Eternity captured in a fist would render the present into shards. Splinters of time would sliver in accordance with fixed laws and our vision would transcend into a quivering mass of realisation. The instability of time runs against our desire for stability. Our poor minds are too small to encapsulate eternity, however; even 100,000 years is difficult to contemplate. 13.7 billions years? Don’t even try.
So much for the beginning, not even our own individual one! What about the end? And by this I mean our “The End”. Death, the current of thanatos, which resides like the shadow of carrion over our heads.
I consider the two most horrible combinations of aspects one could attribute to a being are:
(1) Consciousness
(2) Mortality
And it is these two with which we are “blessed”. You are aware of yourself and your existence… and you are aware of your oncoming demise. Truly, what a joke life turns out to be. A cruel one, but one we should laugh at. Regardless, one question which arises and of which we must contemplate is voluntary death.
In the sense of giving rise to autoeuthanasia, what is it we are willing to die for? My point here is to raise the contention that the only thing I am willing to die for are my loved ones. There is not a single idea, or belief, or abstract philosophical concept for which I am willing to die or kill. The extenuation and recession of life is only in my fist and aimed toward those I love (whether in defence of their lives, or the replacement of my own).
No idea, I repeat, no idea is worth dying for. I have made the case before that even ideas we greatly respect and admire, from the equality of the sexes, and so on, are not worth dying for. They are not sacred or beyond criticism. Ideas are open to a kind of agora mindset – or the market place of ideas the Greeks so loved.
So, consider the question: What are you willing to die for? It is more important, in my opinion, than redundant and ignoble questions about the existence of gods and so on. I do not think that the question of a god’s existence is important to one’s life. I know many nonbelievers who do. What I think they mean is this: The question of whether to believe the current trend of thought, which many believe, and which many find comforting, is central to one’s life. This says nothing about gods – which I think is a rather silly topic and unimportant.
What matters are those question we can answer: How can I be good? What is “love”? Who should I “love”? How do I help my fellow man? These have answers though not end-answers. That is, the answers are the endeavours to achieve those goals rather than actually achieving them. For example, we can continue to do volunteer work in the liberation of women (which is central to solving poverty), but it doesn’t mean we have any hope of eradicating poverty in our life time. The journey is the destination. Most of our answers will simply be winding paths and not glass palaces, in which we can put our feet up and be content.
Kenneth Minogue described ideals like stars, by which we guide ourselves. We never hope to actually reach the stars, but we certainly use them as guidelines, as reflections on the current path. And ideals and ideas are similarly entwined. None are worth dying for because they are echoes of where our hearts should be: Namely, those we love.
So, I reiterate: What are you willing to die for?
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Tauriq Moosa
- Within Liberty
- Our Generation Must Make Greater Strides
- What I Believe for the 21st Century – Tauriq Moosa
- Who Cares About the Stripper? – In honour of America’s 4th of July
- The Incoherent Spheres, or the Need to Be Understood
- Rise, Reason, Rise
- In Defence of Johann Hari
- No More Labels
- Anti-theist at a Christian Wedding
- What Are You Willing to Die For?
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Of course, I would die for my loved ones, but…
“No idea, I repeat, no idea is worth dying for.”
^ I disagree with this. Granted, in the (unlikely event) that I found myself in an armed struggle against theocracy or some other form of totalitarianism, my willingness to die for the idea that (for example) God/religion does not belong in government (and frankly, in that unlikely event, to kill for that idea, as once one is willing to die for an idea one is also willing to kill for that idea).
It’s personal for me, but having something to die for is what gives my life meaning. Not that everyone needs to find meaning in that way. Agree with you that no idea is sacred or beyond criticism, but to extend that beyond the world of ideas to the world of reality? I think that’s a non sequitor. If my life were threatened because of a belief I would fight for that belief. I couldn’t live with myself any other way.
Now, I don’t want anyone to take what I’ve said out of context, but there’s a great quote from John Stewart Mill that I personally believe describes my attitude toward violent conflict:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Perhaps I’m not grasping your meaning completely, but I also would have to disagree — disagree in the sense that I would be willing to put myself in harm’s way for some ideas. If what you mean by “No idea … is worth dying for” is “no idea is worth becoming a suicide bomber for,” then I’d agree. But some ideas are worth fighting for, and fighting sometimes means putting yourself in harm’s way, however careful you try to be. Martin Luther King, Jr. died for an idea; Harvey Milk died for an idea. Neither wanted to die, but both were willing to put themselves in a position where death was a real possibility, for the sake of their ideas. Both knew this and didn’t let it stop them. I don’t think any less of them for it, nor of thousands of others who have stood up for what they believe is right and paid with their lives.
This is a reply to both you and Michael
You are both confusing fighting for an idea and dying for an idea. That is not at all what I said. In fact, I did not touch on the subject on what we *should* do about ideas we feel are good, beautiful, etc. I did however say they are not worth dying for and that is as Michael puts it “in terms of a suicide bomber”.
I would never be allowed into Iran at the moment and my current status as apostate is not something I can ever feel safe about. It does not dissuade me from continued activism regarding Enlightenment values. To think I consider otherwise is to perhaps forget everything I stand for. But once again this is completely off topic and has nothing to do with “dying” for the ideas I fight for.
I do see your point however as I predict your next question: With the threat of death, would I continue my writings, activism, etc. Yes. Is that dying for an idea? No, because I know – as much as know anything – that it will seep into reality. It will help people. It will make the world a better place for myself and my loved ones. In that case, it is not an idea but still remains an egotistical and self-referential point.
However – to put simply – the main claim I make is that no idea is worth flying into buildings for. That’s pretty much it.
Hello Michael. Please see above for a reply to both you and Barry. Thanks
Good, thought provoking post Tauriq.
“I do see your point however as I predict your next question: With the threat of death, would I continue my writings, activism, etc. Yes.”
“However – to put simply – the main claim I make is that no idea is worth flying into buildings for. That’s pretty much it.”
Tauriq, today you have made it into the very exclusive list of my favorite human beings alive.
I am honoured, sir. And you have officially made my day – in the good way.
Why, thank you! Have you ever read Albert Camus’s “The Rebel?”
No… not yet. Why?
Before I read Camus, I had never heard of non-religious suicide bombing. Granted, it was Tzarist Russia (my dad’s side of our family history starts there. My ancestors were communist Jews who later were persecuted by the same communists they once considered ideological allies), but I think “The Rebel” contains relevant lessons for today.
Another great piece of media I would recommend is the film “The Battle of Algiers” (La battaglia di Algeri).
Needless to say, though I am definitely not a communist or even a socialist, I have… conflicted feelings… about the Russian Revolution.
“However – to put simply – the main claim I make is that no idea is worth flying into buildings for.”
Dying for something is different from commiting suicide for something, and its also different from allowing someone to kill you, for the sake of an idea.
All actions can have influences that ’seep into reality’ and help people. I think you’re creating a false distinction here. Martyrs can be very effective. They can inspire great numbers of people to action and that can make real change happen.
Ideas are abstractions, but they are inherently linked to the people and circumstance from which they arise.
So, Joe, what ideas are you willing to die, kill and commit suicide for?
“All actions can have influences that ’seep into reality’ and help people. I think you’re creating a false distinction here. Martyrs can be very effective. They can inspire great numbers of people to action and that can make real change happen.”
- Um, this was my point. They shouldn’t. No one should. I know people *do* but I’m saying we *should* not, as it makes no sense to “commit suicide” over an idea.
“Ideas are abstractions, but they are inherently linked to the people and circumstance from which they arise.”
- Yes, thank you for a definition. But that still does *not* repudiate the fact that we should not kill each other over ideas.
I’d kill and die for freedom, since that benefits the people I care about. I’d kill for my country, if my country was invaded. A country is really just an idea, since the land has no allegiance. I’d probably commit suicide to protect the greater good, if I was infected with a deadly airborne pathogen.
We all die. Why not make your death mean something? Dieing for an idea can mean quite alot to those left behind. Commiting suicide for an idea, however one chooses to… how is that worse than randomly getting run over by a truck? Or dieing slowly in a hospital being fed by tubes? Dieing for an idea may accomplish something. So your ’should not’ makes no sense, unless you know the specifics.
I’m not very impressed by ’shoulds’. Why shouldn’t we kill for an idea? If killing one person benefits thousands or millions… as in killing a dictator in the cause of ‘freedom’… which is an idea and one quite a few people are willing to kill and die for.
To quote the brilliant Chris Basinet: “if you kill someone who thinks differently about freedom than you, then there’s really no freedom at all.”
Killing in the name of freedom is like having sex in the name of celibacy. I don’t understand killing at all. I am a bit disgusted by killing and anyone who resorts to killing for any reason. I thought our whole enterprise was to promote peace, rationality and ataraxia with regards to our endevours. I think perhaps this is where we have a major difference: I would not kill for any of the ideas i believe in.
and with regards to “shoulds” not impressing you, if thats the case then don’t read most works in nonficiton. Most are written for the express purpose of changing the world, people or oneself. That’s a “should” and the most important “should” we have.
If you’ve had everything given to you, then you really don’t know its value. The reason we have clothes on our backs, food in the fridge and computers to play on is because some time in the past our ancestors fought and died for our freedom. And if that means there is no freedom, then there is none. But I’m still willing to fight so that those I care about can have the things I have. Civilization is a thin veneer, anyone who thinks you don’t have to pay a high price for ‘peace’ doesn’t know what peace is.
And I’ll read what I what like, thanks. Books don’t change things, people do.
I fell off my chair with laughter when I read mr Moosa’s view on Angus Buchan.
Thank God we do not have to follow pathetic,arrogant , totally off the track and filled with hate people like yourself. Mr Moosa is just like the pathetic people that created ‘apartheid’. Mr Moosa can’t call himself on any level a fighter for unity of
our beloved country.
It is not for the concern of our country that Moosa has launched a attack on Angus
Buchan , it is for his hate of Christianity.
Mr Moosa,if you have a better proposal and you feel so confident about it,why don’t
you do it? Let us see if you could fill the biggest tent in the world with believers in
the ‘Moosa’ way?
yours sincerely, Joe van der Walt
I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I read mr Moosa’s view on Angus Buchan. Thank
God we do not have to follow pathetic,arrogant, totally off the track and filled with jealousy and
hatred people like mr Moosa. He is just like the pathetic people that created ‘apartheid’ in our country.
Mr Moosa can not call himself a fighter for peace and unity in our beloved country .
It is not for the concern of our country that Moosa has launched a attack on Angus Buchan, it is for
his hate on Christianity. Mr Moosa has many insecurities and is using his ‘concern’ for SA to HIDE
behind his ‘real agenda’! His real agenda of course is to create devision among the 80% of people wanting peace.
Mr Moosa, if you have ‘the answer’ and you feel so confident about it,why don’t you do the logical thing and ‘do it’.
Let us see if you could fill the biggest tent in the worid with believers in the ‘Moosa way’! Oh, by the
way, I’ll give you a six 6 man tent for a start, but you might feel lonely in it !
Goodluck with your war.
Yours sincerely,
Joe van der Walt
I still dont know what your point is – but let me try: I wouldn’t kill anyone in the name of freedom. I *would* however defend and die defending those I love – if that is what you mean, they we agree. But not *simply* in freedom’s name. However, if you define freedom in terms of those you love, then once again I would agree with you. But only in the name of the abstract idea of freedom would I fight. It is only for those I love. Am I closer to understanding?
By the way Joe, don’t you like Joe van der Walt’s comment below?
Dear Joe Van der Walt, did God tell you to write that? Oh and by the way – “like mr Moosa. He is just like the pathetic people that created ‘apartheid’ in our country.” – non-sequitur perhaps? and a rather hysterical reaction to a fair and thought provoking critique of Buchans message. My advice to you? Go boil your head.
oh and before I go off to slay dragons I thought you should be aware – everyone reading your post has laughed at your absurd notions.
So in other words, you would fight for those you love, but screw everyone else. Its not your job to fight for freedom as an idea. People ’should’ just take care of their own??
I’m not really sure what Vanderwalt is talking about. Circus tent?
I did not say “screw everyone else” – but I certainly would not die for a complete stranger. In fact, what I’m trying to do – and you yourself I believe – is create a world better for complete strangers. That’s certainly not saying “screw people I do not know”. I would defend them to the best of my ability (as I do mostly with regard to Muslim women).
And the major reason for my not dying or committing suicide is simply this: I might be wrong. You might be wrong, too, Joe. For even that small percentage of doubt, we can’t afford to be absolutist and killers.
I don’t take killing lightly, for myself or someone else, but we can’t let ourselves be paralyzed into inaction, just because we might be wrong, our opponents won’t be so indecisive, and that could get us just as dead or worse.
An excellent point. I do not know what the answer is to the dilemma as you have outlined:
1. We are careful about killing and do not condone killing for the defence and spread of ideas.
2. Our antagonists are not interested in hearing our ideas, and ARE willing to die and kill for theirs.
C: We end up being easy-targets; they end up killing everyone because no one will retaliate. The cycle continues.
This is a tough one, but I hope that it will be by talking about it – as we are doing now – that we can find an answer. I am uncertain and unknowledgable about this area, therefore, my comments in this respect are perhaps not condusive to a stable conclusion. I am researching it at the moment, however. But at this time, I know very little.
Perhaps we can formulate an answer if I ask you to perhaps reference me to those who think an armed struggle (I do not want to say violence or killing, as that would load the dice) is necessary. I am sure I would agree to a certain extent. After all, it was not through inaction that apartheid activists managed to overthrow the horrifying cage of the mind that was the NP in South Africa. As I said, I am not in a position to comment as I know little. I would appreciate what insight you have as I am hoping to learn more.
Life involves violence of one sort or another. Sometimes its physical, sometimes we formalize it and compete for things. The more value we put on the prize, the more we are willing to risk.
There is no simple answer, or there is, but its also too simple: Courage
Its what you need to make the hard decisions, and its what you need to deal with the consequences when you are right, and especially when you are wrong.