Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 2)

As we said in the first part of this essay people are funny creatures. They can be categorized into generalized groups with the same attributes and then re-categorized into sub groups until we get a category of one individual person whose attributes have no equal. And while we declared that there is no absolute extreme nor an absolute center we can imagine that there is one and determine what that person's attributes would be.


If we were to take a person on the absolute left of our illustration we could then see what drives him. Being outer motivated he would believe that he has absolutely no control over his own life. Since he had no control then he would accept absolutely no responsibility for his actions. He would know what he has done because he has the ability to think of what he is doing but he would believe he could not have prevented what he did. He would go through life believing he had only one option of behavior and his proof is the fact of his own behavior. This is the essence of the meaning of determinism.

The idea of good or bad behavior would be irrelevant to this man because to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge the possibility that he had a choice of behavior. He would be perceived as being a man without any emotions or feelings for others or anything not even for himself. And to be consistent he would believe this is true for everyone as well as everything. The idea of free will would be non-existent in the mind of this person. He would be a person without regret for anything he did. Seeking forgiveness would not occur to a person such as this for that in itself would require that he had a choice as would accepting praise.

This would be a person who would attribute his every behavior to the laws of physics in some manner or another. Life would have no meaning to this person other than the fact that it is a part of the nature of this existence. Since life would have no meaning the concept of liberty or the pursuit of happiness would be meaningless concepts to this person also.

The laws of the state would be meaningless to this person. By the nature of his existence, as believed, he will either abide by them or he won't because he has no choice. Any benefits or consequence he may get out of it is only as it should be. His fate is determined already. He is only experiencing what he was fated for him by existing. This person would only see the laws of the state as being necessary until science has discovered the laws of the behavior of man. Once discovered the state would cease to exist for it would not serve any purpose anymore.

Inequality of persons would also be meaningless because he would believe that all are equally bound by this same idea and that no one had a choice of who they may be in this existence. Since the idea of consent would also need to recognize the concept of choice then it also would have no meaning. The idea of force would be the only concept he would recognize as existing thus justifying its use. Its justification would come from defining it along the lines of being a scientific term of being nothing else other than a physical influence on behavior. And with this definition declares the righteousness of the principle of the ends justifying the means.

Even the idea of the existence of a God would be meaningless to this person. For to recognize His existence would also mean he'd have to recognize the existence of free will at that level also and declare that a life form with free will was the ultimate cause of all things even his behavior. And once this possibility is accepted then it could be declared that this person no longer holds to an absolute position to the left. He would hold to a position of a lesser degree of absoluteness.

This might be declared as one version of the meaning of perfection. It would be an existence where anything and everything would just be accepted as a part of the natural way of life. If it be the natural way of life then it is a life determined thus incapable of change. Man would only be declared as a witness to what life is as it should be. And it is only fate that determined that he be a witness to life and be emotionless about what he witnessed, a life without purpose or potential, a life without any meaning or opportunity. He would be witness to a life without value either to himself or to others. To demand that he be anything other than this would be demanding that he be a hypocrite to his beliefs.

Now this evaluation can be applied to all of the left each to a lesser degree of absoluteness than another or a greater degree of absoluteness than another as one finds himself on the spectrum of the curve. For as one sees himself so does he expect others to be also and any variance would be a contradiction of belief. And by doing so abides by the principle of treating others as he himself would like to be treated.

If there be a change of belief it would be a change that places them further to the left than where they be now. The only influence for this new change would be the new discoveries of science in regards to the causes of human behavior.

In closing, the left consists of those whose beliefs are consistent to the concept of determinism to a greater degree of porportionality. And government is but a tool to be used as the means to bring a society closer to the perfect existence as determined never to need change. And they see this as being inevitable as science learns more thus will be the catalyst of this inevitability.