Elysium: The First Cracks in Neutrality
An inner dialogue on the absurdity of neutrality.
I’m stuck in the center.
The center of what.
The center of appeasing all, while also appeasing none.
Is there any other way to appease none?
I don’t think so.
Well… Doesn’t that make the decision obvious? You should appease some.
Appease who? What criteria could I possibly use to make a decision like that?
Appease yourself.
That’s a slippery slope.
Appease your country.
What if it dies?
Then keep it alive.
What if it doesn’t deserve to live?
Then let it burn.
Then we are back to square one.
No we are not you fucking imbecile. We are only just beginning.
How so?
Does your country deserve to die or stay alive?
I don’t know.
Now we are getting somewhere. By what criteria can you make such a decision?
By the fruits of its labor?
And have its labors been good?
A little of this, a little of that.
You’re being lazy. If the answer is not in the micro, turn to the macro. It is clear that there has been bad: slavery, racism, societal oppression… But, we also know there has been some good.
So, we are left deciding between whether a moral standard or an economic standard should be the basis for deciding whether or not a country lives?
Slow down. We don’t know whether or not these economic benefits have improved or at least buffered the moral absurdities. Could any other system do any better.
Yes.
Which system?
I am not sure.
Then you have no room to say whether or not another system would work.
Fine, lets choose something radical: Communism.
Ahhh… See… Now you are thinking. Now you are forming an opinion.
But communism has been historically unsuccessful, and those that pretend that it was just those in charge are delusional, and those that decide that it wasn’t as bad as they say are ignorant.
Now that’s an opinion. The process of elimination.
Communism has not been historically successful, but I concede that there is a reality in which it could work. The same can be said for socialism.
And the same could be said for capitalism.
Wait… what was the original question?
There was no question. You feel stuck in the center.
Right… So I haven’t solved that problem.
Sure. But you are thinking. Thinking men should have opinions on these things.
Why?
Because any amount of thinking would surely lead you to the conclusion that those that don’t think only do. Those that only do, do so blindly. Thinking men have an obligation to ensure that the doers are focused in the right direction.
But what if there isn’t a right direction?
Can we actually afford to believe that?
No.
So, what are we left with?
To overthrow what exists, slowly change what exists, or be happy with what exists.
Are you happy with what exists?
No.
Is slow change viable?
Depends on how urgent the problems are.
Is there any way to know how urgent these problems are?
Not without hindsight.
Then what are we left with?
To overthrow what exists?
Ahhh… See… Now that is an opinion!
But how do we overthrow it? What would we be replacing it with? It’s plain stupid to try and overthrow a current system without an alternative. Ideally, that alternative has been tested and proven.
As I said, we are just beginning.
The beginning of what?
Finding Elysium.
Elysium you say…
I do indeed.
Where the brave go to live when they die?
Correct. The brave.
But what of those that are good and right?
What’s the difference between being brave and good?
We are told the good enter heaven.
Do they?
Perhaps, but why would being good or right ever be relegated to less than bravery?
Why do you think?
Well the brave act.
But they also think.
But, they don’t necessarily always think the right things.
And why does thinking the right things have no bearing on entrance into Elysium?
Because…
Because all of us are just guessing at what is good and what is right. But they had the bravery to act.
Even when they were wrong.
But they thought they were right, or were at least willing to bet on the fact that they were right.
And that is more admirable than being right?
It is not that it is more admirable. It is that it is more practical.
Does that mean the pursuit of being right or being good is impractical?
No. It means that expecting for you to reach the correct conclusion is impractical.
And why is that?
If there is an objective right and an objective good, it is clear that no one has found the path to find it.
Though some pretend they have.
And they will be counted among the ranks of Elysium, because they were brave enough to stand for something.
So, what do I stand for?
Stand for something.
But… Stand for what?
Stand for something.
And if I am wrong?
Then you admit it and pivot?
So where do I begin?
What do you care about?
I care about my family.
Then do what is right, and do what is good; but, do it for them.
And what if my perception of the right and the good destroys them?
Well, what is your alternative.
To wait and find what is right and good.
Don’t make it sound better. Call it what it is. The only alternative is inaction.
I am paralyzed by the benefit of the doubt I give to others and their perspective. Everyone who says they are right and good I see why that might be true. This is no different when trying to do what is right for my family.
First, admit that indecision is a morally inferior to action, even when that action is wrong. Second, find what you should have opinions on. Third, find those opinions.
Where does patience come into play? Is patience not a virtue.
Do not equivocate. Patience is not inaction.
Then, what is the difference?
Patience is a conscious decision. Inaction is paralysis in the face of obligation.
And… You are saying my obligation is my family?
You are saying that. So there is no room for inaction.
Then, I guess it is time to start acting.
No. It is time to start having a stance as it relates to your family, and to act on it.
Even if that means willful ignorance?
If Elysium requires it.