Why Bother?

Practical men doubt the use of Philosophy. On the surface, the hard sciences seem more useful; scientific progress moves and shapes on the grandest scale. Science gives sentients fire, medicine and The Glow.Philosophy has no macro-impact, beyond that it betters the thinker and the thinker himself may go on to do great things.

I grant this conceit, but I stipulate that is creates a narrow view of what is useful. I also stipulate this is a flawed view of philosophy common, though not exclusive to, Man.

A predator feeds. A predator is acutely aware of his body's need for food. A true predator also recognizes his need for food for the mind. Just as a predator who grows fat an lazy will become prey, a stupid predator starves to death. Sluggish is sluggish. Any who recognize this basic need will see the study of Philosophy can not be a waste of time.

A fellow soldier in Bonaparte's army argued to me that skill, martial knowledge, did enough to keep the mind limber and fit for survival. The analogy is, of course, flawed. If a mind must eat, it must have many different types of food, or suffer malnutrition. If a mind must exercise, it must must perform many types of exercise, or end up a deformed hulk. The expert marksman with no hand-to-hand expertise dies when ambushed by an opponent wielding a rock. A mind versed only in combat, is undefended on all other fronts.

The boon of philosophy is not the gleaning of some esoteric truth; truth, is ultimately irrelevant. Perception is reality. Philosophy is the whetstone we use to keep our mind (that which we use to shape our perception) sharp.

Were I subject to the prison of habit or custom, I would not have been able to survive Bonaparte's death, or my subsequent habitation under the bridge of Span. I would have reacted to stimuli. I would have murdered man after man, until overwhelmed. Philosophy trains the mind for the long view, collecting disparate threads of possibility, paying them out little by little until the right course of action is discerned from among many.

The study of Philosophy has liberated me; thrown open my mind to the storm of possibilities inherent to a vast, populated world, and given me the power to make sense of the information. It has unified my inborn desires to my will, and tempered them against the fire of what is possible and what is likely.

True truly obtain a Philosopher's view of the universe, one must accept that the universe begins outside one's self and is filtered in through our perceptions. To do this is to, while facing the true scope of the rest of existence, admit how small one is in comparison. Truly grasping this fact is the most terrifying realization of any sentient, predator and prey alike. But this fear is liberating, as if frees one from the slavery of narrow hopes and small-scale fears. Selfishness cannot exist in this view of the Real. Any fear born of insecurity or doubt becomes petty.

Once a sentient grasps the true marvel of its existence, infinitesimality, it can then take the next step and strive to move pieces set upon the truly gargantuan board--the word outside the self.

-Brigadier S. Jack, Army of Bonaparte (Ret.)

Conformity

Like all prey animals, Men desire safety and security. Men wish nothing more than to shut out a hostile world. Like so much of their wisdom, this is wrong thinking. The natural world is defined by adversity. It is that which we fight that makes us what we are.

Again, I direct you toward Evolutionary Theory. Organisms are granted three options when faced with a hostile environment: Move, Adapt or Die. 

Extinction is never a viable option. Organisms have one genetic directive above all others: thrive. Any species which advocates, through word or action, giving up as a preferable course of action is intrinsically flawed and should rightly perish. 

Movement is a temporary fix. If an environment becomes less than optimal, moving to a new one may ensure survival, but in a closed system, other species will eventually follow the first to the new location, thereby creating another less than optimal situation. 

Adaptation: This is the fruit of Evolution's labor. To adapt is to rise above equals, setting ones' self at the genetic standard, in order to create offspring that can withstand the unpleasant situation, their their offspring may, in turn, subdue and reclaim the environment for their own. Then the vicious cycle begins again. 

Many called the great Bonaparte mad. But I ask, how would you react if your obvious superiority were called into question, simply because you did not match the modal average of a given group?

Homo Sapiens are more numerous than Elevated Animals, Plants and Mutated Humans; I grant this. But the inferior must always outnumber the elite; else they would simply be peers. 

Remember the words of Socrates, quoting his accusers: "All these rumors and and this talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men."

The great philosopher never would have met his death through cowardly execution (he was poisoned), had he conformed to the standards of the era. And had he done so, how long would Man's intellect been left to simply stagnate, until another great thinker came along? Unnatural Selection indeed. 

-Brigadier S. Jack, Army of Bonaparte (Ret.)