Nothing is true. Everything is suspect. Even our own feelings.

“Believe in yourself.” What does this really mean? People often use it in reference to some personal or professional objective, which we believe we could accomplish. But could this also be another way of saying ‘trust your feelings’? Perhaps it would be beneficial to think of it this way. This statement, of course, implies that our feelings are somehow suspect, possibly misleading, or otherwise unworthy of trust. I think that if anyone ever explicitly told you this proposition was true you would be incredulous. If, however, this proposition is implicitly suggested we may carelessly heed it. Pause and reflect a moment and ask yourself “have I ever been made to feel like my feelings are invalid?” A romantic partner might have done this. Maybe a parent or an authority figure. I’m suggesting it might go deeper than this. For example, consider the notion presently prevailing in the academy the doctrine of subjectivism. Subjectivism is the idea that there is no absolute, “big tee”, Truth. Everybody’s internal apprehension of truth is equally valid.  At first consideration we might receive this as implying “All of our truths are valid”, yet clearly this is impossible, for there countless cases where two propositions are logically precluded from bother being true at the same time. Elvis cannot be both alive and dead. Either one of these is possible and may be true at different times, but not at once. The only remaining way to reconcile the notion that two individuals beliefs, even if mutually exclusive, with the restriction that they are equally valid is to say that they are both equal in their invalidity;. Elvis is neither dead nor alive. In other words, the only we our truths are equally valid is if they’re equally untrue.  These days we typically apply this principle to our respective Gods, now demoted to mere gods at best. At worst, they’re all banished to the realm of mythology. We often apply them to our political beliefs, ideologies and moral values. Indeed, moral subjectivism is probably inevitable after our Gods are gone. So what about our beliefs concerning our feelings? If consider the proposition I am sad, how can be sure this is the case?  Well someone else may very well believe I am happy. If I feel angry, I should act out on that feeling if justice is to be had. Acting out might include behaviors like yelling or acting aggressively toward someone. But perhaps my anger is invalid? If that’s so then acting out on it would be unjust. In the interest of justice, we then swallow our anger, our sadness, and even our happiness.

On providence and karma

The promise of divine providence is, for the faithful, a guarantee that there is purpose in lives and for the events that befall us. However inscrutable their purpose, we are assured they are according to a plan for us and the universe. We each individually have purpose, insofar as our capacity for action—to act upon the world and others—gives us a vital role to play in the fulfillment of providence. Many find this reassuring, and I argue a great deal easier to accept than the cold, nauseating implications of the alternative. The alternative to providence is a chaotic universe in which God does not exist, or at least does not intervene. In such a world, we may find no solace that some greater purpose justifies tragedy, nor may we relish with pride our small victories as affirmations of our virtue.

Rather, the universe is indifferent to our mortal, vain preoccupations. Without pomp or prelation, the events of our lives are merely haphazard draws from a cosmic hat of possible events, some good and some bad. To quell our hankering spirits, we are only permitted to ask whether there is inherent, systematic bias of the world—i.e., whether the distribution of possible events is, on average even, meaning that good or bad things are equally likely to befall. Perhaps, in this question we might take more than a consolation, but find the opportunity to create purpose for ourselves. Does is not stand to reason that if our societies are just and our relationships harmonious that the distribution of events will be skewed in the direction of Goodness? Alternatively, would not injustice and discord foster resentment and ultimately push the distribution toward Badness?

Therefore, to those among us having deep internal struggles to find the solace of purpose in a world without providence, take heed that our actions, deliberate and otherwise, are necessarily reflected to us. For to the degree our actions promote a general beneficence, we push the distribution of events positively, and increase the likelihood of good things in return. At the same time, when our actions decrease the general welfare we contribute to a preponderance of bad events and so render ourselves more likely to experience them. We may call this karma.