about that because my goal is to maximize human happiness and to do that I want many people to inhabit this Earth for a very long time.
But it gets worse! Here we have yet another example of someone with one of the worst carbon footprints on the planet (he talks about his frequent jet flights around the world to make this book, al la Al Gore) telling the rest of us to hold our breath so we don’t exhale CO2 and pollute the air. (No he didn’t say that, – it’s a joke – well not exactly.) He doesn’t seem to have a clue that this million to one population imbalance isn’t viable and won’t work in any kind of functioning reality because, seven billion people can’t live the same life style as seven thousand. I am reminded of Joe Stalin’s infamous remark, “One man’s death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic.” Sometimes, even intelligent well informed people are not going to help us survive better if at all.
There has been too much talk about Doomsday. We need a new day which is the opposite of Doomsday a New Adventure. A day commemorating a vivacious New World. A new world where there would be workable principles which could bring about a self balancing society. One which would return to a natural harmony with the Earth. This would be possible if there were few enough people on the Earth such that it could supply all needs and wants in abundance and be self restoring. It would be possible if people’s needs were met and there was an inexorable negative feedback to all overshot behavior. This would be a second coming for humanity but not of an individual messiah but of a whole new humanity — one based on a permanent dynamic sustainability.
For humanity it would be a limited libration with its dynamic energy moving around some central point or points with strangely attractive behaviors. It is difficult or perhaps impossible to define exactly how this works because it constantly changes but there is a feedback which takes the various forces and inertiae and as things change the summation of the complex behaviors move and migrate about some points that after many cycles do become identifiable. Humanities total population would be one of these where it were oscillate about some figure which balanced out all of the numerous factors of food, predators, competition, resources and many other variables. While humans were living in a low tech situation that is the way it was. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, we have acquired the ability to generate vast amounts of high quality information and the ability to use that information to control the world. All of this was still okay for a long time because the Earth is so big compared to humans but then about the year 1800 humans started getting too good for their own long-term good. They developed the scientific method of accurate information generation and effective methods for using that information to build a better and bigger society. Still it might have gone along smoothly oscillating about some strange attractor of population but at a new set point. Then came super knowledge and super weapons and now functionally super humans and we have, or nearly have, the ability to exterminate themselves. This takes our present strange attractor point and moves it to some infinity of no return. Human population is now in a condition of bouncing from infinitely large, which is unsustainable to infinitely small which is also equally unsustainable. Until this problem can be solved humanity is soon to be terminated — terminated forever. With our present technology we will oscillate from far too many humans to far too few and will soon fail. The problem becomes two-fold how to limit population to an easily provided for number and how to eliminate the high-tech knowledge and ability to exterminate humanity. At present we have both abilities for absolute overpopulation and total destruction but we also have the foresight to create a society where these excess things can be controled and eliminated. If that were successfully accomplished it would be possible to enter into a liberating humanity situation and everyone who choose to do so could live a long, enjoyable and comfortable life.
What would the ideal number of living humans be? I don’t know but if humanity were to survive for thousands of years those people of the distant future would from experience come to know a proper number if they had guidelines as to when there were too many and when there were too few. Here are possible definitions: There are too many people when the Earth’s single use resources are being mined. If humanity is to live for a very, very long time all the usage of materials must be 100% recyclable and recycled. And the opposite, there are too few people when the technology requiring human input is not able to be peopled with sufficient numbers workers to maintain society. Because there are so many variables such as hurricanes and droughts there must be a built in reserve which must be calculated into these estimates. Who are the people going to be to make these population estimates? It needs to be a fair process with everyone being able, at some point in their lives, to have some input as to the numbering process. It would seem best in this distant and stable society if people beyond reproductive years are the deciders but not people so old as to have mental failings. They should have abundant life experience but still be thoughtful. Perhaps each decade of life which could be most objective about some particular subject should have a particular type of voting input decided by that cohert to decide that item. People age 60-70 would vote on the population number to be aimed at for the next decade. People age 30-40 would vote on how much money was to be spent of health care. Each decade a decade of people would vote on their decades option and that option would change every decade as they aged. There would obviously be a lot of political bickering about this process but that ultimately smooths thing out. This is just an idea of a possibility for allocating various resources. Perhaps these votes would not be abstract numbers but rather options like 1 much more, 2 some more, 3 about the same , 4 some less, 5 a lot less. That would be an effort to give a gentle push in some desirable direction.
The other major obstacle to permanent librating humanity is the total absence of WOEs, (Weapons of Extermination). These types of weapons must not only eliminated the people who seek them must be eliminated. No one needs WOEs and those who seek them can not be trusted or tolerated so they must go. A very high-tech civilization will be possible in the distant future of humanity and that will probably include access to ultra high-speed information. That sounds wonderful until one considers tha possibility of downloading precise information on how to make WOEs. This kind of information could be downloaded in a millisecond embedded in a single frame of a high def movie. This information could then be copied out of that frame or memorized or whatever and be available to this person who would become very dangerous to all humanity. A world with instantaneous access to all information ever possessed by humans in this distant time would soon destroy everyone. Some people in seemingly beautiful life situations nowadays elect to commit suicide and some of these choose to take loved ones with them. That can not be permitted with access to WOEs type information or else all humanity dies and almost everyone wants to live and enjoy life. This is a case where majority rules makes sense.
To maximize human happiness there needs to be healthy people living on a healthy Earth.
The politicians of the world are finally coming to realize what our climate scientists have been proclaiming for decades—that the pollution created by industralized society is overwhelming the Earth’s ability to clean it up. Gordon Brown PM of Great Britian now says we have only 50 days to save the world from global warming and ecological disaster and he said there is no Plan-B. This is what this Probaway blog has been crying about for a long time and suggesting that the time is now urgent for a backup plan, Plan-B and The EarthArk Project is it. It is a plan for helping as many species as possible survive a catostrophic shift in the world’s climate. Maybe it isn’t for another hundred years or maybe it has already begun but we do need a backup plan. It is easy to do now and won’t cost much.
If there is a truly great climate shift and the world returns to a more trubulent weather pattern which is said to be more normal than the mild weather we have been experiencing for the last 12,000 years. It’s called the Holocene by climitologists, then the living things of this world are in for a severe adjustment and a great dieing off of many species. There isn’t any doubt that we are already experienceing a serious die off but when the effects of the various contaminants (such as the Canary indicator CO2) hit in ernest things will get much worse. Most of the CO2 which will bring about this catostrophe is already in the air and is already causing global warming. There is much more global warming to come even if humans instantly and totally stopped inserting more CO2 and other garbage. But, that cesation of pollution won’t happen without an atomic war and that of course would bring about far worse effects much more quickly. Therefore, we will have a continually worsening problem over the next several decades bringing on a slow disaster up until the tipping poing or alternatively we have a major political disater and a war and bring on instant and near total catostrophe.
Nothing new must happen to bring on either of these ecological disasters. Human population explosion alone will create the disaster. Fuel combustion alone will create the disaster. Combine the two and the disaster comes on much more quickly. Or worst of all an explosion of the atomic arsenal which has existed for some 50 years with bring on an absolute disaster even more quickly. And as if all of that wasn’t bad enough an increase in the rate of personal consumption is increasing rapidly all over the world and more countries are acquiring atomic bombs which accelerates each of these stressors. It gets much worse when atomic weapons are plyed into the impossible mix of obviously insurmountable problems. The Earth’s pollution cleansing ability or even its provisioning of the huge population with basic necessities can’t last another one hundred years.
The people already alive are consuming the environment and with a sixty year life expectancy that won’t change much even if people instantly stopped having children. However, people like having children and like those activities which bring about children and so there being a huge population to start with even reducing fertility to one child per woman wouldn’t drop the total numbers in the next one hundred years. So, we have a huge and continuing huge number of living people who must be fed on a shrinking and worn out supply base. Things have gone very well for humanity for the last two hundred years because of continous technological improvements but these things have come at an environmental cost and resoruces consumed once are gone forever. Unfortunately, it is a cost which the Earth for over one hundred years has been available on the supply side but is now failing on the recovery of the environment side. The Earth is unable to supply the fresh air and clean oceans it once did and now we have used them as garbage dumps but they can not continue being dumps forever without collapse.
We must move onward toward Plan-B, or as I like to call it, The EarthArk Project. That plan isn’t to save the current human population of 6.8 billion people of the Earth from self destruction but rather to save as much of Mother Earth’s natural species and other things for a revivication of the Earth after it has been destroyed and the population collapsed. I want to maximize human happiness in the long run but to do that we need to have a long term civilization based on a balance with nature. By thinking in terms of 12,000 years of civilization and a number of people that could live here on Earth over that time span it seems that an ideal population would be more like 100 million people, not 6.8 billion or more. 100 million would be enough people to sustain a high level of civilization and yet small enough for the Earth to remain in ecological balance. It would be like a twelve millinum long garden party.
Of course the way we are presently living can’t bring about this desirable sustainable state of affairs and the best politicians couldn’t convince all their people to restrict their lifestyle to the extent so we could approach it. Therefore, being impossible at present to reach a sustainable style of civilization, it seems the best we can do is to make it possible for the surviving people, after the collapse of our current world, to reestablish a descent environment and give our Garden of Eden another try. With the experience of our disaster perhaps it would be possible to convince people in the future to live in balance with nature.
Moral behavior for people is needlessly complicated because the world’s moral philosophers didn’t understand the problem very well and thus didn’t form their questions and resultant answers properly. If these brilliant and thoughtful people failed to resolve complex ethical issues why should we expect common people and even ordinary children to solve them and behave morally?
When reading chapter 14 of SUPERHEROES AND PHILOSOPHY: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic way, from a book edited by Tom Morris and Matt Morris there were clear and simple descriptions of several of the major philosophers’ opinions on morality. This book is based on comic book superheroes but it confronts basic moral issues formated in various ways which bring out the essence of the philosophical conundrums. This search for basic human morality has been sophisticated man’s work but in the guise of comic books has been made into seemingly irreverent child’s play. But, Kant, Schopenhauer, Socrates, Bentham and Mill and the rest of the great philosophers would surely recognize the essence of their arguments in these colorful morality plays.
Chapter 14 — With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duties of the Super-Powerful and Super-Heroic by Christopher Robichaud. Bentham and Mill proffered versions of utilitarianism which claims that the highest value is to maximize human happiness. They consider questions of duty to do things one ought to do and not things which one ought not to do but limit their inquiries to what is possible for humans. Something which can’t be done by a human, which is outside of their power, falls outside of their value system and therefore normal humans have no responsibility. These ethical problems are different when approached by superheroes because each of them, in their special way, has a power which is beyond a normal mortal’s ability and therefore the philosophy of the individual superhero must stretch the definitions posed by the classic philosophers beyond those originally postulated limits. Superheroes inhabit a world where supererogatory actions become possible and because these must be good acts they, in their superhero roles, become required acts which the superheroes must, after ascertaining the ultimate good, perform. They must do the required actions even at the risk of their lives.
Problems constantly arise with philosophers where a long term maximizing of human happiness requires the short term violation of some individuals’ basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The philosophers constantly stub their toes on these conundrums and always seem to come down to a solution which would please an eighteen year old woman. After mountains of books written on these subjects these philosophers are forced by their genetic heritage back to our millennia of moral selection being based on the artificial sexual selection of young women conversing upon what they believe is the best male to give them children. Human morality is genetically encoded and we can never shake off the basic limitations of our genetic heritage, nor should we. Ultimately, in the long run these past women’s choices are the foundation of human morality and all of the philosophizing in the world by the greatest minds will not change our genetic heritage one iota.
That time based morality is the morality given us by young women and that is the morality that we should strive to fulfill, to the best of our abilities. The philosophers’ sophisticated ratiocination is a blather of words which always evolves back to our genetic heritage. It was ever thus and will continue to be thus long after we are gone. We must learn to live with the genetic cards that were dealt to us and the more we are able to do that the happier we will become.
The ethicists can now retire and continue sucking on their thumbs.
Yuval Noah Harari ( 1976 – 2023>) is an Israeli intellectual at Hebrew University.
Yuval Noah Harari ( 1976 – 2023>) video clip from Lex Fridman Podcast #390
Probaway using GPT-4 maximizing Yuval Harari’s ideas.
‘Happiness Begins Within.’ Money, social status, plastic surgery, beautiful houses, influential positions – none of these will bring you happiness. Yuval Noah Harari suggests that the relentless pursuit of these external markers of success often distracts us from addressing our internal emotional state and well-being. According to Harari, true happiness is largely a result of self-awareness, acceptance, and mental resilience. This understanding emphasizes the importance of inner peace, mindfulness, and emotional intelligence in leading a fulfilling life, suggesting that pursuing external indicators of success might be less effective in bringing true satisfaction and joy.
Animals are the primary victims of history, and treating domesticated animals in industrial farms is perhaps the worst crime in history. Yuval Noah Harari claims that the evolution of human societies, mainly through industrial farming practices, has resulted in enormous animal suffering. By referring to animals as “the primary victims of history,” he brings attention to the magnitude of their suffering, often invisible or disregarded in mainstream historical narratives. His view underscores the moral and ethical implications of our relationship with animals, specifically those we domesticate for consumption, suggesting that recognizing and addressing this immense and systemic cruelty is a critical aspect of ethical progress. This is a call to action to rethink our societal norms, values, and practices to reduce animal suffering and include non-human beings in our moral considerations.
Censorship no longer works by hiding information from you; censorship works by flooding you with immense amounts of misinformation, of irrelevant information, of funny cat videos until you’re just unable to focus. Yuval Noah Harari presents a modern, nuanced understanding of censorship, moving away from the traditional view of it being solely about the suppression of information. He suggests that censorship has taken on a new form in the digital age – not necessarily hiding information but overwhelming individuals with a flood of misinformation or irrelevant information. This excess of information, including seemingly harmless content like funny cat videos, can distract people, dilute the truth, and prevent them from focusing on important issues. The wisdom in this idea lies in recognizing the complex challenges posed by the Information Age, where the problem is not only access to information but also the ability to discern valuable and truthful information from noise and deliberate deception. This viewpoint underscores the importance of critical thinking and information literacy in navigating the contemporary digital landscape.
Consumerism has worked very hard, with the help of popular psychology (‘Just do it!’), to convince people that indulgence is good for you, whereas frugality is self-oppression. Yuval Noah Harari, in this statement, highlights the potential pitfalls of consumerist culture and its influence on our perception of self-fulfillment. According to him, frugality is misrepresented as self-oppression. The wisdom in Harari’s idea lies in questioning these societal norms and their long-term impact on individual well-being and societal sustainability. It suggests that mindless consumption, rather than leading to satisfaction, often fuels a cycle of want and temporary fulfillment. Harari’s viewpoint calls for a re-evaluation of these ideas. It promotes a more mindful, sustainable approach to consumption, acknowledging the value of restraint, mindful decision-making, and long-term satisfaction over instant gratification.
Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is, by definition, also natural. A genuinely unnatural behavior that goes against the laws of nature simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. Yuval Noah Harari’s wisdom lies in challenging the common misuse of the term “unnatural” as a tool to stigmatize and suppress behaviors that deviate from cultural norms, even if they are biologically possible and harm nobody. By arguing that a truly unnatural behavior would be impossible and thus need no prohibition, Harari suggests that many societal restrictions are not grounded in nature or biological necessity but in cultural biases and prejudices. This idea urges us to question the basis of our societal norms and to consider a more inclusive, diverse understanding of what is “natural.”
For thousands of years, humans believed that authority came from the gods. Then, during the modern era, humanism gradually shifted authority from deities to people. Yuval Noah Harar highlights the shift from traditional religious perspectives, where authority and knowledge were believed to come from gods to humanism. This philosophical stance places human welfare, values, and dignity at its core. His wisdom lies in recognizing that our societal structures and belief systems are not static but change over time, often reflecting broader shifts in understanding and knowledge. This perspective encourages us to consider the evolution of our beliefs and values and their influence on societal norms and decisions while also reminding us of the power and responsibility we have as a collective in shaping our world.
Homo sapiens is a social being, and our well-being depends to a large extent on the quality and depth of our social and family relations – and in the last 200 years, they have been disintegrating. Yuval Noah Harari’s wisdom here lies in his acknowledgment of the inherently social nature of Homo sapiens, emphasizing that our well-being significantly relies on the depth and quality of our social and family relationships. He points out a concerning trend: over the past 200 years, these relationships have been disintegrating, potentially due to factors like industrialization, urbanization, and technological advances, often leading to increased individualism and isolation. Harari’s idea serves as a reminder of the importance of nurturing our social connections and addressing the societal factors that may undermine them. His viewpoint calls for re-evaluating the structures and lifestyles we have built, urging us to ensure that they support, rather than hinder, our social well-being and interconnectedness.
Humanist thinkers such as Rousseau convinced us that our feelings and desires were the ultimate source of meaning and that our free will was the highest authority. Yuval Noah Harari’s s perspective lies in recognizing the shift from external sources of authority, such as religious doctrines or societal norms, to internal experiences as the guiding principles in one’s life. It underscores the importance of personal freedom, autonomy, and emotional authenticity in pursuing a fulfilling and meaningful existence. However, this idea also prompts us to consider the challenges and responsibilities of such personal autonomy, encouraging a balance between individual freedoms and collective well-being.
Humans are extremely good atacquiring new power. Still, they are not very good in translating this power into greater happiness, which is why we are far more powerful than ever before, but we don’t seem to be much happier. Yuval Noah Harari’s wisdom here lies in challenging the widespread assumption that greater power and control will lead to greater happiness. Harari underscores the limitations of power in fulfilling our emotional and psychological needs and highlights the potential disconnect between material progress and emotional well-being. This viewpoint prompts us to re-evaluate our societal and individual goals, emphasizing the importance of focusing on what truly contributes to long-term happiness, such as healthy relationships, a sense of purpose, and emotional resilience, rather than solely on pursuing power and control.
I think the basic thing that happened is we have lost our story. Humans think in stories, and we try to make sense of the world by telling stories. Yuval Noah Harari suggests that we inherently make sense of the world and our place in it through stories. However, Harari expresses a concern that we have “lost our story,” implying a collective sense of confusion or disorientation in our rapidly changing world. The wisdom in this idea lies in acknowledging the power of narratives to shape our perspectives, actions, and, ultimately, our societies. Hi’s perspective encourages us to be conscious of the stories we subscribe to, to question them, and to strive for narratives that promote a comprehensive understanding, inclusivity, and positive change. It’s also a call to action to construct a shared narrative that can guide us in navigating the complexities of the modern world and the future.
In ancient times having power meant having access to data. Today having power means knowing what to ignore. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement reflects the shift in power dynamics from ancient times to the present day. In the past, power was associated with access to data or information, which was scarce and valuable. However, in the current digital age, we are inundated with information, much of which is irrelevant or misleading. Harari argues that power now lies in discerning which information to ignore, suggesting that the ability to filter out noise and focus on what truly matters is key. The wisdom here lies in recognizing the challenges the Information Age poses, not just acquiring information but navigating it intelligently. This viewpoint underscores the need for critical thinking and information literacy, highlighting the importance of quality over quantity in our engagement with information.
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, and consciousness is the ability to feel things and have subjective experiences. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement clearly distinguishes intelligence and consciousness, two concepts that are often intertwined yet fundamentally different. According to Harari, intelligence is the ability to solve problems, highlighting its utilitarian and problem-solving aspects. On the other hand, consciousness is defined as the ability to feel things and have subjective experiences, emphasizing its role in our emotional and perceptual experiences. The wisdom in this idea lies in acknowledging that being intelligent does not necessarily mean being conscious and vice versa. It’s an important distinction to keep in mind, especially in discussions about artificial intelligence and its capabilities. While machines might exhibit intelligence in problem-solving, they lack the subjective, emotional experience of consciousness inherent to human beings. This viewpoint promotes a nuanced understanding of intelligence and consciousness and their implications on technology and society.
We have the dubious distinction of being the deadliest species in the annals of biology. In this statement, Yuval Noah Harari highlights a troubling facet of human nature – our capacity for destruction, which has led to devastating wars, environmental degradation, and the extinction of numerous species. Harari’s observation that humans are the “deadliest species in the annals of biology” is a sobering reminder of the impacts of our actions. The wisdom in this perspective lies in its stark recognition of humanity’s ability to inflict harm on a massive scale. This viewpoint challenges us to confront and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, both past and present and urges us to utilize our capacities for intelligence, cooperation, and innovation to promote a more sustainable and harmonious relationship with the natural world and each other.
Lasting happiness comes only from serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement emphasizes the biological basis of happiness, pointing out that neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin are key to experiencing lasting joy. These chemicals, produced within our bodies, regulate mood, reward, bonding, and overall well-being. The wisdom in Harari’s statement lies in the recognition that happiness, often thought of as an abstract concept tied to external circumstances or achievements, has concrete biological underpinnings. It underscores that taking care of our physical health, including maintaining a balance of these essential neurotransmitters, is crucial to nurturing our emotional well-being. However, it’s important to remember that while these neurotransmitters play a significant role, pursuing happiness also involves complex psychological and socio-cultural aspects, including our relationships, purpose in life, and response to life’s challenges.
People are usually afraid of change because they fear the unknown. But the single greatest constant of history is that everything changes. Yuval Noah Harari’s idea encapsulates the human condition’s paradoxical nature – the fear of change and the inevitability of it. While humans often fear change due to the uncertainty it brings, Harari asserts that the only constant throughout history is change itself. The wisdom here lies in accepting and acknowledging the inherent dynamism of life. By recognizing change as a natural part of existence, we can cultivate resilience and adaptability, better preparing ourselves to navigate the unknown. Furthermore, it serves as a reminder that fear of the unknown should not hinder progress or exploration. It’s a call to embrace change and uncertainty as opportunities for growth, learning, and innovation rather than threats.
Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement emphasizes the importance of curiosity, critical thinking, and open-mindedness. By suggesting that unanswerable questions are more valuable than unquestionable answers, Harari underscores the idea that seeking, questioning, and learning often holds more value than accepting an answer without scrutiny. The wisdom in this viewpoint lies in its encouragement of intellectual humility and its challenge to dogmatic thinking. It prompts us to value the journey of exploration and understanding and recognize our current knowledge’s limitations. Moreover, it advocates for a mindset that is always open to new information, perspectives, and changes in understanding, fostering a culture of continuous learning and intellectual growth.
Science is telling us that the reason people die is not because some god said so or because the laws of nature mandate it. People always die because of technical problems. And every technical problem has, in principle, a technical solution. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement emphasizes the role of scientific understanding and technological advancements in explaining and potentially altering the course of life and death. He reframes death not as an inevitable decree of fate or divine will but as a technical problem resulting from biological breakdowns within the human body. This viewpoint offers a radical shift in perspective, underscoring the potential for scientific and medical progress to address these ‘technical’ problems. The wisdom of Harari’s idea lies in its challenge to traditional narratives around life and death, encouraging a greater focus on scientific exploration and innovation to improve and potentially extend human life. However, it also invites us to consider the ethical implications and potential unintended consequences of pursuing such ‘technical solutions,’ including issues of access, equity, and the definition of a good life.
Of course, not all fictions are shared by all humans, but at least one has become universal in our world, and this is money. Yuval Noah Harari’s assertion highlights the unique role of money as a universally accepted “fiction” or socially constructed reality. In his view, money is an agreed-upon myth that all human societies, despite their diverse cultures and beliefs, have come to accept and operate by. The wisdom in Harari’s idea is in recognizing that money, which is central to our global economic system, derives its value not from inherent worth but from our collective belief and trust in its value. This understanding prompts us to consider the power of shared ideas in shaping societal systems and structures. It also underscores the potential for change – if money’s value can be constructed through shared belief, other societal constructs can be reshaped or redefined through collective understanding and agreement changes.
This is the essence of the Agricultural Revolution: the ability to keep more people alive under worse conditions. Yuval Noah Harari’s observation about the Agricultural Revolution provides a counterintuitive perspective on this pivotal period in human history. While the Agricultural Revolution is often lauded for enabling human societies to support larger populations and settle in one place, Harari highlights that it often led to people living under worse conditions – due to factors such as a more labor-intensive lifestyle, a less varied diet, increased disease transmission, and new forms of societal hierarchy and inequality. The wisdom in Harari’s idea lies in its nuanced understanding of progress, reminding us that advancements can come with trade-offs and unintended consequences. This viewpoint prompts us to critically evaluate the impacts of major shifts in human society and strive for progress that supports more lives and improves the quality of those lives.
Those who refuse to liberalize and globalize are doomed to failure. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement underscores the significance of liberalization and globalization in the contemporary world. He suggests that societies that resist these forces will likely face difficulties or fail. Liberalization, which involves reducing state controls and promoting free markets, and globalization, which involves increasing integration and interdependence among nations, are often seen as key drivers of economic growth and development. The wisdom in Harari’s idea lies in recognizing the power and momentum of these global trends and the risks associated with resisting them. However, it’s important to note that while these processes can bring many benefits, they also come with challenges, such as inequality, cultural homogenization, and environmental concerns. Therefore, the wisdom also lies in balancing – engaging with liberalization and globalization to maximize their benefits and minimize their downsides.
We do not become satisfied by leading a peaceful and prosperous existence. Instead, we become satisfied when reality matches our expectations. The bad news is that as conditions improve, expectations balloon. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement provides an insightful perspective on human satisfaction, highlighting the gap between reality and expectations as the key determinant of happiness. He notes that as our conditions improve, our expectations increase correspondingly, often outpacing actual life improvements. The wisdom in this idea lies in recognizing this “hedonic treadmill” phenomenon, where increased wealth or success doesn’t necessarily lead to increased happiness because our expectations and desires adapt to changes. This understanding can help us manage our expectations more effectively, cultivate gratitude for our current circumstances, and pursue intrinsic, meaningful goals rather than just external markers of success. In essence, Harari’s viewpoint encourages us to seek satisfaction in improving conditions and finding a balance between our aspirations and our appreciation of the present.
The vast majority of human communication – whether in emails, phone calls, or newspaper columns – is gossip. It comes so naturally to us that it seems as if our language evolved for this very purpose. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement reflects on the ubiquitous nature of gossip in human communication, suggesting that it might have played a significant role in the evolution of our language. Harari sees gossip as a crucial mechanism for social bonding, sharing of information about mutual acquaintances, and navigating complex social networks. The wisdom in this idea lies in reframing gossip, often negatively perceived, as a fundamental part of human nature and social organization. While it can have harmful effects when misused, gossip can also function as a glue that holds societies together, providing a channel for information exchange and shaping social norms and cooperation. However, it also serves as a reminder to be mindful of the information we share and consume, ensuring it contributes positively to our social environment.
Very soon, this traditional model will become utterly obsolete, and the only way for humans to stay in the game will be to keep learning throughout their lives and to reinvent themselves repeatedly. Yuval Noah Harari’s statement looks forward to the future of work and education in an era of rapid technological change and automation. He predicts that the traditional model of learning skills during youth and applying them throughout a lifetime will no longer suffice. Instead, individuals must continually learn and adapt, reinventing themselves to keep pace with changing job markets and technologies. The wisdom in Harari’s idea lies in the emphasis on lifelong learning and adaptability as critical skills for the future. It’s a call to action for individuals, educators, and policymakers to rethink how we approach education and career development, fostering a culture that values and supports continuous learning, creativity, and resilience in the face of change.
Some ideas for creating a graphic for Yuval Noah Harari.
The vast majority of human communication – whether in emails, phone calls, or newspaper columns – is gossip. It comes so naturally to us that it seems as if our language evolved for this very purpose.
Eve chooses Adam with a bit of help from her gossiping friends.
View the use of this picture in 2009 that I had made to illustrate the Evish theory of modern human evolution of skills with no apparent natural selection advantage.
Christopher Hitchens – (1949 – 2011) was a British/American leftist journalist, author, anti-totalitarian, and popularizer of anti-theism. Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.
Christopher Hitchens (1949 – 2011) was a British/American philosopher for the non-theist liberals.
Probaway maximizing on Christopher Hitchens
1. Human morality was bred into humanity by gossiping women, starting about 80,000 years ago, and the evolution of morality precedes religions.
Christopher Hitchens, a renowned intellectual and outspoken atheist, proposed that the origins of human morality lay not in religious doctrines but in the social dynamics of our early ancestors. According to him, about 80,000 years ago, women in prehistoric communities established social norms and expectations through gossiping. This exchange of information was a form of social control, highlighting behaviors considered beneficial or harmful to the group’s survival. Over time, these behaviors evolved into shared moral standards long before organized religions appeared. Thus, in Hitchens’ view, morality is a product of evolutionary processes and human social interaction, not a top-down directive from divine authority.
2. What can be asserted without evidence are basic axioms upon which workable ideas may be developed; however, assertions about facts without evidence being available should be promptly dismissed, even without contrary evidence.
This idea reflects the principles of critical thinking and scientific inquiry. An axiom is a statement or proposition that is self-evidently true without evidence. Axioms are starting points for developing more complex ideas or theories, like mathematics or philosophy. However, when it comes to asserting facts or claims about the real world, evidence is a fundamental requirement. Without evidence, such assertions can’t be validated or refuted. Therefore, dismissing any factual claim made without supporting evidence is prudent, regardless of whether there’s counter-evidence. This approach safeguards against misinformation and encourages rigorous, evidence-based reasoning.
3. Statements asserted must have proof, at least readily available proof, or be challenged as meaningless and ignored.
Christopher Hitchens, known for his critical and rigorous thinking, asserted the importance of evidence-based reasoning. He argued that any statement, particularly those claiming to represent factual truth, must be supported by proof or at least have readily available evidence. Without such verification, these statements hold little value and should be dismissed as meaningless. This idea reinforces the concept of intellectual integrity and skepticism, emphasizing the necessity to question, scrutinize, and seek evidence before accepting any assertion. By advocating for this level of rigor, Hitchens underscored the fundamental principle of scientific and logical discourse: the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not on the audience to disprove it.
4. Terrorism is intended to create anxiety by demanding impossible actions with threats against non-compliance.
Christopher Hitchens highlighted the essence and tactics of terrorism with this statement. The main objective of terrorism is to instill fear and uncertainty in a population, using violent or threatening acts to manipulate public perception and control. By demanding impossible or difficult actions, terrorists aim to create a perpetual state of anxiety, leaving people feeling helpless and desperate. The threats of noncompliance further escalate this fear, creating a vicious cycle of terror and chaos. The wisdom of Hitchens’s idea lies in recognizing these tactics, underscoring the need for resilience and unity in the face of such destructive strategies.
5. For people who prefer facing chaotic reality directly, atheism works, but for those who have hope for a better world by imagining a personal life after death, living in Heaven with God is more comfortable.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens, a known atheist, underscores a crucial difference in human perspectives towards life, reality, and the concept of death. Some people find comfort and meaning in engaging directly with the tangible, often chaotic, realities of the world without resorting to religious beliefs or the concept of an afterlife. Atheism, for these individuals, offers a framework that allows them to confront life and death as natural, finite experiences. On the other hand, some find solace and hope in the belief of a life beyond death, in heaven with a divine entity. This belief can provide comfort, purpose, and a moral structure, making the unpredictability of life more manageable. Hitchens’s statement doesn’t necessarily pit one view against the other but rather highlights the different ways people cope with the existential questions of life and mortality.
6. Why doesn’t God step forward and present himself for everyone to see and test with deep questions and give beneficial answers, like the principles of evolution, which do provide valuable answers?
As an atheist and a critic of religion, Christopher Hitchens challenges the idea of an all-knowing, interventionist deity with this statement. He argues that if such a God exists, why doesn’t this entity come forward and answer humanity’s profound questions, similar to how scientific principles like evolution have provided us with valuable insights about life’s origins and development. His argument underscores the value of empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and demonstrable results, which form the core of scientific methodology. In essence, Hitchens juxtaposes the transparency and verifiability of scientific knowledge against the opacity and faith-based nature of religious beliefs. The wisdom of his idea lies in promoting skepticism, inquiry, and the pursuit of knowledge based on evidence and reason.
7. The seven major religions began before 400 BCE, seeking comfort and reassurance from those who knew little, and these religions formed when an understanding of natural phenomena was in its infancy.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens highlights that the major world religions originated when human understanding of natural phenomena was significantly limited. He suggests that these religions, emerging before 400 BCE, provided comfort, reassurance, and explanations to people grappling with the mysteries and uncertainties of the natural world. Hitchens implies that these early belief systems evolved out of a need to make sense of the world and human existence, filling the gaps left by a lack of scientific understanding. His statement embodies a critical perspective on the origins of religious belief, emphasizing the influence of our evolving knowledge on our interpretations of the divine and spiritual. The wisdom of this idea lies in its call for continuous questioning and learning and in recognizing the historical context in which religious systems arose.
8. Atheism is not a fixed belief, and it is open to new ideas and new interpretations of old ideas; it favors the scientific testability of tangible phenomena and encourages free inquiry into everything.
Christopher Hitchens, a notable atheist, saw atheism as more than just a denial of the existence of deities. In his view, atheism is not a rigid belief system but an open-minded perspective that encourages curiosity, questioning, and critical thinking. It embraces the principles of scientific inquiry, favoring empirical evidence and the testability of claims about the world over dogmatic adherence to unverifiable beliefs. This outlook not only allows for the reinterpretation of old ideas in light of new evidence but also fosters a continual quest for knowledge. The wisdom in Hitchens’s view is its promotion of intellectual freedom, critical thinking, and the relentless pursuit of understanding, underpinned by a commitment to evidence and reason.
9. If promoting known fabrications to a child as true was legally prohibited until adolescence, the world would enter a new renaissance of clear thinking.
Christopher Hitchens, an ardent critic of dogmatic belief systems, particularly religious indoctrination, advocates for a childhood free from the imposition of unverified beliefs in this statement. He proposes that if it were legally prohibited to promote known untruths to children as facts until adolescence, it would foster a generation better equipped for transparent and independent thinking. Hitchens’s argument emphasizes the importance of equipping children with the tools of critical thinking and skepticism instead of conditioning them with potentially misleading information. The wisdom of this idea lies in its aspiration for an enlightened society that values evidence, reason, and free inquiry, starting from a young age, ultimately leading to what Hitchens envisions as a new renaissance of clear thinking.
10. I try to avoid exposing myself to all false ideas and help others, especially children, to avoid them unless they are in a frame of mind where they can objectively evaluate contradictions.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and discernment when encountering potentially false ideas. He suggests that one should refrain from such ideas and aid others, particularly children unless they can mentally evaluate these ideas objectively and recognize contradictions. Hitchens’ perspective is rooted in the belief that people should be educated to analyze and question information critically rather than accepting it at face value. The wisdom of this idea lies in its advocacy for intellectual resilience, discernment, and the cultivation of a discerning mindset, especially among the younger generation, thus fostering a society more resilient to misinformation and dogma.
11. Of all the beliefs, faith, hope, and charity are the most overrated, for we are encouraged to give away our minds, emotions, and property to those authorities who proclaim they will redistribute them to the needy.
Christopher Hitchens’ statement critiques the traditional values of faith, hope, and charity, which he sees as tools often employed by authorities to exercise control and influence. He argues that these virtues, while seemingly noble, can lead to people relinquishing their autonomy in thought, feeling, and ownership, entrusting them to entities that promise to use them for the benefit of others. In Hitchens’ view, this can potentially result in manipulation and exploitation. The wisdom in this idea lies in its call for a discerning, skeptical approach to any form of authority, promoting individual autonomy and critical thinking over blind adherence to proclaimed virtues. Hitchens challenges us to reconsider how we relate to these ideals, encouraging us not to simply accept them as inherently virtuous but to scrutinize their implications and the motives of those who promote them.
12. An atheist will produce more honest and valuable ethical statements and actions than a true believer.
Christopher Hitchens, a known atheist, suggests that an atheist’s ethical actions and statements are more honest and valuable than those of a religious believer. The idea here is rooted in the premise that an atheist’s ethical conduct is not motivated by the desire for divine reward or fear of divine punishment but comes from an intrinsic understanding of right and wrong. For Hitchens, such ethical conduct has a higher degree of honesty because it arises from personal conviction rather than external coercion. The value lies in its authenticity and recognizing human responsibility for ethical behavior. This isn’t to say that religious believers can’t act ethically, but Hitchens argues that the context in which atheists operate can lead to a more genuine expression of ethical principles.
13. When you create original thoughts and express them, you will find more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom available to you than when watching TV or a spiritual leader.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens advocates for the power of independent thought and self-expression over the passive consumption of media or religious teachings. He suggests that true happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom are more accessible when one creates and expresses original thoughts. This active engagement stimulates critical thinking, creativity, and personal growth, leading to deeper insights and fulfillment. Conversely, passive consumption, whether of television or spiritual leaders’ teachings, may not provide the same level of intellectual stimulation or personal satisfaction. The wisdom of Hitchens’s idea lies in its emphasis on intellectual independence, critical thinking, and the pursuit of personal understanding as keys to meaningful experiences and insights.
14. Seek friendly disputation because it will clarify your thoughts, but walk away from the irrational and seductive, prefer dignity over compassion for yourself and others, and keep a balance in give-and-take situations.
Christopher Hitchens’ statement encapsulates his belief in the power of intellectual discourse, self-respect, and balanced reciprocity. He advocates for friendly disputation, or respectful debate, to sharpen and clarify one’s thoughts. Yet, he advises disengaging from irrational and seductive arguments, implying the importance of discerning when discussions become counterproductive. Hitchens also emphasizes preferring dignity over compassion for oneself and others, suggesting that while empathy is essential, it shouldn’t compromise a person’s self-respect or the respect owed to others. Lastly, he underscores the importance of balance in give-and-take situations, an echo of fairness and reciprocity in relationships. The wisdom in this idea lies in its promotion of intellectual growth, personal dignity, and equitable social interactions.
15. The cure for female poverty is empowerment over their bodies and reproduction.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens addresses a crucial aspect of gender equality: a woman’s autonomy over her own body and reproductive rights. He proposes that the key to alleviating female poverty lies in women gaining control over these personal aspects of their lives. Empowerment in this sense, involves the right to make decisions about their health, including contraception, family planning, and reproductive health services. This control can lead to better educational and economic opportunities, as women can choose when and whether to have children. Moreover, it can reduce the risk of health complications associated with unplanned pregnancies. The wisdom in Hitchens’ assertion underscores the link between reproductive rights and socio-economic equality, asserting that true empowerment and poverty reduction can only happen when women have full control over their bodies and reproductive decisions.
16. Emancipate yourself from slavery to a celestial dictator claiming to solve all of your life problems that you should be solving with your efforts, and you will become in charge of your destiny.
Christopher Hitchens, a vocal critic of religious dogma, suggests that people can become masters of their own destiny by breaking away from the belief in a celestial dictator, or God, who allegedly has the answers to all life’s problems. He argues that such reliance can inhibit personal growth and agency, as it can encourage passivity and abdication of personal responsibility. In Hitchens’ view, genuine emancipation and control over one’s destiny come from actively engaging with life’s challenges and seeking solutions through personal effort. The wisdom in this idea encourages self-reliance, critical thinking, and personal responsibility, fostering an approach to life that values autonomy and individual agency over deference to an external authority.
17. The only hope for change isn’t by becoming part of the herd but by analyzing problems yourself, creating workable alternatives, and then enthusiastically promoting the best one.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens champions critical thinking, innovation, and advocacy as catalysts for change. He suggests that meaningful transformation doesn’t come from conforming to the majority, or ‘herd,’ but from independent analysis of issues, devising viable alternatives, and passionately promoting the most effective solution. Hitchens underscores the value of individual thought and action in driving progress, asserting that change often comes from those willing to challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for better alternatives. The wisdom in this idea lies in its call for active engagement, creativity, and conviction as means to bring about change, advocating for the power of the individual in shaping the future.
18. Marx and Engels filled the 1848 Communist Manifesto full of awe and respect for capitalism’s innovative spirit and dynamism.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens acknowledges Marx and Engels’s nuanced perspective towards capitalism, as outlined in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. While they were critical of capitalism for its exploitation and class disparities, Marx and Engels recognized its revolutionary power to transform society, its dynamism, and its capacity for innovation. They saw capitalism as a necessary stage in societal development, which could ultimately pave the way for a communist society. The wisdom in Hitchens’ observation lies in recognizing the complexity of Marx and Engels’ views, reminding us that critique does not preclude acknowledgment of specific merits and that comprehensive understanding often requires such nuance.
19. Giving Obama a Nobel Peace Prize before he entered office was like rewarding your dog before he performed the hoped-for trick.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens critically assesses the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama early in his presidency, arguing that such recognition should be based on actions and achievements rather than anticipation of them. Hitchens likens the decision to give a dog a reward before it performs a desired action, suggesting that the award was premature and perhaps unwarranted at that stage. The wisdom in this argument lies in emphasizing the importance of evidence-based recognition and the need for accountability in matters of achievement and accolades. This approach encourages us to value proven actions and results over good intentions or hopeful expectations.
20. Atheists don’t believe in a God giving believers help to perform terrible deeds because atheists must take responsibility for their actions, so they hesitate to injure others who disagree with them.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens contrasts the moral accountability of atheists with believers who might use their faith to justify harmful actions. As an atheist, Hitchens argues that because atheists don’t believe in a divine authority that could condone or forgive their misdeeds, they must take full responsibility for their actions. This awareness, he suggests, makes atheists more cautious about causing harm to others, even those with differing viewpoints. The wisdom in this idea lies in its emphasis on personal responsibility and moral caution. It suggests that an absence of religious belief does not equate to an absence of morality, but instead, it might inspire a heightened sense of personal accountability.
21. Those friends who offer routine false consolation for your sufferings are false friends.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens defines a criterion for evaluating the authenticity of friendships. He suggests that those who offer routine, insincere comfort during suffering are not genuine friends. These ‘false consolations’ could be platitudes or empty reassurances that don’t address or acknowledge the depth of the person’s pain. The wisdom in Hitchens’ idea lies in its call for sincerity, empathy, and honesty in friendships. He argues that a true friend can confront and acknowledge the reality of your suffering rather than gloss over it with meaningless comfort. It serves as a reminder to appreciate and seek out friendships based on authenticity and genuine empathy.
22. Because atheists don’t believe in an afterlife, they put their time, effort, and resources into making their journey on Earth as meaningful as possible.
Christopher Hitchens, a renowned atheist, postulates that the disbelief in an afterlife inherent to atheism encourages individuals to maximize the value and meaning of their earthly existence. In his view, the absence of belief in an eternal afterlife compels atheists to invest their time, effort, and resources into enriching their current lives, enhancing their experiences, and contributing positively to the world. The wisdom in Hitchens’ idea lies in its emphasis on focusing on the present and actively striving to make life as fulfilling and impactful as possible. It’s a reminder that, regardless of one’s beliefs about what comes after, our actions and choices in the present moment have immediate consequences and should be directed toward creating a meaningful and productive life.
23. An extraordinarily heinous crime is lying to children about the natural world they are living in and how they should love their spiritual guardians and eagerly submit to their sexual predation.
In this statement, Christopher Hitchens expresses his strong condemnation of adults who deceive children about the nature of the world they inhabit and manipulate their trust and innocence for abusive ends. He singles out those who use religious or spiritual authority to perpetrate sexual abuse as committing an exceptionally reprehensible crime. The wisdom in Hitchens’ view lies in its advocacy for protecting children’s physical and psychological well-being, their right to accurate knowledge about the world, and their freedom from exploitation. It strongly denounces those who misuse authority and trust to harm the most vulnerable members of society. It underscores the importance of transparency, integrity, and safeguarding in adult-child relationships.
24. Religions arose in the barbaric period and held contempt for women and children, even though they depended upon them for their present and future existence.
Christopher Hitchens, an avowed critic of religious institutions, highlights the historical origins of major religions during times when societal norms were less egalitarian, often marginalizing women and children. He notes the paradox inherent in these systems that, despite relying on women and children for their continuity and future propagation, often held contemptuous or dismissive attitudes towards them. Hitchens’ wisdom lies in challenging us to critically evaluate the foundational principles of religious institutions, questioning whether they reflect outdated societal norms or genuinely universal moral truths. His argument encourages reevaluating and potential reform of institutional beliefs that perpetuate inequality or harm, even as we acknowledge their historical and cultural significance.
Ideas for creating a graphic for Christopher Hitchens.
2. What can be asserted without evidence are basic axioms upon which workable ideas may be developed; however, assertions about facts without evidence being available should be promptly dismissed, even without contrary evidence.
3. Statements asserted must have proof, at least readily available proof, or be challenged as meaningless and ignored.
9. If promoting known fabrications to a child as true was legally prohibited until adolescence, the world would enter a new renaissance of clear thinking.
23. An extraordinarily heinous crime is lying to children about the natural world they are living in and how they should love their spiritual guardians and eagerly submit to their sexual predation.
Unfortunately, every Christmas is accompanied by a lie told to children. It is called, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” Many kids believe the lie, and their relationship with reality and adults is distorted forever.
Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French-Algerian philosopher of a variation of existentialism called absurdism and opposed to the variation called nihilism.
Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French-Algerian existential philosopher of Absurdism.
1. I won’t lead you, and I won’t follow you; just be my companion.
Albert Camus’s quote, “I won’t lead you, and I won’t follow you; just be my companion,” encapsulates a deep and profound perspective on human relations and the essence of companionship. It suggests a partnership based on equality, autonomy, and mutual respect rather than hierarchy and control. Each individual, in Camus’s view, should maintain their independence and uniqueness while accompanying one another in life’s journey. They shouldn’t dictate or be dictated by the other, but rather co-exist in harmony, sharing experiences and growing together. In this way, Camus articulates a type of relationship that respects the individuality of each participant while also acknowledging the invaluable support, understanding, and camaraderie that companionship provides.
2. Whether a human lives in heaven or hell, he is prone to rebel against authority.
Your statement suggests an inherent aspect of human nature: the propensity to challenge and rebel against authority, irrespective of the conditions in which one exists. Whether one lives in a utopia (heaven) or a dystopia (hell), the human desire for autonomy, freedom, and self-determination may incite rebellion. In heavenly conditions, one might rebel against perceived constraints on freedom or individuality, even if these are seemingly for the greater good. In hellish conditions, rebellion might emerge from a desire to overturn oppressive or unjust circumstances. This perspective mirrors a key theme in existentialist philosophy, notably in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, which emphasizes the human struggle for authenticity, freedom, and meaning against the limitations and absurdities imposed by external structures or conditions.
3. All slaves aspire to be rulers of slaves and kings.
The statement, “All slaves aspire to be rulers of slaves and kings,” could be interpreted in several ways depending on the context. At the surface level, it may express a universal human aspiration for power, status, and freedom from subjugation, implying that those who are enslaved or oppressed desire not just their freedom, but to ascend to a position of authority themselves.
However, the statement also implicates a cyclical pattern of oppression where those once enslaved might seek to enslave others, reflecting perhaps a critique of a power hierarchy and the human propensity to dominate when given a chance. It can be a reminder of the importance of empathy and understanding in any form of leadership or authority – remembering one’s own past struggles to ensure they are not inflicted upon others.
Yet, it’s important to consider that not all individuals might seek dominance or power in their pursuit of freedom. Many might aspire for equality and justice rather than adopting the roles of their oppressors. The statement thus serves as a stimulus for broader discussions about power dynamics, the human condition, and our collective ethical responsibilities.
4. A rebellion implies a group with what they believe is a common cause.
Albert Camus’s statement, “A rebellion implies a group with what they believe is a common cause,” offers a profound insight into the nature and psychology of collective resistance. Camus suggests that rebellion is not a random act of dissent or defiance, but a shared endeavor born out of a collective sense of injustice or oppression. The act of rebellion is thus not simply about individual discontent but stems from a unifying belief or cause that binds the group together, giving them the motivation and strength to challenge the status quo. This quote underscores the power of shared beliefs in mobilizing collective action and the potential of unity in effecting change. It also emphasizes the role of common values and experiences in shaping social and political movements, highlighting the human capacity for solidarity and mutual support in the face of adversity.
5. Tolerable personal freedoms must be blended with tolerable state justice into a sustainable community of fairness for everyone.
Albert Camus’s statement, “Tolerable personal freedoms must be blended with tolerable state justice into a sustainable community of fairness for everyone,” encapsulates a delicate, yet crucial balance in societal functioning. It emphasizes the need to harmonize individual liberties with societal justice, acknowledging that the coexistence of these two elements is vital for a fair and sustainable community. Personal freedoms are essential for individual expression, growth, and happiness, yet they must be tempered by justice systems to prevent exploitation and harm to others. Similarly, state justice is critical to maintaining social order and equity, but it must respect individual rights and liberties to avoid oppression or authoritarianism. By promoting a balance between these two, Camus underlines the key to creating a society that respects individuality while ensuring fairness and justice, leading to a sustainable and harmonious coexistence for all members of the community.
6. Radicals live into old age either as oppressors or heretics.
Albert Camus’s assertion, “Radicals live into old age either as oppressors or heretics,” illustrates a nuanced understanding of the trajectories often taken by individuals who passionately champion transformative causes. As they age, radicals may find themselves conforming to the systems they once rejected, becoming ‘oppressors’ by enforcing their once-revolutionary ideals in an uncompromising or authoritarian manner. Alternatively, they may remain ‘heretics,’ persistently challenging norms and conventions even when their views are considered outdated or controversial by newer generations. Camus’s statement suggests a cautionary note against dogmatism and the potential for power to corrupt, while also acknowledging the value and courage of those who remain steadfast in their beliefs, even in the face of ostracization. It encapsulates the complexity of human idealism, the struggle for change, and the paradoxes of time and power.
7. Every religious or social ideology has a ridiculous aspect that defines acceptance into the group.
Albert Camus’s assertion, “Every religious or social ideology has a ridiculous aspect that defines acceptance into the group,” encapsulates his absurdist viewpoint. He suggests that all ideologies – religious or social – contain some elements that, when viewed objectively or from an outside perspective, might seem absurd or irrational. This ‘ridiculous’ aspect might involve certain rituals, beliefs, or customs that seem to defy reason or common sense. However, it is often these unique and idiosyncratic elements that bond the members of the group together, serving as markers of group identity and as tests of commitment and acceptance. Camus’s statement highlights the human capacity for irrationality within our quest for meaning, suggesting that even in our most solemn and profound constructs – like religion or ideology – there is an inherent absurdity. Yet, it is within this acceptance of the absurd that we find communal belonging and identity.
8. There is no goodness in the world without clear foresight of the consequences of personal actions.
Albert Camus’s statement, “There is no goodness in the world without clear foresight of the consequences of personal actions,” asserts the importance of understanding and considering the potential outcomes of our actions in the quest for goodness. It emphasizes that true virtue is not just about performing good deeds in the present moment, but also about anticipating and evaluating the long-term effects of these deeds. Good intentions alone may not result in beneficial outcomes, and could even lead to harm if they lack foresight. Therefore, genuine goodness involves thoughtful deliberation and foresight, guiding our actions in ways that maximize positive outcomes and minimize harm. In this way, Camus intertwines morality with prudence, reminding us that ethical behavior requires not only compassion and kindness, but also wisdom and foresight.
9. It is organizations of honest people who seek good ends and are motivated by love who are most capable of killing other like-minded people.
Albert Camus’s statement, “It is organizations of honest people who seek good ends and are motivated by love who are most capable of killing other like-minded people,” delves into the complexity and potential dangers of ideological dedication. He suggests that groups of well-intentioned individuals, motivated by a desire for good and love, can ironically become capable of great harm, even towards others who share similar values. This paradox can arise when the pursuit of an ideal becomes so zealous that it justifies extreme actions, including violence against those who are seen as obstacles or who interpret the shared values differently. Camus’s statement serves as a cautionary reminder about the potential dark side of idealism and the importance of maintaining empathy, tolerance, and critical reflection even when passionately striving for a cause. It emphasizes the necessity of questioning and checking our actions and motivations to avoid inadvertently perpetuating harm in the name of goodness.
10. When your ideals lead you or others into suffering and destruction, it is time to reconsider your fondest beliefs.
Albert Camus’s statement, “When your ideals lead you or others into suffering and destruction, it is time to reconsider your fondest beliefs,” underscores the importance of self-reflection and adaptability in the pursuit of our ideals. It warns of the danger of blind adherence to beliefs, especially when they result in harm or distress to oneself or others. This suggests that no ideal should be held so sacred that it is immune to reevaluation. This critical introspection is key to ethical behavior and moral responsibility; it’s a reminder that our actions have consequences and that we must be willing to reassess and adjust our beliefs based on their real-world impacts. Ultimately, Camus promotes a nuanced view of idealism that balances commitment with flexibility and compassion, encouraging us to strive for a world that minimizes suffering and promotes wellbeing.
11. The goal of discovering the truth isn’t finding ultimate truths but challenging the clarity of your thoughts and motivations.
Albert Camus’s statement, “The goal of discovering the truth isn’t finding ultimate truths but challenging the clarity of your thoughts and motivations,” challenges conventional notions of truth-seeking. Rather than emphasizing the pursuit of immutable, absolute truths, Camus highlights the process of introspection, critical thinking, and self-awareness as the real objective. The quest for truth, in this view, is not about uncovering some objective reality external to us, but about rigorously examining and refining our own thoughts, motivations, and perceptions. It is through this constant questioning and self-challenge that we gain deeper understanding and clarity. This perspective is deeply rooted in existentialist thought and mirrors Camus’s broader philosophy, which rejects the idea of an inherent, objective meaning in the universe in favor of personal meaning-making and continual self-exploration.
12. When something abhorrent happens, ask yourself, what was my role in that or my complicity in other people’s ugly actions?
Albert Camus’s statement, “When something abhorrent happens, ask yourself, what was my role in that or my complicity in other people’s ugly actions?” encapsulates the principle of personal responsibility and self-reflection. He implores us to consider our own involvement, either directly or indirectly, when terrible events occur. Even if we are not the direct cause, we may have contributed through complacency, indifference, or tacit acceptance of the behaviors leading to the undesirable outcome. Camus is challenging us to question our actions and motivations continually, to confront the uncomfortable possibility that we may be part of the problem. This idea aligns with his existentialist philosophy that stresses individual responsibility and the importance of active engagement in the world as a path to moral authenticity.
13. Sometimes, tiny details in your philosophy can support an obvious problem and cause disasters.
Albert Camus’s statement, “Sometimes, tiny details in your philosophy can support an obvious problem and cause disasters,” underscores the critical role of careful scrutiny and reflection in the development and application of our philosophical beliefs. He suggests that seemingly insignificant components of our worldview, if left unexamined, can potentially uphold harmful structures or ideologies and lead to disastrous outcomes. This serves as a reminder that our beliefs are not inconsequential but have tangible impacts on the world around us, often in ways we might not anticipate. It emphasizes the need for ongoing self-reflection, critical thinking, and vigilance in assessing our philosophies, reinforcing the importance of understanding the wider implications of our beliefs and the necessity to rectify harmful elements within them.
14. The only response to a perceived error in any argument is to rip away the false assumptions surrounding the idea.
Albert Camus’s statement, “The only response to a perceived error in any argument is to rip away the false assumptions surrounding the idea,” emphasizes the need for rigorous critical thinking and examination of underlying assumptions in any discourse. He suggests that when we encounter a perceived flaw or inconsistency in an argument, the most effective approach is not to dismiss the argument outright, but to dissect it and uncover the false assumptions that may be driving the error. By doing so, we not only gain a deeper understanding of the issue at hand but also refine our own understanding and potentially identify our own unexamined assumptions. In essence, Camus is advocating for an approach of intellectual curiosity, persistence, and a commitment to truth-seeking, even when the process may be uncomfortable or challenging.
15. To be happy ourselves, we can not be irrationally concerned with all of the public’s happiness.
Albert Camus’s statement, “To be happy ourselves, we cannot be irrationally concerned with all of the public’s happiness,” offers insight into the balance between personal happiness and a sense of social responsibility. While empathy and care for the well-being of others are vital for a harmonious society, Camus suggests that an excessive, irrational concern for the happiness of all can lead to personal distress, potentially hindering our own happiness. This may stem from the sheer impossibility of ensuring universal happiness, given the diversity of human experiences and desires. The wisdom in Camus’s words lies in the advocacy for a measured approach to empathy and altruism, understanding that while it’s important to care for others, it’s also crucial to attend to our own well-being and happiness. This balance is key to maintaining both personal mental health and productive social engagement.
16. I love life so much; I can’t imagine not being alive, and as others feel this way too, it is easy to sell them the illusionary hope of eternal heaven.
Albert Camus’s statement, “I love life so much; I can’t imagine not being alive, and as others feel this way too, it is easy to sell them the illusionary hope of eternal heaven,” reflects his existentialist and absurdist philosophy. He acknowledges the human tendency to cling to life and the fear of its cessation, which makes people susceptible to the allure of concepts like an eternal heaven. Such ideas provide comfort and assuage the fear of mortality, yet Camus considers them illusory, a form of escapism from the uncomfortable reality of our finite existence. Instead, Camus urges us to confront the reality of death and find meaning and joy in the life we have. This perspective encourages an embrace of life’s impermanence and the pursuit of authentic, earthly fulfillment over unverifiable promises of eternal bliss.
17. Even atheists are easily persuaded to treat others well because they realize they will feel guilty if they hurt them.
Albert Camus’s statement, “Even atheists are easily persuaded to treat others well because they realize they will feel guilty if they hurt them,” underscores the universal nature of moral consciousness, independent of religious belief. He posits that atheists, like theists, are moved to act ethically, not out of fear of divine punishment, but because of a natural understanding that causing harm to others results in feelings of guilt and discomfort. This is based on the recognition of shared humanity and an inherent sense of empathy. This perspective reinforces the notion that morality is not exclusive to religious belief systems, but rather is a fundamental aspect of human nature, highlighting the capacity for empathy, compassion, and moral judgment irrespective of religious affiliation.
18. An intellectual is one who is capable of watching himself through the eyes of another, hypothetical self-consciousness.
Albert Camus’s assertion, “An intellectual is one who is capable of watching himself through the eyes of another, hypothetical self-consciousness,” speaks to the capacity for introspection and self-critique that defines intellectual engagement. He suggests that being an intellectual involves not just gathering knowledge, but being able to step outside of oneself, to view one’s actions, beliefs, and attitudes from an external perspective. This ability to detach, to imagine oneself from the viewpoint of another, promotes a deeper self-understanding, allowing for self-critique and growth. It’s a form of hypothetical self-consciousness that encourages questioning one’s assumptions, recognizing one’s biases, and continually seeking to refine one’s understanding. This perspective posits intellectualism not just as a pursuit of knowledge, but as an ongoing process of self-examination and growth.
19. Our human nature is attracted to certain forms of order, symmetry, shapes, scale, and appropriateness to the situation.
Albert Camus’s observation, “Our human nature is attracted to certain forms of order, symmetry, shapes, scale, and appropriateness to the situation,” recognizes our inherent inclination towards patterns, balance, and harmony in both the physical world and abstract concepts. This propensity shapes our aesthetics, our understanding of the world, and even our sense of justice and fairness. Camus suggests that this innate attraction to order and symmetry informs our interactions with our environment, guiding our decisions, our behaviors, and our creations. It is a commentary on how our pursuit of balance and order influences our perceptions of beauty, harmony, and justice, and, in turn, shapes our actions, societies, and cultures. In essence, Camus identifies a fundamental aspect of human nature and its implications for how we engage with the world.
20. It takes time, experience, and thought to create a life appropriate to one’s surroundings.
Albert Camus’s statement, “It takes time, experience, and thought to create a life appropriate to one’s surroundings,” highlights the process of personal growth and adaptation. It speaks to the understanding that creating a fulfilling life isn’t an immediate or thoughtless process; it involves deliberate introspection, life experiences, and the passage of time. Moreover, it underscores the need to adapt and tailor our lives to the context of our environments – the sociocultural, geographical, and personal circumstances that surround us. This includes not only harmonizing with our external surroundings but also reconciling them with our inner values, needs, and aspirations. Camus’s statement embodies a wisdom that life is a continual journey of adaptation and self-realization, a process of carving out a niche that aligns with our authentic selves and the realities of our lived experiences.
21. A symbol has many potential meanings, and a field of patterned symbols becomes a symphony of deep meaning.
Albert Camus’s observation, “A symbol has many potential meanings, and a field of patterned symbols becomes a symphony of deep meaning,” explores the complex and layered nature of symbolism. Individual symbols, he suggests, carry multiple potential interpretations depending on the viewer’s perspective, context, and personal experience. When these symbols are arranged together in a pattern or system, their collective meanings can interact and resonate with each other, creating a ‘symphony’ of rich, nuanced significance that transcends the sum of its parts. This concept is not only central to literary and artistic interpretation but also applies to broader systems of meaning, such as cultural practices, rituals, and ideologies. In essence, Camus is encouraging us to appreciate the complexity of symbolism and to delve beyond surface meanings to uncover the deeper narratives embedded within our cultural and personal symbol systems.
22. Complicity with another person’s immoral actions enables them to perform more possibly unknowably despicable actions.
Albert Camus’s assertion, “Complicity with another person’s immoral actions enables them to perform more possibly unknowably despicable actions,” underlines the importance of personal responsibility and the dangers of passive complicity in unethical behaviors. He suggests that when we fail to challenge or dissociate from someone’s immoral actions, we indirectly enable and empower them to continue and potentially escalate their harmful behaviors. This may be due to the perceived validation or lack of consequences for their actions. The wisdom in this statement lies in the recognition of the role each individual plays in influencing the moral fabric of their communities. It serves as a call to stand against unethical behaviors and to recognize the potential long-term implications of remaining passive in the face of wrongdoing.
23. Fate is playing out of the consequences of ongoing events.
Albert Camus’s statement, “Fate is playing out of the consequences of ongoing events,” reflects his existentialist view on the concept of fate. He suggests that fate is not predestined or controlled by divine forces, but rather it’s a series of outcomes resulting from unfolding events and actions. In other words, our destiny is shaped by the progression and interaction of events over time, implying a dynamic and continually evolving process. This perspective highlights the idea of personal responsibility and the potential power of individual and collective actions in shaping future outcomes. Camus’s viewpoint encourages us to see ourselves not as passive receivers of a predetermined fate, but as active participants in the ongoing creation of our life trajectories.
24. A rebel is one who says no when he is told to say yes.
Albert Camus’s statement, “A rebel is one who says no when he is told to say yes,” speaks to the heart of his philosophy on rebellion. A rebel, in Camus’s view, is an individual who refuses to conform to expectations or mandates that they perceive as unjust or inauthentic. This defiance is not necessarily rooted in a desire for anarchy or disorder, but rather in a deep-seated sense of personal integrity and the pursuit of justice. By saying ‘no’ in the face of pressure to say ‘yes’, the rebel asserts their individuality and their commitment to their values. This resistance can be a powerful force for change, challenging accepted norms and catalyzing societal progress. It encapsulates Camus’s belief in the transformative potential of personal agency and the courage of dissent.
25. I am a human; I understand with a human mind.
Albert Camus’s assertion, “I am a human; I understand with a human mind,” underscores the subjectivity and limitations inherent in human understanding. As humans, our comprehension of the world is shaped by our unique cognitive capabilities, experiences, and perspectives. We interpret and make sense of reality through a distinctly human lens, influenced by our emotions, cultural backgrounds, personal histories, and cognitive biases. At the same time, this statement acknowledges the limitations of our understanding; there are aspects of existence that might be beyond the grasp of the human mind. Camus’s observation is a humbling reminder of the subjective nature of our perception and understanding, prompting us to approach our interpretations of the world with humility and open-mindedness.
26. The hope-filled promise of an accepted god feeds the human need to keep living and accept dying.
Albert Camus’s assertion, “The hope-filled promise of an accepted god feeds the human need to keep living and accept dying,” delves into the role of faith and religious beliefs in addressing existential human concerns. Camus suggests that belief in a divine entity often provides individuals with a sense of hope and purpose, encouraging them to persevere through life’s challenges. Simultaneously, it offers a comforting perspective on mortality, easing the existential angst associated with the inevitability of death. While Camus himself was an absurdist who saw no inherent meaning in life, he acknowledged the comforting allure of religious faith for many. The wisdom in this statement lies in the recognition of the profound psychological role of religious beliefs in human lives, offering solace, purpose, and a means to grapple with life’s most profound mysteries.
27. I rebel — in support of our continued existence.
Albert Camus’s statement, “I rebel—in support of our continued existence,” articulates his belief in rebellion as a life-affirming act. For Camus, rebellion is not about promoting chaos or destruction, but about standing against injustices and oppressive conditions that threaten our humanity or survival. Rebellion, in this context, is a declaration of one’s will to live and an affirmation of our shared human dignity. It is about challenging norms, systems, or beliefs that devalue or endanger human existence. Camus saw rebellion as an essential response to absurdity—an act of resistance against the meaningless or the irrational. The wisdom in this statement lies in the portrayal of rebellion as a necessary, even noble, act for preserving and affirming life.
28. We all act as we see proper; therefore, there are no guilty people, only responsible ones.
Albert Camus’s statement, “We all act as we see proper; therefore, there are no guilty people, only responsible ones,” addresses the notion of moral responsibility and the subjective nature of guilt. Camus posits that individuals act according to their personal understanding of what is appropriate, based on their beliefs, experiences, and moral compass. Hence, the concept of ‘guilt’ becomes less about objective right or wrong and more about personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. This perspective reframes the traditional dichotomy of guilt and innocence, asserting that everyone is ‘responsible’ for their actions and their impacts on others. The wisdom in this statement lies in its call for personal accountability and introspection, encouraging us to consider the implications of our actions and take responsibility for their outcomes.
29. Artists create new realities, and philosophers create supplementary arguments.
Albert Camus’s statement, “Artists create new realities, and philosophers create supplementary arguments,” explores the different yet complementary roles of artists and philosophers in shaping our understanding of the world. Artists, through their work, have the power to envision and present new realities, challenging existing perceptions and offering fresh perspectives. They can stimulate emotional responses, provoke thought, and convey complex ideas in accessible and engaging ways. Philosophers, on the other hand, dissect these realities, providing critical analysis, developing arguments, and exploring the underlying principles and assumptions. Their work often complements the artist’s, providing intellectual rigor and depth to the intuitive and imaginative insights offered by art. Camus’s statement is a reflection on the symbiotic relationship between art and philosophy, and the essential roles both play in expanding our understanding and experience of life.
30. I don’t like existential philosophy because it takes humanity down a treacherous path.
Albert Camus’s statement, “I don’t like existential philosophy because it takes humanity down a treacherous path,” reflects his disagreement with certain aspects of existentialism, despite often being classified as an existentialist himself. Existentialism, a philosophical movement that emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and subjective experience, can lead to a sense of despair or nihilism when confronting the perceived absurdity or meaninglessness of life. Camus, an absurdist, believed that despite the inherent meaninglessness of life, individuals should still strive for happiness, personal freedom, and rebel against injustice. His argument implies that while existentialism can lead to personal freedom, it can also be a treacherous path if it leads to despair or inaction in the face of life’s absurdities. The wisdom of this statement lies in the call to embrace life’s challenges without succumbing to despair, promoting a balanced approach to personal freedom and responsibility.
31. I won’t lead you, or follow you; just be my companion.
Albert Camus’s idea, “I won’t lead you, and I won’t follow you; just be my companion,” represents his philosophy of egalitarian relationships and mutual respect. This statement emphasizes a companionship based on equality rather than the hierarchical dynamics of leader and follower. Camus suggests that in our interactions and relationships, we should seek mutual understanding and shared experiences, rather than domination or blind conformity. The wisdom in this idea is its emphasis on individuality, autonomy, and mutual respect in relationships. It promotes a sense of togetherness, where each person is valued not for their role as a leader or follower, but as a companion on the journey of life. This idea aligns with Camus’s existential philosophy, which values individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Find and create a potential graphic for Albert Camus.
7. Every religious or social ideology has a ridiculous aspect that defines acceptance into the group.
19. Our human nature is attracted to certain forms of order, symmetry, shapes, scale, and appropriateness to the situation.
24. A rebel says no when he is told to say yes.
29. Artists create new realities, and philosophers create supplementary arguments.
Image generated by catbirid_ai – Artists create new realities, and philosophers create supplementary arguments.
Artists create realities with qualities like symmetry, and philosophers make justifications for their actions. Humans look at them through various scopes of judgment.
The Eiffel Tower is a famous example of natural and artistic symmetries. Photo: Alexander Spatari/Getty Images
would be an update of these ideas but it isn’t. Wells takes a more politically current tack into the big problems facing humanity today — obesity, information overload, human crowding. Those are the unforeseen costs of civilization and now he claims we are questing for a retreat from science and attempting to learn how to return to a life style more similar to what our ancestral DNA adapted us to.
Probaway - Life Hacks 